Posts by Sam F
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Danyl has something constructive to offer on this issue:
Gordon Campbell has a technological answer to the problem of unauthorised Ministerial spending [...]
This subject came up over dinner with one MP a few months ago and he suggested a simpler solution: that all Ministerial credit cards issued have a picture of Duncan Garner’s face printed on them. We agreed that would be a far more effective deterrent than any improvement in process or oversight committee.
-
And now I know what to get Robyn for Christmas.
Less than 3 grams of salt in every bar, and containing 100% of the sugars your body needs to get through a busy 135 days!
Very thoughtful of you.
-
This was not what I objected to. I'm happy to agree with you on what you just wrote now, but your earlier comparison to der Große Lüge, with the implications that carries, was, IMO, out of proportion and unwarranted.
Ah, Martin, if there's anything the various expense-account mini-scandals have taught us, it's that we shouldn't get bogged down in the details here, and clearly it wasn't a good look, but I think it's best that we put it in the past and move on with the issues that matter.
What do I win? :)
-
Neat!
On a personal note, hopefully they'll follow the Pacific model and air it again late on Sunday nights; on Mondays in this household, Spielberg's Marines often fail to defend the remote control against marauding Desperate Housewives...
-
And then, seeing as their hands will be busy holding the "it" you just handed to them, POW, you punch them right in the face.
Ah, so coercive force is your only possible response to the Truth? You brutish lefties are all the same.
-
Right, might this be my cue to heroically bridge threads with this, just as a reminder of what hating on the media really looks like?
“First, if the peccadilloes of the sour, seedy journalists responsible for headlines of this kind were exposed, they would make for far more interesting reading than Mr. Jones's penchant for porn.
"Second, and more importantly, when did these self-same sour, seedy, self-righteous sanctimones ever give a toss about misuse of taxpayer money? These quacking travesties who call themselves journalists are foremost among the advocates of compulsory, coercive welfarism and punitive taxation—i.e., theft from the productive to subsidise the unproductive/reproductive.
They are ardent advocates of such theft for purposes they, in their infinite arrogance, deem worthy [...] veritable print and television arm of the Labour Party [...] champions of theft [...] far more obscene than any video [...] suck blood and flourish [...]
I've tried to convey my gradual oxygen-deprival swings in and out of consciousness towards the end.
In summary I don't think anyone ought to settle for trying to laugh at fake libertarians.
-
Let me add my thanks too - hugely enjoyed your writing, and hope to see more again soon (either here or elsewhere) before long.
-
"Get your fokkin' tentacle out of my face..."
-
Straight from the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter playbook where you try to have two cakes and eat them both at the same time...
I presume SKY will be offering this one on pay-per-view?
-
False comparison alert: Williams is a comedian, not a political activist
In context, that's waaay to close to the pro forma excuse TVNZ trots out every damn time Paul Henry is a noxious cock-monkey. Hey, you can't hold him to journalistic standards because he's not really one, and Breakfast is really light entertainment.
Erm. Surely if TVNZ fudges Henry's behaviour by saying he's an entertainer, not a journalist, then that's one thing - but Guy Williams actually is an entertainer by trade, and to my knowledge there are no professional expectations of him being anything else, as opposed to the somewhat reasonable (albeit forlorn) expectactions of Henry having some journalistic standards. So again, how does the comparison work?
Getting mightily confused here.