Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bennett’s a risk, but she’s probably a better bet that anyone else. Joyce is too hard to sell. Collins is tainted. Bridges is- no other way to put it- too dim. Bennett at least has a smidgen of charm.
I think English is also a possibility, but only because the leadership a year into the thrid term is so likely to be a hospital pass. Bennett – or whomever- may prefer to watch English loose in ’17 before stepping in.
ETA: not so sure Key will leave, as long as he's popular. -
I'm inclined to a less rancorous debate. Partly because the echo-chamber is a little dangerous; maybe also because it's a little willful to insist JK is obviously nasty beyond the pale, just that noone but us can see it. And partly because I find him impressive myself- he's the most effective politician on the scene. (I wish this wasn't true, and I'm appalled at some of the methods- but still, there it is.)
Some good things Key's done: by supporting them, he more-or-less ended the nasty going-nowhere debate over marriage equality and the repeal of S59. I think the nation benefitted.
By inviting the Maori Party into his govt (and cabinet) and by eschewing the nasty dog-whistling of Brash, he's largely taken racism out of the political debate. There's a political calculation in it, for sure, but it's still, on the whole, been a good thing. His response to Whyte's latest 'legal privelege' nonsense was straightforward and more-or-less spot on.
Key is smart. His ability to communicate ideas is consumate. He uses humour better than anyone else currently in politics.
And I don't think he likes lying: he seems to squirm. He has that queasy look when he admitted calling Slater: he knew it was wrong.
Of course part of the unease in lying is thinking you might be caught. Key is a master at avoiding that. There had to be a 'this could backfire' feeling about admitting talking to Slater, too.
His manner when opposed can be nasty and sneering. From where I stand, he's very good at the indirect lie, the mis-direction, the lie by ommission.
I find the underhanded methods Key and his govt have employed towards their political enemies are nasty and dishonest. They speak of people who know they can't win the argument with reason or persuation, and are willing to fight dirty to win. I can't wait to see the back of Key, for the dirty politics, and even more because I believe National are damaging the country economically, socially, culturally, and morally.
But there's no ignoring my opinions are not shared by a majority of New Zealanders.
So y'know - Jake, take it away. -
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Well, this is all fun and games till someone loses their faith
Yeah. Logic is a fine tool, but it can't tell you what to value or how to love.
-
consistent inaccuracy and deceit
sums up Whale Oil Beef Hooked. But I guess it wasn’t the role of the plaintiff to prove that? He got what he wanted: Slater forced to reveal his source.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Moz,
The Lui letter was a simple example
The Liu letter was probably a set-up. Cunliffe wasn't bagged for signing it, so much as the appearance of lying about it. Nats set the narrative (bumbbling and tricky) and probably set up the trap.
Key's 'I don't recall" is a master-class at avoiding these situations. After slipping up with 'I'd never heard of KDC until' he wasn't going to get caught again, if possible.
So not really the same... -
Beautiful.
Along with the lack of evidence one could point to logical incoherence in most claims of deity.
But in a wonderful universe, it hardly matters :) -
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
Either deity exists or it doesn’t, there are no other rational positions to take.
Couldn't a deity, if She chose, come into and out of what we call 'existence' at a rate of variable oscillation beyond human measurement, making this point moot?
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
You're showing no signs of having worked your assignment. I'm disappointed.
it is more rational to believe that deity exists than not because evidence exists that supports such existence, but no evidence to the contrary has been shown.
One question- if this ludicrous proposition were true - wouldn't that be a beautiful truth?
Unless the deity happens to be very ugly. Is that what you're trying, obliquely, to say- look out for the evil god? -
Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election, in reply to Nik Dirga,
I’m getting a real echo of the US 2004 election here, where I was in a kind of bubble of anti-Bush supporters and truly shocked when he won re-election – how could so many people ignore what seemed so obvious?
Me too.
Plus a little insight into what seemed to me the incoherent and uncalled for rage of the passionate/loony right after Labour squeaked back in in 2005.
Meth is right for politics. But not my drug of choice, in normal circumstances :) -
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
What criticism of my position was relevant and meaningful?
You work it out. Come back when you have a list of at least 6 :)
Or just identify and discuss the fallacies in this statement:“Only if you are an atheist, which is a more irrational position given the number of witnesses who support the idea of theism, and the fundamental difficulty in proving that they are wrong.”
No more than 2000 words, with appropriate references to show you've done the required reading (so from orthodox sources in philosophy of religion, not Blackstone or any other legal source) to be handed in by 5pm Monday :)