Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As a non-Aborigine... I cant say whats important to them...
But here's my take...
The very fact that an apology carries no cost, no associated actual reparations.... is the very reason that refusal to give it grates so badly...
Refusing to apologize, when it carries no cost to do so, is a blatant statement that you have nothing to apologize for...
Thats why (I think) its important to them.
And Rudd, by making an apology that was refused by not just the Rodent, but other priministers of both sides before him, is indicating that maybe more than just words, but actual deeds as well, could be next?
I agree, an apology on its own isnt worth much.... but presumably, it is how you start down the right path. And its by how far down the path they travel, that you measure whether the apology was empty or real....
-
I'm with Gareth that KiwiSaver funds are directed by the fund managers and cant be directed by government decree... both in practice and as a general philosophy...
And, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the "Cullen Fund" is currently handled fairly indirectly... but I wonder if that fund might not be more easily channeled by government to proposed infrastructure initiatives ... if the government were so inclined? (they would still have to provide a return.... dead investment with no pay-off back to the fund would obviously be out of the question).
-
The second is not a fact. It is an allegation which is yet to be proven, and may well not be proven for some, perhaps most of the defendants.
Sorry for my loose use of language.
What the police believe are facts, presumably after video surveylance?
We are talking about whether the Police's actions were reasonable... so you have to base it on what (we presume) the Police had in their brains.... not on what may or may-not be reality.
-
...does the evidence that we have read really indicate a likely terrorist attack? As opposed to the idol boasts of some very silly and nasty people?
It would be easy to paint it as empty boasting or talking BS...
But as said earlier by others.... you have to add it to what WAS already known about the people (alegedly) saying those things.
1) these people are self-described "activists"... they already have a history of taking action to publicize / support their beliefs. They are people already shown to do what they say. They are less likely thanthe "normal public" to just be mouthing off. Many many people talk about how upset they are about something and then do nothing but complain to their friends and stew helplessly. But activists have already shown they have more balls/gumption/conviction than that. Activist are usually proud of this fact. They are actually taking a stand, doing something about it. Whether it be marching with a placard, minor civil dissobediance, breaking into a chicken farm, or writing to MP's... they've done something. Which is more than most.
2) They had been playing with guns in "military style" training exercises.
Those two facts together suggest, not that its proof of a terrorist plan.... but that its more likely than if the same words were just said by some random plonkers in the pub. And, if not actually more likely in reality, at least its reasonable that the Police might think so?
Now, what level of likelyhood do you want the police to wait for before doing anything? I think everyone agrees that waiting til after a terrorist action, just to be 100% sure, is untenable, right? -
I didnt hear the comment vis Laila Harre and free advertising....
But it occurs to me, if the Herald is giving away free advertising space to what might be considered political bodies, then that IS the sort of thing the Electoral Finance Bill wants to make declareable...
But, perhaps the comment was aimed at a more subtle level? If a news source constantly consults a particular source for comment on the news of the day... is that not also publicizing the comment source.... it mentions the name and the comment... it adds weight and credibility to the commenter if they are consulted frequently. Thats a sort of advertsing... but I'm not sure it can, would, or should be covered by any EFB or similar.
And I see Russell Brown consulted/quoted nearly as much as the sensible sentencing trust or some Union source... and I quite like that :)
Getting third party comment is good, and I encourage it... but you could call it an advertising of sorts?
-
Craig R. A fair point I hadnt considered, But unless I miss-understand.... those government departments already have a budget to spend, and do so..... its just whats allowed in the content thats changed.... And if its financial self interest, content is of no import... just pages sold?
Look, I'm no partisan spouting talking points... I just say what occurs to me. If you find fault, I appreciate hearing about it. The more info I have, and knowing where that info comes from, allows me to modify my own thoughts...
-
Ah, I just see Keith Ng's OnPoint has posted essentially the same comment as mine above...
Sorry for the repetition. It's an obvious point, but I hadn't seen it written down before...
-
Well, in general, I think this bill is badly flawed (at least as its been presented so far) and either needs massive change, or perhaps even scrapping in order to replace it with something more considered and widely supported for the 2011 election....
But theres just one little point that the Herald neglects to point out, and I cant help but think it might be at least one of, (if not the major) reason they are making such a song and dance...
A "spending cap" of any sort, on campaigners of any flavour will tend to act as an "income cap" for people who make hordings, pamphlets, and.... oh, Newspapers! What a coincidence!
-
In one post, James says...
I don't think, infact I am sure the US did not anticipate Al Qaeda showing up in Iraq the way they did,
And in another, on a different sub-topic, he says...
But you can make reasonable predictions can't you? In fact you need to, don't you?
Now, I realise cherry picking quotes is a bit mean, and you could take anyones words to use against them if you try hard enough.... but this contrast is just to big to skip over...
The whole freaking wide world WAS predicting that taking your army overseas to a region that already didnt like you very much and shooting some of them, was going to increase the level of hatred and encourage more young men to get angry enough to take up arms against you.
The entire world was predicting an increase in terrorism becuase of the provocation of invasion.
How come your guys didn't predict it? Or did they predict it and choose to do it anyway?
-
-- Burgers from the White Lady and Al & Pete's, back in the old days.
Al & Petes, sure.... but the White Lady? Really?
On more than one or two occasions, after packing out from gig and being within close proximity to the white lady (and in one case only 3 doors away) we chose to drive to the Newmarket Diner, such was our distaste for the Fort St product....
I know appreciation of the food is often more to do with your own state of mind than the actual vitals on offer, but I dont ever recall eating from the white lady and not being dissapointed.