Comments on: Photo-Op PM

By: richardsmum

richardsmum — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:06:53 +0000

This topic simply incomparable:), I am very interested.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:37:48 +0000

One of the comments alluded to Key’s previous life and his accumulation of wealth. One could say the same about Joyce.
While Key made his, clipping the ticket and working hard. Joyce may have made his by working hard then selling out as so many Kiwi’s do unfortunately. Do they get tired and then find they are bored with their new unproductive lives? and these two at least have sought a role with a lot more power. do they really have the substance behind them to be controlling or directing us as a nation of people with lives and futures ahead of us and our ofspring?

By: BE

BE — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:56:43 +0000

I must say you have disappointed me lately, always been a fan of you but your facial expressions cant hide your distaste for the present situation re the govt.

Is this addressed to me, Terry? I ask because it doesn’t reflect my opinion at all. I have a very clear idea of why Labour lost the last election and part of it was certainly failing to take the pulse of the electorate, getting out of touch. As for the Key government, I find it refreshingly proactive, though I clearly disagree with several of its policies. It’s also my view that, unless this government takes a major hit, there’s very good reason to believe that it will be given a second term.

By: terry

terry — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:34:40 +0000

I must say you have disappointed me lately, always been a fan of you but your facial expressions cant hide your distaste for the present situation re the govt.
Im not a huge fan of the way things are right now ,but thats democracy.
I thought you could deal with the fact we lost because we went too far, but your face doesnt lie, your struggling and it shows.
I have to acept thats the countries wish,I dont like it but they have spoken, you seem to think they made a mistake and in 3 years we will be back in power, but unless we adress major policy decisions we wont be back for many years, hope Im wrong.

By: Russell

Russell — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:09:48 +0000

Detra: And here was me thinking Mr Cresswell was simply asking Brian to demonstrate evidence on his ongoing view that the Nats are on a privatisation mission (shame they aren’t); seemed a pretty straight forward request to me.
But obviously philosophy, numbered 101-201, has a component, called either, “oops I’ve been sprung, pretend you’re tired”, or in your case “call the other guy conceited” when your doyen is caught out.

By: Rayson Detra

Rayson Detra — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:32:22 +0000

Russell: re “Is that what you were taught in Philosophy 101 i.e., retreat?”

Nope, BE knows when the discussion’s on a circuitous route to Nowhere. And he knows when it becomes less about edifying a pov, than indulging someone’s tedious conceit. He learnt that in Philosophy 201

By: Clunking Fist

Clunking Fist — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:20:11 +0000

“And that is why, to me, it is so hard to attack Key right now. To many of aspirtationally brain washed identify with him.”

Yes, if people would just stop having aspirations, they’d be soo much more amenable to the ways of the left. Trouble is, if we ALL stopped being aspirational, there’d be no one to pay the tax that your giant ponzi scheme requires.

By: Russell

Russell — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:34:11 +0000

BE, it does seem that you backing out of this argument rather quickly; rather than answer Mr Cresswell. Is that what you were taught in Philosophy 101 i.e., retreat?

By: BE

BE — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:47:25 +0000

Brian, it’s not a matter of “agreeing to differ.” You can agree to differ on matters of opinion, but not on matters of fact.

What is or is not “fact” is more often that not a matter of opinion, Peter. This conversation is assuming all the tiresome characteristics of debates I used to have in Philosophy 101. Enough already!

By: Peter Cresswell

Peter Cresswell — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:21:12 +0000

Brian, it’s not a matter of “agreeing to differ.” You can agree to differ on matters of opinion, but not on matters of fact.

And let’s face it, you’ve hung a whole theory here on the supposed FACT of National’s supposed free-market agenda, of its supposed plans to rip the heart out of the welfare state, of its supposed plans for privatisations and asset sales.

And now you all but admit that you’ve no more evidence for any of those claims than the religionist has for her God.

That’s just shameful.