Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 182

Awrrr
18536 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2144803 13-Dec-2018 13:56

Sooo, if your opponent is rigid, inflexible, opinionated, one-sided, myopic, obstinate, and just plain wrong, that makes it okay for you to do exactly the same? The justification for behaving like a biased dick (example only, not accusation) is that others do it? Have I got that right?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29551 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2144848 13-Dec-2018 15:52

networkn:

tdgeek:

As usual its the same old political drama from those that are married for life to their party, no matter what. Defend defend defend, and choose not to look at everything in case it doesn't suit. Its a pity as some here from both sides can in fact discuss without getting angry. I'm out, let the 2 inch thick rose coloured glasses satisfy there needs here as usual

Pot, Kettle, Black. You'll do your usual "I'm a swing voter" thing, but the evidence overwhemingly shows you are just as married to your choices and "defend defend defend" as anyone else here.

The Air NZ thing isn't a National vs Labour thing in the first place.

Your viewpoint on most issues is just as set in concrete as you would accuse anyone else here of being.

Ive unsubscribed but thought Id just check the expected comment, and yes, the usual. You are wrong, as usual. I will happily defend BS, when rose coloured posts exaggerate their "point" and ignore balancing the overall scenario, as you always do. Google Polemic. Every dozen pages you throw in "I would vote Labour if that was the best choice. Alongside the frequent one liners Come on. You cannot accept an opinion that differs from yours. When that happens you do the usual. Recently you told someone to stop trolling, and you recieved a response "ROFL" from someone who reads more posts and has more experience here than you or I. You did not understand that, you queried it. Others, who IIRC who support National, advised you two or three times what they felt the ROFL meant. I sincerely believe you did not know, as your opinions are so deep seated I haven;t come across that before, but you dont see that. You clearly seem to feel your posts are considered, factual, objective and so on, They are not, not by a long shot

Yes, currently I support this coalition, and while I am happy to "discuss" matters, agree to disagree, defend when points are conveniently omitted, and there are others here who also support National who have no issue debating points they believe in, but you cannot. I am quite well aware of your many positive qualities, but objectivity doesnt rate a 1/10

Final word, enjoy the venting thread.

networkn

Networkn
32137 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2144860 13-Dec-2018 16:11

I sincerely hope you feel better now.

networkn

Networkn
32137 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2145206 14-Dec-2018 09:57

Rikkitic:

Sooo, if your opponent is rigid, inflexible, opinionated, one-sided, myopic, obstinate, and just plain wrong, that makes it okay for you to do exactly the same? The justification for behaving like a biased dick (example only, not accusation) is that others do it? Have I got that right?

I have never used any of those words (to my knowledge), I consider this to be a barely disguised excuse to call me names.

Bluntj

549 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2145218 14-Dec-2018 10:19

networkn:

Rikkitic:

Sooo, if your opponent is rigid, inflexible, opinionated, one-sided, myopic, obstinate, and just plain wrong, that makes it okay for you to do exactly the same? The justification for behaving like a biased dick (example only, not accusation) is that others do it? Have I got that right?

I have never used any of those words (to my knowledge), I consider this to be a barely disguised excuse to call me names.

Largely I have just been an observer here, but my main observation is that if anyone seems to disagree with a policy of the current Government they do get this tirade of verbal opposition that is not well intentioned and loose enough to escape the wrath of the moderators.

Surely this forum topic should be about alternating views and robust discussion rather than attempts to denigrate the well meaning authors who are just trying to get what they believe to be a valid point across.

I have been subject to this as well and as a result I usually abstain form adding fuel to the fire. I have many criticisms of the last government as well as the current one. However, the past Government lost the election so imo there isnt really any point to spending much time on them.

This surely isnt about opponents? If it is then we should all look into a mirror from time to time and ask ourselves if this is really how we want to portray ourselves.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18536 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2145219 14-Dec-2018 10:21

networkn:

Rikkitic:

Sooo, if your opponent is rigid, inflexible, opinionated, one-sided, myopic, obstinate, and just plain wrong, that makes it okay for you to do exactly the same? The justification for behaving like a biased dick (example only, not accusation) is that others do it? Have I got that right?

I have never used any of those words (to my knowledge), I consider this to be a barely disguised excuse to call me names.

It doesn't matter. I am going to follow tdgeek's example and take a holiday from this thread. Sometimes it is interesting but as he says, it never goes anywhere and no-one (including me) changes their thinking. Some posts rightly call attention to government deficiencies but a lot of it is just seizing on any opportunity to bash those trying to run the country, which I imagine isn't easy at the best of times. Yes, there are some bad decisions and some weak ministers, but that is not unique and the government still seems to enjoy widespread public support, they are at least going through the motions of trying to address some of the issues National ignored, and overall I don't believe they are the mendacious bumbling incompetents some here seem to need to make them out to be.

Have a relaxing holiday everyone. Maybe I will see you later.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7767 posts

Uber Geek

#2146484 17-Dec-2018 10:55

Rikkitic:

A sign of good political judgement is starting out with a softly softly approach, not going in with all guns blazing that is just going to get backs up. I'm sure if her 'wish' had been ignored, there would have been a more forceful follow-up. I think she did well, not that I expect many on this thread to credit her with that.

How would she have been more forceful?

It's a publicly listed company. Was the PM going to call an SGM and force a shareholder resolution on the board? If she did that, the share price would have fallen so fast it whistled.

There is saying "success has many fathers, failure is a Btard". I think that is what happened here.

JA was trying to look PMly. fair enough, that's her job. I'm glad it's all sorted but I think the major factor was the public pressure both AirNZ and the unions would have been under. There is no evidence of anything else.

Mike

Bluntj

549 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2146561 17-Dec-2018 14:26

MikeAqua:

Rikkitic:

A sign of good political judgement is starting out with a softly softly approach, not going in with all guns blazing that is just going to get backs up. I'm sure if her 'wish' had been ignored, there would have been a more forceful follow-up. I think she did well, not that I expect many on this thread to credit her with that.

How would she have been more forceful?

It's a publicly listed company. Was the PM going to call an SGM and force a shareholder resolution on the board? If she did that, the share price would have fallen so fast it whistled.

There is saying "success has many fathers, failure is a Btard". I think that is what happened here.

JA was trying to look PMly. fair enough, that's her job. I'm glad it's all sorted but I think the major factor was the public pressure both AirNZ and the unions would have been under. There is no evidence of anything else.

The PM and any other elected official needs to take care when commenting on listed companies, especially ones that are owned by the Crown. Comments can effect the share value and do damage to the reputation.

As long as the comments are thought through and reasoned than it is acceptable. Shane Jones comments are not usually acceptable and are intended to influence the way the Company operates.

Bluntj

549 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2146562 17-Dec-2018 14:26

Sorry. Double post due to extreme lag.

networkn

Networkn
32137 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2147206 18-Dec-2018 15:48

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109445808/did-the-prime-minister-just-call-her-opponent-names

Presumably, since Bridges was castigated here for being ejected because he accused the speaker of being biased, the PM will now be shown the same level of revile over her behaviour?

So much for "nicer".

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2147207 18-Dec-2018 15:52

I expect a higher level of professionalism from a PM not matter what party they are from. `The senior members of the House should be setting the standard.The Speaker took the appropriate action.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
78924 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2147229 18-Dec-2018 16:58

@networkn:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109445808/did-the-prime-minister-just-call-her-opponent-names

Presumably, since Bridges was castigated here for being ejected because he accused the speaker of being biased, the PM will now be shown the same level of revile over her behaviour?

So much for "nicer".

"So much for nicer".

First, learn about the Betteredige's Law of Headlines: if there's a question in a headline, invariably the answer is "No". The headline is "Did the prime minister just call her opponent names?" and if you read the text you will see there was no name calling.

Then the article itself clarifies: her answer was "It's quite simple... Simon" - she was asked by the Speaker to apologise for using his first name, which is against the rules.

I think you are the one trying to stretch the story here to server your own purposes.

My technology disclosure

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2147231 18-Dec-2018 17:02

freitasm:

@networkn:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109445808/did-the-prime-minister-just-call-her-opponent-names

Presumably, since Bridges was castigated here for being ejected because he accused the speaker of being biased, the PM will now be shown the same level of revile over her behaviour?

So much for "nicer".

"So much for nicer".

First, learn about the Betteredige's Law of Headlines: if there's a question in a headline, invariably the answer is "No". The headline is "Did the prime minister just call her opponent names?" and if you read the text you will see there was no name calling.

Then the article itself clarifies: her answer was "It's quite simple... Simon" - she was asked by the Speaker to apologise for using his first name, which is against the rules.

I think you are the one trying to stretch the story here to server your own purposes.

I disagree, I believe that it was two issues, 1. the use of first name, 2. the obvious play on words "simple...Simon"

networkn

Networkn
32137 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2147235 18-Dec-2018 17:09

freitasm:

"So much for nicer".

First, learn about the Betteredige's Law of Headlines: if there's a question in a headline, invariably the answer is "No". The headline is "Did the prime minister just call her opponent names?" and if you read the text you will see there was no name calling.

Then the article itself clarifies: her answer was "It's quite simple... Simon" - she was asked by the Speaker to apologise for using his first name, which is against the rules.

I think you are the one trying to stretch the story here to server your own purposes.

Oh come on! It's clear what she was trying to do. She didn't refer to him as Mr Bridges as would be customary. but rather Simon. The fact that she finished her sentence with simple...

In the reverse situaton, the other thread would have be on fire critisizing Bridges.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
78924 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2147237 18-Dec-2018 17:14

I have to laugh if this is what you folks think is the problem in the world as it stands now...

My technology disclosure

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 182