General Debate 19 February 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment214

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (214)

Login to comment or vote

Johnboy

I’m a bit worried about minus. I hope he/she is alright! 🙂
3 5
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 10:33pm
Johnboy

What was odd about him nasska?
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 10:36pm
ShawnLH

Naaska,

“But for some reason no one is supposed to say an unkind word about Colin Craig. The mention of his name is sufficient for the numerous Godnutters who frequent this blog to lose all objectivity & wrap themselves protectively around their Messiah.”

My issue is not about “unkind” words but about Pete’s campaigning for Dunne while claiming to be neutral in his comments on Craig. Unfortunately this blog is often inundated by liberal nutters who despise social conservatism of any sort, and anti-Christian nutters who cannot resist ranting irrationally about their fantasies about the Christian Faith.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:16pm
RightNow

SPC:

To walk in Norman’s shoes for a moment.

I’m torn between whether to say “Gimme back my shoes” or “Norman’s an ambulance”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:23pm
ShawnLH

Pete,

“It’s curious nasska. A common theme seems to be “I haven’t decided if I will vote for Colin but don’t be mean to him!”

I’m not sure how pointing out simple facts can be seen as mean.”

What facts? You never give any facts, just the same tiresome repetitions that have proven to be false. “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament!”

Except the party is growing and he’s up in the polls.

Facts clearly are not your strong point. Shilling for the useless and empty vessel called Dunne is.

And by the way, IF i vote at all it will be for the Libertarianz or ACT. I stand up for Craig, even though I think his economic policies are wrong, because I always stand up for social conservatives. Your the only one lying about this and hiding your real reasons behind laughable claims to objective and neutral commentary.

There is a name for that. It’s COWARD.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:28pm
Pete George

Except the party is growing and he’s up in the polls.

Apart from all your other factless assetions that are wrong this claim deserves attention. What polls and over how long? Polls for the Conservative Party hardly deviate from the margin of error outside a 1-2.5% range which is less than he got in the election.

“Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament! “Craig is failing, he won’t enter Parliament!”

That’s hysterical. I’ve never said that, and it can’t be proven false until the election.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:34pm
ShawnLH

“That’s hysterical. I’ve never said that”

What a wonderful convenient memory hole you have. You have in fact been repeating some variation of the assertion for months.

From the Craig vs Norman thread: “Craig can’t go crying to his lawyer over anything that is said in Parliament. It’s looking increasingly unlikely it will be put to the pest anyway.”

Note that second sentence. And you have been repeating that view for months. Gee, I wonder why? Might it be something to do with being a UF supporter? I don’t like people lying about their motivations.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:45pm
Reid

That’s hysterical. I’ve never said that, and it can’t be proven false until the election.

“That’s hysterical”

Says Pete who gets hysterical whenever Craig hits the headlines.

“I’ve never said that”

Says confused Pete failing to understand Shawn was summarising the gist of all Pete’s comments about Craig, which was obvious to all of us except for Pete, who took it literally, just like a village idiot would.

“…it cant be proven false until the election”

Says still confused Pete, but this time throwing in a worthless observation about the completely obvious which everyone already knew, but which Pete seems to think throws extra light on the situation, just in case none of we who comment on a political blog didn’t already know about how elections work in the democracy we live in, during an election year.
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:45pm
SPC

ShawnLH, clearly the language of “peace” is calling liberals and non Christians “nutters”. It was the unkind thing to do so … .

As Anglicanism declines into a small sect, the rise of libertarian monarchists divided against the world amongst the white race of the colonies.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2014 11:57pm
Ryan Sproull

It’s not me that says that Ryan it’s thousands of years of human civilisation. Only in the last several have disingenuous social engineers labelled this well accepted and established practice as being assault, and people who don’t understand human behaviour immediately leapt on the bandwagon in vigorous agreement, at this new-found social outrage which had hitherto been regarded as nothing of the sort, by thousands of preceding generations.

Given that these generations included all the greats of history, as well as all the rest of us, the numbers are stacked against the social engineers miraculously pinpointing something real and indeed, one would have to conclude they’re just making it up for their own reasons, and all the slack-jawed yokels who know nothing about anything, bray like the useful idiots they can be depended on to be.

That’s fine. That’s your belief, your claim, your position. My point was only that, in response to someone saying that the repeal of S59 was giving the same protection against assault to children that adults enjoy, you said that smacking a child was not assault. Now you agree that it is assault, but claim that it is a righteous assault grounded in the human race’s proud history of parenting.

You agree that if I treated you the way that you advocate treating children, I could be arrested for assault. That’s all that is necessary for… It was Pete George who made the claim to which you responded. That’s all that’s necessary for Pete George to be right (well, accurate) and you to be unfair in your response to him.

As I said, you are free to believe that assaulting children is part of good parenting, but you are not free to avoid the meaning of the term “assault” just because you feel it brings negative connotations to your advocacy of assaulting children as part of good parenting.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2014 12:22am
ShawnLH

SPC,

“ShawnLH, clearly the language of “peace” is calling liberals and non Christians “nutters”.

I said ANTI-CHRISTIANS not non-Christians, and even then I was reffering only to a few hysteria driven individuals on this blog.

Liberalism is certainly a form of intellectual insanity.

It was, by the way, a response to the use of the term “Godnutters”, quid pro quo if you like.

“As Anglicanism declines into a small sect”

In Africa and Asia Anglicanism is thriving and growing.

Oh, and I’m not white, I’m Métis. You can look that up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2014 3:31am
Pete George

I don’t like people lying about their motivations.

Irony of the day.
You go overboard defending Craig, only Craig amongst all politicians, you mainly or only comment in threads where Craig is promonent, you make many assertions without facts (you haven’t backed up your “increasing in the polls” claim which happens to be a common Craig fan line) and you particularly target me, making things up (lying) about things like me campaigning for Dunne (no evidence of that here). So your motivation is highly questionable.

But whatever. It’s not as if others don’t see through your bull.
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2014 5:57am
ShawnLH

Except Pete, unlike you I have been open about my motivation. I’m defending him because he is a social conservative. I have told you that three times now. Try being that open and honest Pete.

“Conservatives on rise”

“Colin Craig’s Conservatives are at 2.8 percent, well over double the last poll. It’s the highest ever result for the party, and crucially, it is taking votes off National”

http://www.3news.co.nz/OPINION-Beware-Colin-Craig—Conservatives-on-rise/tabid/1382/articleID/321016/Default.aspx

2011-2013: 3 News Reid Research polling – Conservatives consistently above 1 percent, as high as 2.8 percent now.

Try again Pete, your losing this one.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2014 8:43am
Pete George

Ah, Conservatives got 2.65% in the 2011 election. And you’re quoting an article from last year.

The latest 3 News/Reid Research poll: Conservative – 2.1 percent, down 0.7 percent
http://www.3news.co.nz/3-News-Reid-Research-poll-shows-Peters-as-kingmaker/tabid/1607/articleID/330698/Default.aspx

The latest Roy Morgan: Conservative Party 2.5% (down 1%)
http://www.roymorgan.com/~/media/Files/Findings%20PDF/2014/February/5418-NZ-National-Voting-Intention.pdf

The Conservatives are not on the rise at the moment, they are on the fall (albeit within the margin of error).

Facts can be pesky.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2014 8:54am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« North Korea human rights

Edwards on Labour’s chances »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

You Read It here First – I bet you’re sorry about that
No Minister
Are we the baddies?
Hompaddock
Open mike 03/11/2024
The Standard
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz