Hard News: Loving your dog and owning your words
185 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
__As Ben pointed out in the DogBitingMen post, the "love my dog" analogy falls apart the moment you observe that you can have your dog put down any time you like. It's just a stupid thing to say.__
Yes, it was. Right up there with 'the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam & Steve' and should be treated as such. Franks presumably made that comment when speaking to people who wanted to hear exactly that.
To be fair, analagous arguments get used by different sides on lots of issue all the time. People were comparing dogs to children in support of the anit-smacking bill (and children to wives - um you can't send your wife to the corner either).
And to be fair to Stephen, his post strongly suggests he made the comment in the select committee to people speaking in favour of allowing civil unions (e.g. you've said that love is all you need - what do you say to people who would say that they love their Grandmother, but it's right you can't marry them). And one day, instead of saying sister, or son, or grandmother, as examples of places where love isn't enough, he said dog.
-
And to be fair to Stephen, his post strongly suggests he made the comment in the select committee to people speaking in favour of allowing civil unions (e.g. you've said that love is all you need - what do you say to people who would say that they love their Grandmother, but it's right you can't marry them). And one day, instead of saying sister, or son, or grandmother, as examples of places where love isn't enough, he said dog.
That's a really spirit defence Craig.
-
Hoary old clichés about people voting for someone they'd like to have a beer with were thumpingly borne out.
Except they are not voting for Palin, they are voting for McCain. And does it really surprise anyone that a lack of experience, a short political record and lack of foreign-policy experience are key concerns for people who would support McCain over Obama.
-
But she's been one-upped by Palin and the whole VPILF thing (which the 'family values' Republicans have done nothing to squash). Perhaps in a few years we'll be reduced to 'Which Presidential Candidate would you like to watch doing your wife?" instead of having a beer with. In which case I'd hope Obama would romp home ahead of McCain. Americans are funny.
But, speaking of clichés, whatever happened to politics being the means that ugly people may become famous..?
-
Sorry, I meant:
"That's a really spirit__ed__ defence Graeme".
-
"That's a really spirited defence Graeme".
Well it wasn't meant to be. It was made in response to this statement:
Franks presumably made that comment when speaking to people who wanted to hear exactly that.
I was disputing this alone. Whatever one might be able to say about what Stephen said, I was disputing the implication that he said it in a cowardly way by saying it only to those who agreed with him. His post indicates that that is not what happened.
-
ummm ... im__putation__.
-
Whatever one might be able to say about what Stephen said, I was disputing the implication that he said it in a cowardly way by saying it only to those who agreed with him.
I don't for a moment think that Stephen's cowardly; his inability to simply apologise for the obvious offence suggests other character flaws however.
-
And to be fair to Stephen ...
I think Grant Robertson's point in the clip was that Franks was forever coming up with intellectual justifications for voting against civil unions -- and assuring everyone he had no problem with the gays.
And then he said things like the gay community being "so riddled with pathologies" as to be beyond redemption. There's no good spin to be had on that one. Franks is a weird and angry man.
But even on its own, the "dog" analogy was sheer political idiocy -- more senior politicians have been crucified for less.
-
And speaking of which, it looks like Franks isn't the only bigot in the National party...
Can someone call and tell them that we've living in the 21st century, not the 20th?
-
But what the world needs is good ol 20th centry values.. :)
-
Or 1st centry, for some folks..
-
Stephen Franks was referred to as “Goering” when a partner at Chapman Tripp.
I wouldn’t have thought the staff at CT would be too riddled with pathologies either. Well not the type that would wind up Franks.
-
what do you say to people who would say that they love their Grandmother, but it's right you can't marry them). And one day, instead of saying sister, or son, or grandmother, as examples of places where love isn't enough, he said dog.
Maybe you point out the subtle differences between marrying your grandmother (or your dog, or your sister or brother) and marrying your lover.
-
I don't for a moment think that Stephen's cowardly; his inability to simply apologise for the obvious offence suggests other character flaws however.
Paul: There are some people I'm quite happy to keep permanently resident in the charming village of High Dudgeon.
Can someone call and tell them that we've living in the 21st century, not the 20th?
Indeed, Idiot/Savant. And perhaps someone could tell Ms. Street that we no longer live in a world where straight men are automatically that fucking insecure? Sometimes, a eye-roll and a theatrical sigh is more effective than righteous indignation. (And a little hypocritical given some of the innuendo that gets thrown across the chamber by a colleague of hers -- and I'll leave it there.)
-
Stephen Franks was referred to as “Goering” when a partner at Chapman Tripp.
Nice -- then again, I regard Chapman Tripp as a pustular mass filled with over-paid blood-sucking parasites. I'd defer to their superior knowledge of over-dressed thugs.
-
Maybe you point out the subtle differences between marrying your grandmother (or your dog, or your sister or brother) and marrying your lover.
Well, the next time Grant does a webcast cottage meeting someone could ask him why gays and lesbians aren't allowed to marry.
-
Nice -- then again, I regard Chapman Tripp as a pustular mass filled with over-paid blood-sucking parasites
Trots the old lawyer joke out once more:
Q: Why are researchers performing experiments on lawyers these days?
A: Because there are some things that rats just will not do.
-
Trots the old lawyer joke out once more:
Q: Why are researchers performing experiments on lawyers these days?
A: Because some of the researchers were growing too attached to the rats.
A: Because there's no PETL to bust out the lawyers.
-
From that Nelson mail article:
But it was Dr Smith's night and he used the opportunity to urge Nelson National supporters to push for the party vote --a win not made by National in Nelson since 1957.
Not surprising given that the party vote didn't come about until 40 years later.
-
Smith's popularity totally escapes me ... I'm not going to stray into dubious territory here, but he's so clearly past his best and yet the good people of Nelson keep electing him while also giving their party vote to Labour. I don't get it? Is he a great local MP? There's nothing wrong with that, so is Ross Robertson, but he's not on the front bench.
-
I think a lot of incumbents of whatever stripe or quality, get in on name recognition alone....
-
“Maverick”, local MPs seem to be particularly well received in areas which see themselves as being a bit different and independent.
Like in western areas of the country; West Coast, Nelson, New Plymouth, Raglan etc..
-
Getting back to candidate Stephen Franks (not to be confused with worker's rights candidate Don Franks also in Wgtn Central but from the other end of the political spectrum). We recently received electioneering material from Stephen F disguised as a survey. The questions seem to have an agenda of attacking public servants and the public service, which seems a strange thing to do in Wellington.
One question is particularly revealing of his attitude - he asks whether 'political correctness' underlies the public service. He then defines political correctness as 'factors other than how you can do the work - like keeping true opinions to yourself'.
I disagree strongly with his definition of political correctness. PC is instead about challenging prejudices, assumptions and fears you might have about people who are different from you - for example by gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background, sexual orientation or disability. The public service serves New Zealand's diverse population so effective public servants should always be challenging any negative stereotypical opinions they might hold about the people they serve. They might then find their 'true opinions' are not actually true.
I am not a public servant, but it would be nice to see those who aspire be our local elected politicians supporting our public servants and the work they do in upholding our civil society.
-
Indeed, Idiot/Savant. And perhaps someone could tell Ms. Street
Craig, remember the goal posts and someone called sagenz?
I think this is a pot and kettle moment.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.