Posts by JohnAmiria
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To American people on this forum- what's the reception been towards McCain's Veep nominee?
They love her, and Obama is already packing up his tent as we speak.
But seriously, nevermind what the people think, it's what the MSN say that counts. Or their analyst 'consultants' who happen to be Republicans.
(altho' this blogger isn't holding back: The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History)
-
It's a gamble for McCain: will the Hillary ladies who said they wanted a woman in the White House, did they mean any woman?
Where the PUMAs are concerned, who knows?
Let's see how long it takes for the MSN to bring back these PUMA's and ask what they they think. I have no doubt they'll say Palin is a great choice and they'll probably vote for her. Proving that PUMA's were Repub shills all along. (Not that the MSN will care or acknowledge that).
The next think to happen will be a 'Bring Back Buck' style campaign (fuelled by Republicans) to suggest Biden should step down and let Hillary be VP nominee. Rovian mischeif.
-
You couldn't make it up... And I think I understand why Trotter is so fond of Winston Peters.
I don't. This, and McCain picking an unknown woman as VP makes me think the gates of hell of been unleashed. Someone should jump in a time machine and go back and warn Trotter that one day he will be a Peters stalwart.
On the RNZ news this morning:
"Mr Peters' lawyer, Peter Williams QC, says he has seen a statement from the Spencer Trust, which received the donations, which shows the money was used as intended.For the benefit of PAS readers who don't run businesses or multiple Family Trusts: my accounts are always done at least 12-18 months later and there's a fair bit of jiggery pokery to maket things fit. Aside from the Puritans I think everyone makes.shit.up. to get their accounts done after the fact.
(I say this only to explain why these accounts are only appearing now, not that I think Peters actually originally used the money as intended)
-
My, there's some fanciful chatter going on here. So let me join in ...
Another claim by Hide -- that TVNZ had deliberately destroyed evidence supporting that allegation -- has been shown to be entirely fanciful.
Is it possible that Hide knew he had to make this claim in order to get TV3 to air it? And once they aired it then TVNZ would air it too?
A good result for Hide, I'd say. I doubt people (other that Winstone) will dismiss his argument just because it turns out TVNZ didn't destroy the interview footage ...
And besides, Hide may have believed what he said. It's possible whoever gave him the purloined DVD told him the footage had been destroyed ("but I made a copy!") in order to pique Hide's interest.
-
I spose that means, I make no apology for his behavior, but... there there might be mitigating factors, before the fact.
You suppose wrongly. Completely wrongly. Might I suppose from your response to my comment that you can't actually comprehend what I have written? I've re-read my comments and don't see any ambiguity: "what he did was terrible and he deserves to be charged."
-
I've no doubt there's a PR campaign in operation. I find it distasteful.
I think you're right on both counts Russell, but I'm wondering what the alternative is. If Veitch does nothing he gets fried by the media and will be convicted by the Court of Public Opinion well before he actually gets to trial.
As distasteful as it is, I think there are questions about the timing of these complaints. I speculate (since I don't know the facts) that Dunne-Powell made this matter public after she spent the settlement money or when a gag clause ran out. I think Mrs Veitch is right when she says
Veitch is unsure why Dunne-Powell laid a complaint two-and-a-half years after the incident but assumes her husband's former partner has not let go of the relationship.
That said, what he did was terrible and he deserves to be charged.
-
a desperate urge for a more ladylike daughter...
Yeah, cos there's nothing more ladylike than doing the splits in stretch lycra ...!
-
here's some eye candy:
-
Here's all you need to know about relative ages, from Wiki.
It's quite interesting ...Age controversies in gymnastics
An excerpt:
Supporters of the age restrictions have pointed out that it has encouraged older gymnasts to remain in the sport. The average age of an international gymnast was 18.10 years in 2005. In contrast, in 1994, before the new age requirements, it was 16.49, and in 1989, gymnasts who had reached the age of 17 were already often considered to be of retirement age.
Opponents of the rule have countered that by barring younger gymnasts from top level meets, they are denying them valuable competitive experience. They have also argued that junior gymnasts perform and are scored under the same Code of Points as the seniors, perform the same skills, and are thus not avoiding the physical impact of training and performing high-level skills. It is also argued that the current Code of Points, with its increased requirements for difficult skills, is more suited to younger and lighter athletes, and puts older athletes at greater risk of injury.
The bold highlights are mine. I think it's tosh. It's the same argument used to explain away child labourers in 3rd world countries.
As Wiki explain, many countries have lied about gymnast ages in order to win medals. Where does it end? If a 10 year old can do the perfect backflip do we lower the age limit so a 10 year old can 'get experience' at the Olympics? Where to after that? I thought the Olympics were the pinnacle of an athlete's career?
-
The lead story on the Huffington Post right now is Scandal of the Ages: Documents Reveal Underage Chinese Gymnast
From that headline it was hard to tell if they were mocking, or serious so I clicked on the story. Yes, they're serious:So, for all of those who are still left unconvinced, I offer a collection of evidence that will demonstrate not only that the Chinese gymnast in question was born in 1994 and underage, but that Chinese officials, over the last few weeks, have systematically tried to cover it all up.
As HuffPo commenters are already noting, America is no shining example, what with it's own history of doping and a President who lies ... but I'm starting to wonder if this is different.
I've got no problem with getting a 'cute' girl to sing at the opening ceremony, but this goes a bit further than that. The IOC rules say gymnasists must be 16 to compete at the Olympics, and these girls are seemingly 14. But the IOC seem to be washing their hands on this issue:
President Jacques Rogge said, "The IOC relies on the international federations, who are exclusively responsible for the eligibility of athletes. It's not the task of the IOC to check every one of the 10,000 athletes."
I guess it's just a matter of timing, since for many years they looked the other way on doping too. Still, the whole affair does remind me of that old saying:
"Hell hath no fury like a Nation beaten to Gold at the Olympics"