Really… That must have been a while ago. It’s actually pretty easy to understand I/S… If the red team do it then it’s good – if the blue team do it then it’s bad.

Actually I/S previously had a reputation for some level of integrity – he’d criticise the left if they did something wrong and would occasionally praise the right. He did have some outbursts like this but they were more rare.

But I think the advent of a right wing government has tipped him over the edge. He’s certainly complained bitterly about some of Lockwood’s decisions (without first considering why they were made) while (as far as I can tell) having never complained once about the appaling speakers during Labour’s term.

He simply doesn’t understand the conservative mindset, prefering the left wing caricature of what the right believes rather than what they actually do believe. It’s one of the worst flaws of the left that they never bother to examine what someone actually believes. That said, the right fall into the same trap, only not as often and not nearly as badly.

“Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; …”

If I recall correctly, that’s the reason why he disabled comments at No Right Turn.

own goal.

So, it was a political stunt set up to embarrass National. I dont think it really came off.

Halon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Possibly I would tend to attribute Charles’ actions to the latter, while I/S is clearly the former.

perhaps the thing to do is to change the rules so that instead of 2 seconds to object, people get 15 seconds. Wouldn’t that be a more useful change?

I’d think a lot longer than that would normally be advisable.

I don’t think MPs should be forced into spur of the moment decisions and on totally new issues they should have time to research and consider the suitability of motions.

1. So Charles could raise something worthwhile, knowing National would veto it.
2. He could then publicise National vetoing it, being upset that his worthwhile motion was not passed.
3. he could then say to people, including Nats, who criticised his approach on this matter that they were sad people for not supporting his motion.

So, it was a political stunt set up to embarrass National. I dont think it really came off.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/08/smears_from_no_right_turn.html#comment-729728

thanks for clearing things up Mr James

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/08/smears_from_no_right_turn.html#comment-729728

May as well make that two, so Idiot can go with.

Once upon a time I/S actually could apply intelligent analysis to a situation

Really… That must have been a while ago. It’s actually pretty easy to understand I/S… If the red team do it then it’s good – if the blue team do it then it’s bad. It’s irrelevant what the subject is – only the colour of the players team is important.

There is a reason why this complete apologist for red team corruption won’t allow comments – none of his ranting stands the scrutiny of critical analysis….

“…more important than doing the right thing.”

Yes, the regimes in hell hole African countries will surely see the error of their ways and embrace sexual / gender diversity once the New Zealand Parliament passes a motion critical of their present stance…

Kum Ba Yah, My Lord; Kum Ba Yah…

Best solution is to stay away ignore it and remove from the RSS stream, perhaps without oxygen it will wither and die off.