Mistakes, I’ve made a few

91 comments on “Mistakes, I’ve made a few ”

• Comments are now closed

1. spanner 1

   26 April 2008 at 2:46 pm

   What’s all the fuss about, I mean too say boobs on bikes and homosexual parades are not deemed offensive? Who are the hypocrites. Won’t have to worry about this in this country. I mean too say fuel is going to be that bloody expensive we will all commute on horseback. Will the horses be charged a fart tax?
2. Gooner 2

   26 April 2008 at 3:36 pm

   Topless women is soft porn?

   Gawd, what planet are you on?
3. Brett Dale 3

   26 April 2008 at 3:48 pm

   What? The internet has pictures of naked woman??? Why didn’t someone tell me? I’m just thankful their are no left wing sites likes that, the thought of Marion Hobbs and Ruth Dyson and our PM topless is not a pretty one.

   Seriously, I’m surprised that Labour hasn’t started banning websites, they normally think they know, what is the best for our little minds.

   PS: Do you have a link to David’s site.
4. Tane 4

   26 April 2008 at 3:55 pm

   Brett, once again you miss the point entirely. The issue here is not that the internet has images of topless women – the issue is that Stephen Franks, a candidate for political office, thought it was a good idea to post them on his website.

   With political judgement like that you have to wonder why National made Franks their candidate for Wellington Central. Grant Robertson is going to wipe the floor with him.
5. Brett Dale 5

   26 April 2008 at 4:00 pm

   I have no problem with someone running for office, putting pictures of topless woman on his/hers website.

   Why would you?

   Are nipples that offensive to the left?

   Seriously, for myself it all comes down to the policies of the person running for office.

   But hey if the left wants to complain about breasts, then that is your right in a free society.
6. barnsleybill 6

   26 April 2008 at 4:04 pm

   Almost as bad as Mike Williams (who must be on the verge of becoming punch drunk) allowing another huge lie to be told this morning. Apparently he gets by on 25k a year from his job as president. Failing to mention the 200k in jobs for the boys labour appointed directorships was a huge mistake. Compounded by his claim to give most of it back to Labour.
   Some people never learn, surely harry will sack him now?
7. Tane 7

   26 April 2008 at 4:08 pm

   Brett, I won’t go into the mysogynistic subtext of the video because I doubt you’ll understand it, but purely in terms of politics it’s not a good decision.

   While a few sweaty right-wingers over at Kiwiblog might find the video a riot, there are enough people who will find the video offensive that it could damage your chances. A smart political operator would steer well clear of it. Franks clearly isn’t that smart.
8. Brett Dale 8

   26 April 2008 at 4:41 pm

   The first bit of your reply sums up the Labour party to a tee. Patronizing and thinking because people don’t agree with us, they just don’t understand the issues.

   This is why come November, your party is gone. I would say, that video will do no harm whatsoever to the National Party.
9. randal 9

   26 April 2008 at 4:46 pm

   the tories are all pillow huggers and nipple suckers at heart…boobies in other words…they likea bit of fladge and big fat mommas to dsicipline them because their own parents were busy doing something else instead of giving them the requisite amount of love needed to produce well formed human beings.
10. Tane 10

    26 April 2008 at 4:49 pm

    No Brett, I just find there’s no point arguing gender power relations with people like yourself – you can’t change someone’s worldview via a brief conversation online. Plus, I’ve found your comments here universally ill-informed. Not in the “I don’t agree with you” kind of way, more like “wow, he really doesn’t understand how politics works”.

    And while I don’t think Franks’ video will knock National’s support, I do believe it’ll hurt his chances in Wellington Central.
11. Brett Dale 11

    26 April 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Gender Power relations!! HaHa! Your having a laugh?

    So I don’t understand how Politics work huh? Tyopical response from someone from the left.

    Anyway, I do understand how business works though.

    I have been lucky enough to work with some pretty powerful woman in my career, and if anyone bought up the line “Gender Power Relations” they would laugh you right out of the office.
12. randal 12

    26 April 2008 at 5:17 pm

    anyone who has read the theory of business by Thorstein Veblein knows how business works and it isnt nice so I wouldn’t claim to be special if I were you bd
13. Brett Dale 13

    26 April 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Business can be nice, if you are lead by the right people, and believe me the right people wouldn’t use the words “gender power relations”
14. infused 14

    26 April 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Fuck your a git. The video is old as. You sure are desperate to score some points.
15. r0b 15

    26 April 2008 at 6:06 pm

    the right people wouldn’t use the words “gender power relations’

    That’s an interesting personal opinion there Brett.

    But this concept isn’t as obscure as you might think. The phrase “gender power relations’ generates a mere 22,700 hits on Google. Limiting it to the “.com” domain and we have 1,990 hits.

    Following a few at random we see that the phrase is used in the British Journal of Management (note PDF):

    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00570.x

    and on business related sites like:

    http://www.allbusiness.com/business-planning-structures/starting-a-business/3900117-1.html

    So I’m led to conclude that maybe your personal opinion isn’t the absolute last word and authority there Brett.
16. Brett Dale 16

    26 April 2008 at 6:18 pm

    Did I say it was?

    I’m going by my own personal experiences and the managers that I have worked under.
17. randal 17

    26 April 2008 at 6:25 pm

    that explains a lot…
18. Santi 18

    26 April 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Tane, are you sexually repressed or inhibited?

    What’s wrong with you? Have you lost your taste in women for the sake of being PC? Has the socialist brainwash taken away your masculinity?

    About time you unleash the man in you (if there is any..)
19. spanner 19

    26 April 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Tane represents the new age soft made in New Zealand PC male wimp.
20. randal 20

    26 April 2008 at 7:01 pm

    and you guys represent the big swinging dicks from a forex firm? how manly…
21. Lyn 21

    26 April 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Hmm – judging by the comment thread Tane is the most attractive person on here. I guess there are people who like to get their jollies through ancient video of boobs online and then there are people who like to, y’know, interact with actual women. Guess who’s currently in with the best chance???

    Plus I’d say Stephen Franks (with DPF’s help) has probably just kissed goodbye to a good chunk of the boob-owning vote in Wellington central. Things just haven’t been the same since us pesky chicks got enfranchised…
22. Brett Dale 22

    26 April 2008 at 7:36 pm

    If Franks gets in, or if he doesn’t, will depend on his policies, not because he had a video of a topless woman. If anyone decides not to vote for someone because of that, I feel sorry for them
23. spanner 23

    26 April 2008 at 7:46 pm

    “pesky chicks got enfranchised ”

    Lyn;great to see feminism alive and well in Wellington Central. What else would one expect in the region where soft males and hard females decry the male image.
24. Lyn 24

    26 April 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Brett – you have a naive view of politics. Media trumps policy every time. Granted, it’s not the way I’d have it under normal circumstances, but there it is. I’d have to go with Tane on this. If the video hadn’t made the Herald thanks to DPF no one would have cared.

    Spanner – I’m not in the Wellington Central electorate so I couldn’t comment on the region’s feminism or gender-roles. If you’re upset that females decry the male image, I’ll leave you to have a little cry about it, you poor wee thing. It’s just sad that you think women exercising basic civil rights – free speech, voting etc – makes us hard. Who exactly counts as a “real” woman with you? There don’t seem to be many (read any) options left there….
25. spanner 25

    26 April 2008 at 8:17 pm

    Real women don’t push minority agendas that are detrimental to the majority of society. Real women hate the power of the people.Real women are not highly skilled liars.
26. Lyn 26

    26 April 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Sorry – slightly confused – you’re suggesting that real women are despots? This is getting weirder and weirder.
27. ak 27

    26 April 2008 at 8:47 pm

    “boob-owning vote” – love it!
    As we see above, the tories retain the dickhead vote….
28. randal 28

    26 April 2008 at 8:48 pm

    you betcha…
29. Absolute Power 29

    26 April 2008 at 9:03 pm

    “This is getting weirder and weirder.”

    Dear Lyn,
    I thought the very same thing when reading the book .
    AP xx
30. Lyn 30

    26 April 2008 at 9:03 pm

    I fear you are indeed correct – still – no surprises ay?
31. spanner 31

    26 April 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Lyn – that Heather Simpson is a real women eh Lyn, pity no one ever gets to see her in public. She must have a social phobia or something like that?

    AB – bet you didn’t know how weird the ideologies are that run this country and it’s no wonder the family unit is in disarray mate. Good book dude. It all makes sense now.
32. Lyn 32

    26 April 2008 at 9:26 pm

    Just for the record my previous comment was directed at ak. AP – can’t comment on the book – haven’t read it.

    Spanner – what Heather Simpson appearing in public or not has to do with any previous comments made by anyone in this thread is well over my head. Perhaps you’ll elucidate?
33. mandy 33

    26 April 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Spanner –
    Heather Simpson not appearing in public says a lot about politics that you really don’t know about.
34. spanner 34

    26 April 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Lyn I will make clear my point. This thread is about what is deemed inappropriate action by Franks and Farrar regarding posting a video of topless ladies in Denmark. At least these ladies put a public face to their message unlike that Heather Simpson who wields enormous power in New Zealand. Some like to influence from behind the scenes and others like putting their boobs in your face to make their point. The honey or the hag deary?
35. r0b 35

    26 April 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Sapnner’s gone quiet all of a sudden. Perhaps he doesn’t like the odds. Or maybe he’s looking up “elucidate” in the dictionary. Spanner, check under “e”.
36. spanner 36

    26 April 2008 at 9:48 pm

    rob you dimwit “elucidate?” What was my first line to Lyn?

    ” Lyn I will make clear my point ” = elucidate. Try again boyo.
37. r0b 37

    26 April 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Be calm dear tool, blog comments don’t necessarily appear in exactly the same sequence that they are written. My post of 9:41 was written before I saw yours of 9:38. I’m glad you found it though, we should all try and learn a new word every day.
38. Steve Withers 38

    26 April 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Had a look at the Danish speed bandit video. Nothing offensive there, I’m afraid. Let’s not be too precious.
39. Lyn 39

    26 April 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Well – the relevance of the comment is still in question given that the “topless ladies” were paid to be part of an ad campaign by the Danish government – this is hardly grass-roots activism. They weren’t “putting a public face to their message” – they were just collecting a paycheque. I guess you’d have a name for that – wouldn’t you. Your comments about Simpson sound like old-fashioned misogyny to me.
40. spanner 40

    26 April 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Sorry Lyn, but I am far from the “old-fashioned misogyny” club deary.That is so yesterday. Helen Clark’s inner circle are irreconcilable on their conquest for Absolute Power.This has made them totally irrational.
41. Richard Hurst 41

    26 April 2008 at 10:07 pm

    I see the Standard is still covering the big issues…….and what pairs of attractive issues they are..( school boy snigger,snigger).
42. r0b 42

    26 April 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Spanner, sorry to pick on you, but “irreconcilable”? Please go back to the dictionary. You’ll find that one under “i”.
43. Lyn 43

    26 April 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Well – not that your comment has any relevance to the Danish boobs video. I’d say you’re going to have put up a detailed, explicit argument right here and now to explain what you mean, no one’s going to read it, and this thread has died in the arse.

    And you do realise that calling me deary makes you sound like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Judy Garland Wizard of Oz, don’t you?
44. spanner 44

    26 April 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Lyn – I am not the Witched Witch that has scattered all the thistle seeds.
45. woppo 45

    26 April 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Offensive? More dorky ‘n dumb. Perfectly understandable that noted children’s entertainer The Blessed Virgin DPF finds this antediluvian tosh a bit of a giggle, but surprised to discover that beneath his lawyerly exterior Franks is just another sad little dweeb.
46. Lyn 46

    26 April 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Spanner – still going down the obscure path there. My previous comment stands.
47. burt 47

    26 April 2008 at 10:44 pm

    Offensive…

    Steve I think you need to get some perspective. But I really don’t want to discourage you from posting on things other than John Key so …

    Great post, yes should be banned, corrupting our children and immoral.

    Perhaps we could get together and call ourselves the exclusive moralists and start a campaign against bare breasts and enforcing speed limits. You might need to start your campaign next year as this is an election year and any marketing or promotion you do will get you all tangled up in the EFA. If you post your bank account details on here I’ll make an anonymous donation to our cause.
48. Robinsod 48

    27 April 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Um fools, it was a tory that complained to the Herald.
49. Sceptic 49

    27 April 2008 at 12:52 pm

    You guys are completely right. Farrar has made a whole lot of mistakes and had his share of failures.

    The reason he gets some level of respect from people who don’t agree with his politics is because he puts his own real name out there and lets people judge his opinions with full knowledge of his failures which are now very public. So when Farrar blogs on strategy for candidates people can take it with a grain of salt if they like because of his association with the failed Blumksy campaign.

    The problem with this blog is that we have no idea who any of you guys or girls are – so we just have opinions from anonymous bloggers with no insight as to whether or not you’ve ever had any successful or unsuccessful forays into politics.

    Farrar may be wrong a lot, he’s also failed but at least he puts his own name to his opinions.
50. Draco TB 50

    27 April 2008 at 1:42 pm

    This thread is hilarious 😀

    To the RWNJ:
    The article written by SP isn’t complaining about Franks putting a video up on his website that shows a bit of flesh. They’re just pointing out that franks made a large political mistake. The person who wrote to the NZHerald and the National party to complain (and which brought the issue to national prominence was a National voter.
51. Queenofthorns 51

    27 April 2008 at 2:27 pm

    How bloody typical – the misogyny-defenders start screaming that “You hate nipples!” and “It’s just a joke”. How hilarious! Now as soon as it’s equal numbers female AND male nipples, and the entire thing isn’t predicated on a) teehee naked girls, how NAUGHTY, b) women only get paid attention when they’re sexually available, and c) lol stupid Europeans … sure, it might start to be funny.
52. Steve Pierson 52

    27 April 2008 at 2:48 pm

    This post is about two things: misogyny and poor poltiical judgement.

    The video isn’t exactly the most explicit material one can find on the net but it is material that many people will find offensive. Of course, the Kiwiblog Right cannot understand that many women, and men, are unhappy seeing women being objectified as they are in the vid.

    The political misjudgement, however, is the bigger sin (and the reason that I didn’t comment on the vid in and of itself, only once there was a Herald article): if you’re Franks or Farrar and you like looking at boobs and the most accessible boobs are heavily pixilated ones on the internet, then look at them in the privacy of your own home, but as you’re a political figure, don’t put that material up on your political website. And certainly don’t refuse to take it down when people are offended, and certainly don’t have yourself appear in the country’s biggest newspaper defending material that is porngraphic and exploitative.

    Amatuer, amatuer stuff and another exmaple of really poor judgement from these two. No wonder Farrar is on the outer in the Nats.

    Notice how he’s becoming more and more of a clipping service with very little insider material? That’s because he’s been cut out of the loop due to his continuing displays of poor judgement. Problem for National is he’s the best operative they have.
53. Brett Dale 53

    27 April 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Why would it have to be equal number on men and woman’s nipples for?

    In terms of what level it is on, I’m guessing it depends on the viewer.

    Take the brilliant programme “The Office” with Ricky Gervais. The humor of David Brent was sexist and bigoted, and some people may find part of that funny, others would understand the point him and Merchant were trying to make. Its each to their own.

    I don’t think there needs to be an equal amount of men and woman’s nipples to make it okay. As for saying he meant women only get paid attention when they’re sexually available, I dont think he meant that.

    Heck, lighten up!
54. Brett Dale 54

    27 April 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Steve:

    They are breasts for godness sake? Thats all! Why is it bad political judgment to have them on your website? This is really false outrage from the left.

    If a female politician wants to have a pic of a guys butt to make a point, I wouldn’t care less. You should vote for someone because of their policies, not because of a picture on a website.
55. Steve Pierson 55

    27 April 2008 at 3:11 pm

    The question is not whether it is somehow ‘objectively’ offensive but whether enough people will find it offensive that there will be negative poltiical ramfications.

    It’s bad political judgement to say to half (actually something like 55%) of voters: ‘you’re role is to give me sexual thrills’. some of them will be pissed off and that’s support and your political reputation you’re throwing away. all to post to boobs on your site. It’s not worth it.
56. lprent 56

    27 April 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Steve: Get a copy of the Herald On Sunday. You’re famous for a day.
57. Steve Pierson 57

    27 April 2008 at 3:12 pm

    sweet. cheers lynn.
58. Policy Parrot 58

    27 April 2008 at 3:17 pm

    “You should vote for someone because of their policies”

    Couldn’t agree more –

    But the problem is Brett, instead of putting up National’s policies, Franks put this up. I really want to know National’s policies but they aren’t there – so I’ll have to vote on this.
59. Brett Dale 59

    27 April 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Steve:

    You are aware, that most woman probably couldn’t give two hoots about the video on his webpage, the people who were offended by it, wouldnt be the type of people who would vote for him.

    In the career path I have taken, 80% of my coworkers are female, they would just laugh it off, and if they liked his policies would vote for him.
60. Brett Dale 60

    27 April 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Policyparrot:

    Just go to National’s website to find out their policies, but hey if want to judge this guy by a video of topless woman then that is your right.
61. roger nome 61

    27 April 2008 at 3:52 pm

    “How hilarious! Now as soon as it’s equal numbers female AND male nipples, and the entire thing isn’t predicated on a) teehee naked girls, how NAUGHTY, b) women only get paid attention when they’re sexually available, and c) lol stupid Europeans sure, it might start to be funny.”

    “queenofthorns” makes a good point. It’s not about the female nudity nudity – it’s about the representation of women’s sexuality that matters – in DPF’s video the women are seen as valuable only for their boobs and appealing to be sexually available – they’re not active or empowered – they’re just there as “tits”.

    Now the video I’m about to post, contains some pretty race costumes is completely different – the women are totally empowered – belting out some good old dirty rock and roll. There’s also a pretty good looking guy that’s partially nude standing as an equal by the female lead vocalist/guitarist.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70_8r_b-J2U
62. roger nome 62

    27 April 2008 at 4:11 pm

    BTW sorry about the grammar – still a little jaded from last night.
63. Linda Axford 63

    27 April 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Steve, you’ve provided a very humourous post regarding DPF’s ego and immaturity. These ‘girlie’ posts of his became tiring and embarrassing long ago and I hardly read kiwiblog anymore.
    Funny too, how defensive and rude he can become (calling people bastards and wankers) when someone doesn’t agree with him. As someone pointed out, what does he do in the real world where he can’t dish out ‘demerit points’?
    But, keep it up DPF, we all need a good laugh (at you) now and then!

    aladin
64. Anita 64

    27 April 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Brett,

    I’m not convinced that you’re right about the attitude of NZ women. I live in Wellington Central, and many of the people I know that I’d consider swing voters would at least roll their eyes and think a little less of Franks for this.

    I don’t think it’ll be the issue that stops them voting for him (partly because it’s so far out from the election), but if this is representative of how he’s going to present himself to the electorate he will miss out on a number of those swing voters. I know a number of people who are already saying they may list vote National but Franks is too socially conservative for them.

    The question that interestes me is “What was Franks thinking?” What is the game plan that this would be a sensible part of?

    Recaptcha: serious angle
65. Santi 65

    27 April 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Linda, are you a feminist wearing a moustache?
    Hard to envisage you any other way 🙂
66. randal 66

    27 April 2008 at 7:46 pm

    santi…are you still beating your wife?
67. Absolute Power 67

    27 April 2008 at 7:53 pm

    Randal what a nasty thing to say.Are you a High Priestess in the local witches coven?
68. randal 68

    27 April 2008 at 8:12 pm

    no Absolute Power…thats tame to what the rightwing nasties come out with. I thought it was quite apposite in the context of this discussion. Are you still beating your wife AP?
69. Absolute Power 69

    27 April 2008 at 8:18 pm

    randal, what a foul mouthed character you are.Do you pride yourself on asking cruel questions from the anonymity and comfort zone of your computer. Walk into a public bar and say that to a group of men. I will visit you in the ward later.Learn some manners you horrible little creep.
70. randal 70

    27 April 2008 at 8:42 pm

    take your cheap moral indignation and shove it where the sun dont shine. You are justa typical right wing fraud and I take no notice of you…and stop drinking!
71. Santi 71

    27 April 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Randal, I feel sorry for you limp-wristed delicate thing.

    Muster some courage and for once say express your opinion instead of repeating cliches and inanities.
72. randal 72

    27 April 2008 at 9:08 pm

    ah my little infantilised hot house flowers affronted by a bit of strong language…grow up! gosh go and tell your mummy that somebody was rude to you wah wah wah… and you can feel sorry for what ever you like cause I dont give a stuff and the more you carry on the more I laugh….hahahahahahaha
73. Absolute Power 73

    27 April 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Santi this guy or gal is mad as a March Hare.
74. Queenofthorns 74

    27 April 2008 at 9:39 pm

    Oh, Brett. “They’re just breasts!”? Spoken like a man who’s never been sexually harassed. When the rest of the world thinks they’re “just” breasts (as opposed to “not attached to a real woman” or “open for groping” or “excuses for ogling”) … well, I’m pretty sure you won’t have a point even then.
75. Brett Dale 75

    27 April 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Hey men have breasts too, your looking too deeply into things.I’m pretty sure a lot of straight woman would of seen a cute guy walking down the street or a cute guy in their office and think, well he looks good! there is nothing wrong with that.

    I’m sure they don’t say to themselves “I better admire the man attached to that body, otherwise I’m being sexist”

    Its human nature, and I agree with you, sexual harassment is disgusting, but if a woman does it, nothing is done.
76. Phil 76

    27 April 2008 at 10:40 pm

    No-one’s mentioned this yet;

    Wellington Central is an electorate with a large proportion of young male voters…
77. Lyn 77

    27 April 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Well – ok – but consider the bad press the party is getting. That’s gotta hurt more than just Wellington Central.
78. Anita 78

    28 April 2008 at 8:35 am

    Phil,

    Are the young male voters of Wgtn Central the swing voters that Franks needs to attract?
79. Brett Dale 79

    28 April 2008 at 9:01 am

    Lyn:

    This is not going to hurt National at all, in Wellington Central or anywhere else.

    The only people who really seem to be worried about it, are a few posters here on this website.
80. James Kearney 80

    28 April 2008 at 9:10 am

    The only people who really seem to be worried about it, are a few posters here on this website.

    and the New Zealand Herald.
81. randal 81

    28 April 2008 at 9:10 am

    Franks has breasts on the brain…must either be compensation for being deprived of enough to drink or time on the breast as an infant or no proper exposure to reality as an infant…either way his regressive procliivities are on full display with his obsessive desire to get even…for something! and the few posters on this site who carry the standard for decency are rather puzzled at how the anti’s can be so dismissive of this site yet spend so much time trying to negate it…so which is it?
82. Phil 82

    28 April 2008 at 9:16 am

    Anita,

    Yes, they probably are one group that could be called swing voters…

    Captcha; “Santa Taxed”
    Is nothing sacred and tax free to this government?!
83. Phil 83

    28 April 2008 at 9:22 am

    Randal,

    You are a fuck-tard. Your capacity for thought and intelligent comment is right up there with D4J. I cannot recall a single instance of useful posting from you.

    Why you haven’t been booted from this site is a mystery to me…
84. Anita 84

    28 April 2008 at 9:52 am

    Phil,

    Hm… I’m kinda surprised that young men would look like a potential swing group to National. National seems to be focussing very hard on “middle NZ”, middle class and upper working class families who may have traditionally voted left but can be convinced that Labour has abandoned them.

    I know National needs to do as good a job as ever of picking up young men, but I haven’t seen any signals that they think it’s the area of potential swing that’ll win them the election.
85. randal 85

    28 April 2008 at 10:04 am

    keep going phil..your endless shrieking fools no one. being affronted by the truth is a sure sign of immaturity unless its just a troll pretending…howzat!
86. Phil 86

    28 April 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Anita,

    I don’t know if this is a National campaign strategy, or just Franks. I suspect the latter.
    However, National has always viewed young voters as being ‘theirs’ until being usurped by the Greens relatively recently. It would not suprise me in the slightest to see them actively try to woo back support
87. the bean 87

    28 April 2008 at 3:45 pm

    the funniest quote of the day must go to Brett Dale for this beauty

    “The humor of David Brent was sexist and bigoted, and some people may find part of that funny, others would understand the point him and Merchant were trying to make. Its each to their own.”

    Is that the point of the office? Each to their own? Here was stoopid boob-owning little me thinking the point of the Office was the humour of discomfort. David Brent is so painfully awful he is humourous. He is an example of everything that is so moronic about people like him…who still think naked women wobbling their boobs is funny or clever.
88. Robinsod 88

    28 April 2008 at 3:54 pm

    I guess you just brought too much irony to your understanding of the office bean. Well you and every other office fan. Imagine – we must have been wrong all along…
89. Ted 89

    28 April 2008 at 11:11 pm

    http://bp2.blogger.com/_pPJCTZCK8js/SBWnlRPiPUI/AAAAAAAAAH0/YUnM_0VXBeE/s1600-h/Eugène_Delacroix_-_La_liberté_guidant_le_peuple+copy.jpg Thought you guys might find this funny, it’s how I imagine the French revolution would have gone down if Franks and Farrar were leading the charge.
90. Wayne 90

    28 April 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Heh.

Links to post

1. Clem Simich stepping down at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 28 April 2008 at 3:19 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS