Luxon - Printable Version

Luxon - Printable Version

+- Too Many Message Boards (http://tmmb.mywire.org)
+-- Forum: General Topics (http://tmmb.mywire.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Opinion and Politics (http://tmmb.mywire.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=75)
+--- Thread: Luxon (/showthread.php?tid=1239)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: Luxon - Lilith7 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 01:09 PM)Olive Wrote: Bottom feeder =┬á an opportunist who seeks quick profit usually at the expense of others or from their misfortune.

My take on it is that Luxon, while having many media advisors and speech writers, is badly tone deaf when it comes to slang and metaphors. He's used to getting away with vague meaningless talk, and in this instance was trying for a dogwhistle and it has┬á backfired.

That could well be it - he just grabbed at a much used term without stopping to consider any possible consequences of using that particular term.

Perhaps not the best idea for any politician to use derogatory┬á terms if possible, since it could be seen as creating an 'us & them' situation.

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 26-03-2022

regardless of what he was referring to, the writer has purposely mis-represented it.
no amount of ifs and buts can change that.
we all read the same article did we not?
please show me where mr luxon included those folks in his comments?

if you cannot, then unfortunately you are just going to have to suck it up and admit the piece is not only insincere in its intent but manipulative and malicious piece of gutter journalism.

trying to explain away the writers tawdry fantasy on this forum is to be expected, but to parrot it as verbatim fact to use against someone (politician or not) is cowardly and crass.

i think you all know it to be a piece of rubbish, but cannot get past your partisan blind faith to see or admit it.
would be better if you did, because endorsing it just makes you party to it, and doesnt display much in the way of critical thinking. not unlike someone who believes in conspiracy theories is it?
not all that good of a look.

RE: Luxon - Lilith7 - 26-03-2022

While the writer may have misrepresented it, the important point is that Luxon did not take the time to specify exactly WHO he was referring to by using the term, which has allowed various conclusions to be drawn.
I shouldn't think this is the first writer to grab something from a politician & give it their own interpretation & that's made all the easier when politicians aren't specific when using terms like this.

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 02:19 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: While the writer may have misrepresented it, the important point is that Luxon did not take the time to specify exactly WHO he was referring to by using the term, which has allowed various conclusions to be drawn.
I shouldn't think this is the first writer to grab something from a politician & give it their own interpretation & that's made all the easier when politicians aren't specific when using terms like this.

exactly the point I think but┬ápersonally I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a misrepresentation, that would imply deliberately┬á stating something as fact that is not.┬á This is not the case, Luxon left it open, without explaining...┬á┬á

i would suggest the writer interpreted the statement the way he saw it, and clearly the way many others have as well...

From the party conference in January...
"What we have to demonstrate to the New Zealand people is that we care deeply about themÔÇØ - a classic Tui advert

ÔÇ£We care deeply about the vulnerable and the poor that are consigned to welfare for the rest of their lives,ÔÇØ Luxon said. ÔÇ£It just can't be that we are the party for the economic stuff.ÔÇØ

I mean seriously, you just can't be using terminology like bottom feeders when you "care deeply about the vulnerable and the poor" and expect to be taken seriously...┬á┬á

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 26-03-2022

still cant see past it huh?
gonna keep on the defending the fibber and his fibs?

i will remember this next time ms ardern has trouble stringing together a sentence.
vitriol and venom towards politicians is ok at TMMB, even when based on blatant untruths.

my next thread will include mr gayford, and his many supposed escapades, which we are going to treat as fact, as this thread has opened the gate to scurrilous gossip and partisan blindness as political discourse.

i would have thought one forum like that was enough for this country?

i would also charge mr campbell as being a bottom feeder
just another member of the gutter press manufacturing news, lining his pockets with falsehoods and innuendo.
now that sounds like a bottom feeder to me

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 02:55 PM)Magoo Wrote: still cant see past it huh?
gonna keep on the defending the fibber and his fibs?

i will remember this next time ms ardern has trouble stringing together a sentence.
vitriol and venom towards politicians is ok at TMMB, even when based on blatant untruths.

my next thread will include mr gayford, and his many supposed escapades, which we are going to treat as fact, as this thread has opened the gate to scurrilous gossip and partisan blindness as political discourse.

i would have thought one forum like that was enough for this country?

i would also charge mr campbell as being a bottom feeder
just another member of the gutter press manufacturing news, lining his pockets with falsehoods and innuendo.
now that sounds like a bottom feeder to me

I think I just see it differently from you Magoo... There is no denying he said the words, and if you believe this paragraph

Quote:On┬áMorning Report┬áthis morning Luxon indicated that by ÔÇ£ bottom feedingÔÇØ he was referring to people on benefits. He tried to sugar coat that statement by conceding that most of them were law abiding, and played by the rules, before condemning theÔÇ£ negativeÔÇØ focus on assisting such people ÔÇô allegedly at the expense of middle New Zealand.

Then there is little doubt Luxon is referring to beneficiaries.┬á If this statement was made up then it would probably be a defamation case.

There is more than a┬ákernel┬áof truth to it (which is more than could be said of the claims about Mr Gayford), it's all on the record, only the interpretation is different and it is every journalists right in a free democracy to report the facts as they see them... But as usual everyone is probably viewing it through their own pair of rose tinted specs, including myself...

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

and where is the "vitriol and venom towards politicians?", or the "blatant untruths".

Surely you're not holding us responsible for stuff that is posted elsewhere?

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 26-03-2022

yes, blatant untruths.
he based his whole diatribe on the first two paragraphs which were just not true.
do you think he did it by mistake?.
we can argue what mr luxon 'meant' all day long, what the writer wrote bears no discussion, its there in print.
thats who the writer thinks are bottom feeders. supermarket stockers, dental hygienists. ffs
what mr luxon thinks is up for speculation, and you can argue it until the cows come home.
but it will only be that, speculation.
the writer is succinct in who he thinks are bottom feeders.

heres some high minded thoughts on venom and vitriol for you.

https://tmmb.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?tid=1226&highlight=vitriol

and what is posted elsewhere is not what i want to see posted here,
a bunch of one sided fantasy hit pieces disguised as political discourse. why not throw in a couple of anonymous tweets and a meme to top it off?

it is not about policy, it is not about character, it is gossip, and no different at all to what is said about mr gayford, none
whats good for the goose..

there is more truth in saying ms ardern has a horse face
than in what mr campbell has speculated about what mr luxon intentions

i dont think theres a place for either comment, but im happy to abide and play along too
i thought it was off the menu, just in the name of decency if nowt else

[Removed: Rule 2F]

anything goes?

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

while I consider your previous post Magoo...

What exactly do you think Mr Luxon meant when he was referring to bottom feeders? and why is it not OK for folks to speculate on what he meant? Mr Luxon opened the door on this one...

RE: Luxon - Lilith7 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 02:55 PM)Magoo Wrote: still cant see past it huh?
gonna keep on the defending the fibber and his fibs?

i will remember this next time ms ardern has trouble stringing together a sentence.
vitriol and venom towards politicians is ok at TMMB, even when based on blatant untruths.

my next thread will include mr gayford, and his many supposed escapades, which we are going to treat as fact, as this thread has opened the gate to scurrilous gossip and partisan blindness as political discourse.

i would have thought one forum like that was enough for this country?

i would also charge mr campbell as being a bottom feeder
just another member of the gutter press manufacturing news, lining his pockets with falsehoods and innuendo.
now that sounds like a bottom feeder to me

We all see things differently sometimes, & that isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a different view. Wink

And Luxon is a novice politician, who will surely make mistakes as he gets used to being leader of the Nats; this may count as his first, depending on point of view but using such a derogatory┬áterm without defining who's meant just isn't an especially good idea.

RE: Luxon - Wainuiguy - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 12:35 PM)king1 Wrote:
(26-03-2022, 11:28 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:
Bottom feeders Is derogatory you are right.┬á But then he is referring to that small section of NZ society who prey on others.┬á And that just isn't the poor - in fact in most instances isn't the poor at all.┬á Payday loans companies, shopping trucks, businesses who bring in foreign workers and then treat them like slaves (and worse they often bring in their own people to do it to), criminals, gangs.┬á These are the bottom feeders people know and recognise.┬á The author tried badly to lump in working poor into that and worse nurses who would likely be more middle class workers.┬á That shows how the author thinks- not Luxon.
Then he┬á starts quoting the┬áBible in┬áan effort to make┬áout Luxon isn't a "real" Christian.
That's just bollocks Wainuiguy... you're seriously trying to spin this as if he were referring to less than reputable businesses?

Quote:we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom, we focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious and aspirational and confident, right?"┬á ┬á
National leader - Christopher Luxon

I think the reference to "PEOPLE " makes it very clear he is NOT referring┬áto businesses ,┬ábut PEOPLE - basically all┬áthose┬áwho are NOT a poster child for the National Party enrolment campaign (that would be the "positive┬áand ambitious┬áand┬áaspirational and confident")

If anything, that description┬áprobably describes better than anything┬áthe very people running those┬á┬á"Payday loans companies, shopping trucks, businesses who bring in foreign workers┬á" - you could also add in, predatory to mix for that lot though...┬á┬á

If I was to have a guess at what he intended, it was a dig at Labour and their support base that went spectacularly wrong...

Once again you miss the point .┬á I wasn't saying he said that because he didn't.┬á That was me saying bottom feeders can apply to many not just "the poor" as tge article suggested he meant.

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 04:32 PM)king1 Wrote: while I consider your previous post Magoo...┬á

What exactly do you think Mr Luxon meant when he was referring to bottom feeders?┬á and why is it not OK for folks to speculate on what he meant? Mr Luxon opened the door on this one...

what i think is not relevant.
my point is not what mr luxon said or meant
its what mr campbell said and meant, dressed up as mr luxons statement.
i think they call it 'gaslighting'. i still call it lying, old fashioned like that.
you keep going back to what he meant or what he implied as some sort of defence, its not relevant to the argument, he didnt say it, mr campbell took it upon himself to say it for him.

when you censor my posts like that kingi i cant remember what i said so dont know for next time.
something about horseface, crack and mr gayfords proclivities being allowed now that weve opened the slur gate on public figures? blunt but accurate, sorry, i shouldnt have pointed it out that was mean.

should not the op of this thread had the rider attached about misinformation contained herein?

Quote:king

If I was to have a guess at what he intended, it was a dig at Labour and their support base that went spectacularly wrong

thats exactly what happened.

its hard to say labours support base are a hopeless bunch losers waiting for a handout in a nice way.
he should have said
┬á'we will not pander to the loudest and lowest, we have labour for that, we will be focussing on the working poor, those working a 40 hour week and its not enough to survive on, let alone save on. these are the people hurting, the workers, the tax payers.'

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

I have no idea why you got such a bee in your bonnet over this Magoo... I surmise an anti labour, anti Adern, pro Nat kinda thing is obvious. Maybe the nats send out a mailer requesting the party faithful to discredit that article perhaps? IDK

and no we are not opening slur gates... the article the OP linked is an opinion piece, one person's opinion, that's all, nothing more. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on it. How the heck that can be considered misinformation I have no idea?

I'm quite certain their will be equally trashy pieces of journalism targeting Adern before the month is out, should we be banning all such content, just because it offends ones political leanings?

RE: Luxon - Wainuiguy - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 07:23 PM)king1 Wrote: I have no idea why you got such a bee in your bonnet over this Magoo... I surmise an anti labour, anti Adern, pro Nat kinda thing is obvious.┬á Maybe the nats send out a mailer requesting the party faithful to discredit that article perhaps? IDK

and no we are not opening slur gates... the article the OP linked is an opinion piece, one person's opinion, that's all, nothing more.┬á Everyone is entitled to their opinions on it.┬á How the heck that can be considered misinformation I have no idea?

I'm quite certain their will be equally trashy pieces of journalism targeting Adern before the month is out, should we be banning all such content, just because it offends ones political leanings?

The article discredits itself it doesn't need others to do the same.┬á Magoo is right here - the author has taken a few words and expanded on them with his own views then dressed them up as Luxons word.┬á He reveals himself as a bottom feeder - those defending him align themselves in the muck.

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 08:47 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:
(26-03-2022, 07:23 PM)king1 Wrote: I have no idea why you got such a bee in your bonnet over this Magoo... I surmise an anti labour, anti Adern, pro Nat kinda thing is obvious.┬á Maybe the nats send out a mailer requesting the party faithful to discredit that article perhaps? IDK

and no we are not opening slur gates... the article the OP linked is an opinion piece, one person's opinion, that's all, nothing more.┬á Everyone is entitled to their opinions on it.┬á How the heck that can be considered misinformation I have no idea?

I'm quite certain their will be equally trashy pieces of journalism targeting Adern before the month is out, should we be banning all such content, just because it offends ones political leanings?
The article discredits itself it doesn't need others to do the same.┬á Magoo is right here - the author has taken a few words and expanded on them with his own views then dressed them up as Luxons word.┬á He reveals himself as a bottom feeder - those defending him align themselves in the muck.

lol, definitely got the heckles up of the pro luxon supporters.┬á┬á
Lets ignore the fact he called a┬ágroup of New Zealand citizens bottom feeders - let's twist the words┬áaround and make it the media's fault...┬á Suck it up, he fucked up...

RE: Luxon - Wainuiguy - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 08:59 PM)king1 Wrote:
(26-03-2022, 08:47 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: The article discredits itself it doesn't need others to do the same.┬á Magoo is right here - the author has taken a few words and expanded on them with his own views then dressed them up as Luxons word.┬á He reveals himself as a bottom feeder - those defending him align themselves in the muck.
lol, definitely got the heckles up of the pro luxon supporters.┬á┬á
Lets ignore the fact he called a┬ágroup of New Zealand citizens bottom feeders - let's twist the words┬áaround and make it the media's fault...┬á Suck it up, he fucked up...

And a defender rolls in the muck.┬á Join the bottom feeder author.

RE: Luxon - king1 - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 09:38 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:
(26-03-2022, 08:59 PM)king1 Wrote: lol, definitely got the heckles up of the pro luxon supporters.┬á┬á
Lets ignore the fact he called a┬ágroup of New Zealand citizens bottom feeders - let's twist the words┬áaround and make it the media's fault...┬á Suck it up, he fucked up...
And a defender rolls in the muck.┬á Join the bottom feeder author.

lol that's just lame, accept the truth, he fucked up...

RE: Luxon - Wainuiguy - 26-03-2022

(26-03-2022, 10:35 PM)king1 Wrote:
(26-03-2022, 09:38 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: And a defender rolls in the muck.┬á Join the bottom feeder author.
accept the truth...

The truth you defend the bottom feeder?┬á Sure - truth accepted.

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 27-03-2022

you are all missing my point.
im neither pro luxon or pro ardern. i dont care for either of them, but im not going to make shit up to try and influence someone else.
im just pro fair.

i dont find mr campbells comments to be offensive, nor did i find mr luxons words offensive. just unfair.
im just keeping it real, we get all up in arms about the childish stupid shit they write about the pm,
but then to give credence to someone doing it to the leader of the opposition is just not fair.

if we cannot recognise ourselves doing something we decry in others what does that make us.?
hypocrites.

this is why i dislike partisan politics and people who fall left or right for life.
it reduces your choices to the one party you back regardless of the policy content or personality.
some of you are stuck voting only one way, which is fine but doesnt make for good governance, we do democracy because of the choices it offers. to then turn around and replace your choices with blind faith seems counter intuitive.

Quote:lillith

I mean seriously, you just can't be using terminology like bottom feeders when you "care deeply about the vulnerable and the poor" and expect to be taken seriously...

no different than saying you are the party of transparency and then do things behind closed doors and without consultation.

no different than saying we will build 10000 houses knowing full well you were going to do no such thing

no different than touting yourselves as the party of delivery, then delivering next to nothing.

what mr luxon might do is up in the air., we cannot put words in his mouth.
what ms ardern does is done. we may judge her accordingly.

Quote:king1
Lets ignore the fact he called a┬ágroup of New Zealand citizens bottom feeders - let's twist the words┬áaround and make it the media's fault...

hmmmm.
who called the west coasters 'inbred ferals?' (ms clark)
who called the protesters 'maggots' (mr mallard)
who labelled chloe swarbrick a junkie? (i cant remember lol)
who called mr robinson a fat homosexual? (i think that might have been me)

as far as i know, these are all new zealand citizens.

(26-03-2022, 07:23 PM)king1 Wrote: I have no idea why you got such a bee in your bonnet over this Magoo... I surmise an anti labour, anti Adern, pro Nat kinda thing is obvious.┬á Maybe the nats send out a mailer requesting the party faithful to discredit that article perhaps? IDK

and no we are not opening slur gates... the article the OP linked is an opinion piece, one person's opinion, that's all, nothing more.┬á Everyone is entitled to their opinions on it.┬á How the heck that can be considered misinformation I have no idea?

I'm quite certain their will be equally trashy pieces of journalism targeting Adern before the month is out, should we be banning all such content, just because it offends ones political leanings?

good god, now youre putting words in my mouth. who said anything about banning people or content?
its good that we discuss this.

it would seem that being called out for hypocrisy is ruffling some feathers. it must be because they are apolitical centrists
(see how silly that sounds when you try to make someone something they are not by inference?)
and as i have said, neither commentator said anything offensive, it was an opinion piece, based on a misrepresentation, but opinion nonetheless.
go back and have a read how this 'opinion' was presented, and how you interpreted it as fact and then commenced the shit kicking.

ive little doubt we will see hit pieces on the pm in the future.┬á
but maybe we can be fair about it instead of twisting everything up to suit a narrative.
saying someone said something they did not is misinformation, more commonly known as lies.
how is this different to mr gayfords case?

i dont have a bee in my bonnet about mr luxon or ms ardern,
i have a bee in my bonnet about us, our own credibility.
it makes us something i dont want to be.

RE: Luxon - Magoo - 27-03-2022

the piece was posted so we could discuss it.
is that not what we are doing?
im being censored and told i have a bee in my bonnet because its making someone uncomfortable.
i think that speaks more to political bias than anything ive written.

if the same thing was said about ms ardern, my reaction would be just the same.
for you its about politics, to me its about decency.
im sorry. i just call it how i see it.