When will Winston be able to declare Victory!Will you ever stop your defamatory remarks? Watch out old bean, someobody one day will have haf=d enough of that.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
Will you ever stop your defamatory remarks? Watch out old bean, someobody one >day will have haf=d enough of that.
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
I take it you do not know the answer . . .Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions .Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
rhetoric.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
he is from National, not NZ First.
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating
party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being
responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of
Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part
of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to
sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is
Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was
a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure
ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that
Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far -
he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have
been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42
billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it
was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party,
and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to
support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be
Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay
off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomesWhy do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if
that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the
phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>acceptable to you, Crash?
Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions .
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first
sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
rhetoric.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because
he is from National, not NZ First.
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban onWhy do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes
- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if
that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the
phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be
acceptable to you, Crash?
Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions .
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first
sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on
pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes
- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if
that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT,
Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the
phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be
acceptable to you, Crash?
Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions .
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
rhetoric.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
he is from National, not NZ First.
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating
party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being
responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of
Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part
of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to
sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is
Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was
a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure
ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that
Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far -
he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have
been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42
billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it
was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party,
and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to
support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be
Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay
off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomesWhy do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if
that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the
phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>acceptable to you, Crash?
Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions .
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first
sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:See my response at the end of the message.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
rhetoric.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
he is from National, not NZ First.
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >>parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating
party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being
responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of
Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part
of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to
sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is
Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was
a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure
ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that
Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far -
he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have
been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42
billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it
was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >>agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party,
and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to
support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be >>Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay
off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomesWhy do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if
that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the
phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>>acceptable to you, Crash?
Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now?
Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions . >>>>. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless?
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first
sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
Rich your last response proves my point although indirectly. You
introduce more irrelevancies in your quest to drag the coalition into >political disrepute. Your decision not to respond to my last point
above is understandable, but by implication your motivation in
starting the thread remains rooted in political rhetoric rather than >political debate.
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:55:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:See my response at the end of the message.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>>>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political >>>>rhetoric.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for >>>>>you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>>>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because >>>>he is from National, not NZ First.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >>>parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating
party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being >>>responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of >>>Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part
of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to
sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is >>>Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was
a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure
ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that
Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far -
he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have >>>been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42
billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it
was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >>>agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party,
and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to
support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be >>>Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay
off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes >>>>>- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if >>>>>that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the >>>>>phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>>>acceptable to you, Crash?Why do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now? >>>>>Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash? >>>>>>
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless? >>>>>Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions . >>>>>. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>>>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first >>>>sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
Rich your last response proves my point although indirectly. You
introduce more irrelevancies in your quest to drag the coalition into >>political disrepute. Your decision not to respond to my last point
above is understandable, but by implication your motivation in
starting the thread remains rooted in political rhetoric rather than >>political debate.
I did miss your comment above in which you asked if I had read the
article. Apart from being a gratuitous insult, which I have to say you
do not often descend to, of course I had.
Whether the first sentence was "Questions have been asked over what
the coalition means when it says it will end Covid-19 vaccine
mandates, which were scrapped by the previous government in 2022.
Photo: AFP.com - RNZ / Composite image RNZ", or
"The coalition is still trying to work out how it will meet its pledge
to end all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, given the government mandates
were scrapped more than 1.5 years ago."
the import of both were to point out that Winston Peters was either
through ignorance, or more likely deliberately ignoring facts to
pander to the ant-everything nutters that he courted during the
election - to be continuing that stance is a weird right-wing form of "wokeness" as it is understood by many - "political correctness"
distorted as a political tool.
Such distortions of the truth are not uncommon for this government;
Simeon Brown was caught with clearly not understanding information
recently - see https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/15/transpower-takes-blame-for-simeon-browns-misleading-chart/
and there have been many other similar incidents.
If the government spent a bit more time dealing with issues instead of attacking the previous government we may not be in as bad a situation
as we are clearly in . . .
On 2024-05-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:55:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Crash, you may rest your case.
wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:See my response at the end of the message.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>>>>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political >>>>>rhetoric.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for >>>>>>you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>>>>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because >>>>>he is from National, not NZ First.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article? >>>>>>
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >>>>parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating >>>>party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being >>>>responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of >>>>Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part >>>>of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to >>>>sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is >>>>Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was >>>>a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure >>>>ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that >>>>Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far - >>>>he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have >>>>been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42 >>>>billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it >>>>was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >>>>agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party, >>>>and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to >>>>support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be >>>>Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay >>>>off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>>>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes >>>>>>- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if >>>>>>that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>>>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the >>>>>>phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>>>>acceptable to you, Crash?Why do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now? >>>>>>Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash? >>>>>>>
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless? >>>>>>Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions . >>>>>>. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>>>>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first >>>>>sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
Rich your last response proves my point although indirectly. You >>>introduce more irrelevancies in your quest to drag the coalition into >>>political disrepute. Your decision not to respond to my last point
above is understandable, but by implication your motivation in
starting the thread remains rooted in political rhetoric rather than >>>political debate.
I did miss your comment above in which you asked if I had read the
article. Apart from being a gratuitous insult, which I have to say you
do not often descend to, of course I had.
Whether the first sentence was "Questions have been asked over what
the coalition means when it says it will end Covid-19 vaccine
mandates, which were scrapped by the previous government in 2022.
Photo: AFP.com - RNZ / Composite image RNZ", or
"The coalition is still trying to work out how it will meet its pledge
to end all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, given the government mandates
were scrapped more than 1.5 years ago."
the import of both were to point out that Winston Peters was either
through ignorance, or more likely deliberately ignoring facts to
pander to the ant-everything nutters that he courted during the
election - to be continuing that stance is a weird right-wing form of
"wokeness" as it is understood by many - "political correctness"
distorted as a political tool.
Such distortions of the truth are not uncommon for this government;
Simeon Brown was caught with clearly not understanding information
recently - see
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/15/transpower-takes-blame-for-simeon-browns-misleading-chart/
and there have been many other similar incidents.
If the government spent a bit more time dealing with issues instead of
attacking the previous government we may not be in as bad a situation
as we are clearly in . . .
Ignorance can be cured, foolishness, not so much.
You know when you think about it, it is the swing voters who create the >income out of the elections. The rest, who ever party they are on/with just >repeat and repeat the same old behaviour.
Thus blessed is the swing voter, for without them there would be no change.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 04:56:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyMuch of what you wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
Will you ever stop your defamatory remarks? Watch out old bean, someobody one >>day will have haf=d enough of that.
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
What did you think was defamatory, Tony?
On 17 May 2024 02:39:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Absolute bullshit,. Every word a lie.
On 2024-05-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:55:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Crash, you may rest your case.
wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:See my response at the end of the message.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>>>>>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political >>>>>>rhetoric.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for >>>>>>>you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question? >>>>>>>
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>>>>>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because >>>>>>he is from National, not NZ First.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article? >>>>>>>
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >>>>>parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being >>>>>in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating >>>>>party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being >>>>>responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of >>>>>Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part >>>>>of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to >>>>>sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is >>>>>Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was >>>>>a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure >>>>>ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that >>>>>Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on >>>>>phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far - >>>>>he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being >>>>>able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and >>>>>all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education >>>>>policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have >>>>>been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42 >>>>>billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it >>>>>was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >>>>>agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party, >>>>>and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to >>>>>support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be >>>>>Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay >>>>>off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>>>>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes >>>>>>>- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if >>>>>>>that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>>>>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the >>>>>>>phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>>>>>acceptable to you, Crash?Why do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now? >>>>>>>Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash? >>>>>>>>
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless? >>>>>>>Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions . >>>>>>>. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>>>>>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first >>>>>>sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
Rich your last response proves my point although indirectly. You >>>>introduce more irrelevancies in your quest to drag the coalition into >>>>political disrepute. Your decision not to respond to my last point >>>>above is understandable, but by implication your motivation in
starting the thread remains rooted in political rhetoric rather than >>>>political debate.
I did miss your comment above in which you asked if I had read the
article. Apart from being a gratuitous insult, which I have to say you
do not often descend to, of course I had.
Whether the first sentence was "Questions have been asked over what
the coalition means when it says it will end Covid-19 vaccine
mandates, which were scrapped by the previous government in 2022.
Photo: AFP.com - RNZ / Composite image RNZ", or
"The coalition is still trying to work out how it will meet its pledge
to end all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, given the government mandates
were scrapped more than 1.5 years ago."
the import of both were to point out that Winston Peters was either
through ignorance, or more likely deliberately ignoring facts to
pander to the ant-everything nutters that he courted during the
election - to be continuing that stance is a weird right-wing form of
"wokeness" as it is understood by many - "political correctness"
distorted as a political tool.
Such distortions of the truth are not uncommon for this government;
Simeon Brown was caught with clearly not understanding information
recently - see
and there have been many other similar incidents.https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/15/transpower-takes-blame-for-simeon-browns-misleading-chart/
If the government spent a bit more time dealing with issues instead of
attacking the previous government we may not be in as bad a situation
as we are clearly in . . .
Ignorance can be cured, foolishness, not so much.
You know when you think about it, it is the swing voters who create the >>income out of the elections. The rest, who ever party they are on/with just >>repeat and repeat the same old behaviour.
Thus blessed is the swing voter, for without them there would be no change.
Which is of course why all political parties attempt to capture "swing >voters" - with both ACT and NZ First both courting those that hold
extremist views regarding vaccines, actions taken to reduce infections
and deaths from Covid, and climate change - ACT through organising
campaigns based on misinformation about Covid and 3 Waters; Winston
Peters through misinformaton about Covid, vaccinations and Mandates.
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:55:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>One which you use often.
wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:See my response at the end of the message.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:30:41 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 21:02:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:None on this subject. The value of this thread is not Winston or the >>>>article, but the platform it gives you to indulge in political >>>>rhetoric.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Is "Will Winston be able to declare Victory?" more interesting for >>>>>you, Crash? Alternatively what would be a more riveting question?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516832/questions-about-coalition-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-pledge
When will Winston be able to declare Victory!
Not the most riveting question.
Yes. The first sentence is all that was needed. The issue raised is >>>>clearly a non-issue. There is nothing for Reti to respond to because >>>>he is from National, not NZ First.
Is Shane Reti holding up the announcement?
Why?
Because it has been referred to him - did you not read the article?
I share your view, Crash - this is not a true coalition, but a trio of >>>parties agreeing to some support for whatever they insisted on being
in the 'coalition' agreement, while largely leaving that initiating
party to be responsible for drafting the legislation and being >>>responsible for selling the policy to the public, regardless of >>>Ministerial responsibilities. Thus while vaccines may normally be part
of the responsibility of the Health Minister, it is for NZ First to
sell the changes it wants to the public. An illustration of that is >>>Charter Schools - National and NZ First are luke-warm on that - it was
a disaster last time and likely to be again, but they are making sure
ACT will be seen as responsible for the failure - but within that
Seymour has been able to kick back a bit by rejecting the ban on
phones for those schools - clearly he believes National went too far -
he may even believe that there is an advantage for pupils in being
able to have phones in some circumstances - but Charter schools and
all that he wants to put with them is ACT policy, not Education
policy, just as the pro-smoking policy was NZ Firsts - and there have >>>been no repercussions from Costello not telling Cabinet about $42
billion of savings in the future from leaving Labour's policy as it
was. I agree with you that the parties are regarding the "coalition >>>agreements" as assigning certain policies to their originating party,
and of course that agreement also binds the other two parties to
support whatever the originating party comes up with. Luxon got to be >>>Prime Minister - nothing else matters. Seymour and Peters got to pay
off supporters - Shane Jones is happy as a pig in muck . . .
I take it you do not know the answer . . .
Will Seymour insist that Charter Schools can impose mandates?
You take it wrongly. I ignored your question.
I do find it interesting that Luxon appears to believe that a ban on >>>>>pupils having phones in school will lead to better education outcomes >>>>>- Seymour appears to believe that there will be better outcomes if >>>>>that is left to individual schools and teachers. Perhaps between ACT, >>>>>Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori they can force a reversal of the >>>>>phones in schools ban and adopt the ACT position - would that be >>>>>acceptable to you, Crash?Why do you think I would respond to idiotic questions like that?
Will Hipkins concede that the mandates should be abolished now? >>>>>Which of the mandates do you think it most urgent to abolish, Crash? >>>>>>
Will Luxon be allowed to say anything?
Will Rich concede that his political rhetoric is worthless? >>>>>Political rhetoric? Hardly, I have just asked a few simple questions . >>>>>. . which some appear to find hard to answer . . .
You completely missed my point. Did you read the article? Did you >>>>understand the first sentence? If you did understand the first >>>>sentence how did you decide a thread on this subject was warranted?
Rich your last response proves my point although indirectly. You
introduce more irrelevancies in your quest to drag the coalition into >>political disrepute. Your decision not to respond to my last point
above is understandable, but by implication your motivation in
starting the thread remains rooted in political rhetoric rather than >>political debate.
I did miss your comment above in which you asked if I had read the
article. Apart from being a gratuitous insult
, which I have to say you
do not often descend to, of course I had.
Whether the first sentence was "Questions have been asked over what
the coalition means when it says it will end Covid-19 vaccine
mandates, which were scrapped by the previous government in 2022.
Photo: AFP.com - RNZ / Composite image RNZ", or
"The coalition is still trying to work out how it will meet its pledge
to end all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, given the government mandates
were scrapped more than 1.5 years ago."
the import of both were to point out that Winston Peters was either
through ignorance, or more likely deliberately ignoring facts to
pander to the ant-everything nutters that he courted during the
election - to be continuing that stance is a weird right-wing form of >"wokeness" as it is understood by many - "political correctness"
distorted as a political tool.
Such distortions of the truth are not uncommon for this government;
Simeon Brown was caught with clearly not understanding information
recently - see >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/15/transpower-takes-blame-for-simeon-browns-misleading-chart/
and there have been many other similar incidents.
If the government spent a bit more time dealing with issues instead of >attacking the previous government we may not be in as bad a situation
as we are clearly in . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:32:41 |
| Calls: | 9,785 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,187,729 |