Discussion:
If true, we are in trouble.
(too old to reply)
Tony
2021-05-03 00:23:25 UTC
Permalink
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Rich80105
2021-05-03 01:06:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Worth listening to:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten

Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
Tony
2021-05-03 01:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
James Christophers
2021-05-03 02:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).

However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good look.

Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)

So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy, originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?

To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180 year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to do so.

And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive** without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit it?

Anyone...?
Tony
2021-05-03 03:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.

Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Mutlley
2021-05-03 04:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Guess that's why Liebor was so keen on the gun buy back. If there was
to be an insurrection less guns to fight back with.
John Bowes
2021-05-03 04:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Guess that's why Liebor was so keen on the gun buy back. If there was
to be an insurrection less guns to fight back with.
The gangs have still got theirs.....
Mutlley
2021-05-04 23:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Guess that's why Liebor was so keen on the gun buy back. If there was
to be an insurrection less guns to fight back with.
The gangs have still got theirs.....
They were never going to be a part of the buy back.
Rich80105
2021-05-05 03:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Guess that's why Liebor was so keen on the gun buy back. If there was
to be an insurrection less guns to fight back with.
The gangs have still got theirs.....
They were never going to be a part of the buy back.
But much tougher penalties for having the firearms that the law
required to be surrendered - a welcome change.
John Bowes
2021-05-05 05:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better.
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
Guess that's why Liebor was so keen on the gun buy back. If there was
to be an insurrection less guns to fight back with.
The gangs have still got theirs.....
They were never going to be a part of the buy back.
But much tougher penalties for having the firearms that the law
required to be surrendered - a welcome change.
No change at all you stupid socialist slut! Your glorious government promised us we'd be safe after they turned honest gun owners into criminals and yes ANOTHER failed promise from the useless twits!
James Christophers
2021-05-03 04:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?

Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...

...by Mahuta.

Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy. Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy, Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived persona - its very thinking and doing.

So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that, whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members, Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.

Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign entity establishing itself in New Zealand...

..under Mahuta.

Think on, everyone...
Tony
2021-05-08 20:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Rich80105
2021-05-09 00:12:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
Tony
2021-05-09 00:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the
article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of
Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be
allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
So?
John Bowes
2021-05-09 01:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the
article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of
Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be
allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
So?
Poor widdle Ritch has his tit's in a tangle about the current Labour government doing a pretty good job of shitting on most (if not all) Labour's traditional values. As some pundit commented they're more Capitalist these days than ever before :)
Rich80105
2021-05-09 10:54:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 May 2021 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the
article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of
Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be
allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
So?
Poor widdle Ritch has his tit's in a tangle about the current Labour government doing a pretty good job of shitting on most (if not all) Labour's traditional values. As some pundit commented they're more Capitalist these days than ever before :)
They are doing it all to persuade you that you should vote for them,
John Bowes - with every policy they ask, "what would John Bowes agree
with" - and welcome aboard as a Labour supporter!
John Bowes
2021-05-09 21:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 8 May 2021 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the
article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and
habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing
towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's
education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up
of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass
and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and
performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a
good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news
suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent
state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of
Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify
every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be
allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be
implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
So?
Poor widdle Ritch has his tit's in a tangle about the current Labour government doing a pretty good job of shitting on most (if not all) Labour's traditional values. As some pundit commented they're more Capitalist these days than ever before :)
They are doing it all to persuade you that you should vote for them,
John Bowes - with every policy they ask, "what would John Bowes agree
with" - and welcome aboard as a Labour supporter!
What utter fucking crap! Your Labour party is no longer the 'workers' party it once was Rich. It's now made up of academics and union leaders. People who are divorced from the reality of the real world in their drive to make Marx's stupidity work for once in it's history of total failure! Most of it's followers are like you Rich and to stupid believe the history of Marxism/socialism in all it's myriad shades of red.
Crash
2021-05-09 00:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2021-05-09 10:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
John Bowes
2021-05-09 21:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
So fucking what?
Crash
2021-05-09 22:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi, the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2021-05-10 02:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?
As far as I know there is for both the National and Labour parties.
Would you expect otherwise?
Crash
2021-05-10 02:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and
habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's
education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up
of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass
and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news
suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify
every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be
implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?
As far as I know there is for both the National and Labour parties.
Would you expect otherwise?
If so, that is a constitutional requirement rather than a legal one.
So you don't know whether or not Dr Bassett is still a member of the
Labour party?


--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2021-05-10 05:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and
habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's
education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up
of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass
and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news
suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify
every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be
implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?
As far as I know there is for both the National and Labour parties.
Would you expect otherwise?
If so, that is a constitutional requirement rather than a legal one.
So you don't know whether or not Dr Bassett is still a member of the
Labour party?
--
Crash McBash
As usual Rich doesn't know much about what he is posting :)
Rich80105
2021-05-10 10:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and
habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's
education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up
of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass
and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news
suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify
every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be
implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?
As far as I know there is for both the National and Labour parties.
Would you expect otherwise?
If so, that is a constitutional requirement rather than a legal one.
So you don't know whether or not Dr Bassett is still a member of the
Labour party?
It was reported that Don Brash had to resign from National when he
joined ACT, and Prebble and Basset had to leave Labour when they
formed ACT. I am not aware of any NZ law that applies, but both
National and Labour do not allow dual membership. Yes I do know that
Michael Basset is not a member of the Labour Party, and that Jamie Lee
Ross is not a member of the National Party - your pick as to whether
that is because of Labour or National constitutions or a legal issue
arising from their rules . . . .
Crash
2021-05-10 21:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 May 2021 15:48:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
You (not only you of course) need to be absolutely sure that the article
is
wrong, otherwise you can look forward to something pretty awful.
Generally speaking, assuming the worst is the instantaneous reaction to
anything that smacks of the negative, TVNZ's kiddynews being arguably our
prime
example. So it doesn't do to over-react, however febrile the nature and
habit
of "a nation of fretful sleepers" (Bill Pearson 1951).
However, there has more recently been a fully organised and determined
prosecution of a patent and subliminal across-the-board influencing towards
Maori gaining a far stronger presence and foothold in New Zealand's
education
and overall governance. This behaviour includes an in-yer-face ramping up
of
Maori linguistic and cultural inclusivity, much of it toe-curlingly crass
and
self-consciously gawky. Awkward, and incongruously contrived and performed
amateur dramatics presented by the media on its world stage is never a good
look.
Again, rather than a trumped-up Treaty add-on, this more recent news
suggests
a consolidation of what is now happening into a more visible and tangible
structure having its own singular identity made legitimate by **its own
self-determining laws" under the Crown - essentially, an independent state
within a state in all but name. (Lethoso -ish)
So, is such a consolidation of what is plainly a self-arrogated policy,
originally and specifically mandated *in terms** in the Treaty of Waitangi,
the
very same Treaty, mark you, whose "principles" rationalise and justify
every
unyielding claim and counter-claim coming from the Maori quarter?
To me, in 2021,an independent sovereignty based solely on abstract 180
year-old "principles" don't cut it, never can, and never should be allowed
to
do so.
And even if it were somehow to, does the overarching **all-inclusive**
without-fear-or-favour Constitution of New Zealand under the Crown even
permit
it?
Anyone...?
Yes. I trust the writings of our almost entirely amateur journalists no more
than anyone else. However we know that the document exists and the content
thereof is now pretty much public property.
Regardless of the fact that our government is democratically elected it
certainly does not have the mandate to do what the article suggests, and the
treaty does not provide a basis for it.
The document was requested by the government and if it is not to be
implemented
it should be torn up and we should be told that it has been, otherwise the
comment about the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent is
the
least of our worries.
I predict one of two things.
1. The idea will die and the sooner the better. actual
or
2. There will be insurrection and Lord help us all if that happens.
Perhaps "Something wicked this way comes".
One wonders: Is Mahuta behind this...?
Well...we now turn to New Zealand's equivocation over the previously committed
remit of its Five-Eyes membership, just announced...
...by Mahuta.
Mahuta is front, face and voice of New Zealand's international diplomacy.
Globally, her words, appearance and gestures - her outward persona - evoke what
New Zealand stands for. To the outside world of finely nuanced diplomacy,
Mahuta's persona collectively represents and **characterises** the combination
of influences that inevitably underly this nation's subjectively perceived
persona - its very thinking and doing.
So, while Ardern may well be the cover-girl, the figurehead, representing New
Zealand's global presence and persona, in terms of practical, tangible global
recognition and standing in all down-to-earth international defence
negotiations, Mahuta **is** New Zealand. And I can tell you right now that,
whatever anyone might think of the Five-Eyes alliance, to its other members,
Mahuta's name is Treachery. As global defence diplomacy goes, then, not bad
for a first crucial outing by someone who's been in the job five minutes.
Now imagine if you would even dare to, an entirely separate and sovereign
entity establishing itself in New Zealand...
..under Mahuta.
Think on, everyone...
Wonder no more.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua
By a former Labour government minister.
Who has not been a member of that party for many years . . .
As Tony made clear in his reference to a 'former Labour government
minister'. How do you know Dr Bassett is no longer a member of the
Labour Party?
Because he joined another party . . .
Really - which one? Is there a law against being a member of both the
Labour party and another one?
As far as I know there is for both the National and Labour parties.
Would you expect otherwise?
If so, that is a constitutional requirement rather than a legal one.
So you don't know whether or not Dr Bassett is still a member of the
Labour party?
It was reported that Don Brash had to resign from National when he
joined ACT, and Prebble and Basset had to leave Labour when they
formed ACT. I am not aware of any NZ law that applies, but both
National and Labour do not allow dual membership. Yes I do know that
Michael Basset is not a member of the Labour Party, and that Jamie Lee
Ross is not a member of the National Party - your pick as to whether
that is because of Labour or National constitutions or a legal issue
arising from their rules . . . .
Interesting that you provide no cite for your contention that Dr
Bassett is not a Labour member. With Jamie Lee Ross there is a public
announcement from National. Don Brash and Richard Prebble both became
ACT advocates which would indeed have disqualified them from being a
member of any other political party. This is not the case with Dr
Bassett and you continue to prevaricate on this. It is this sort of
behaviour that gives doubt to the truth of statements you make.


--
Crash McBash

John Bowes
2021-05-03 04:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 May 2021 19:23:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018793904/political-commentators-jones-and-morten
Commissioning a report does not imply support or rejection for
everything or any specific item in that report - it is howeve one
input to current or future decision making; on some issues a
government will need to understand a number of radically different
views in order to reach consensus on even starting some policy
research.
Except your government has a record of falling into line with most of what the UN demands of the world Rich AND they're about as open as an oyster at low tide. Ardern's supposed surprise at Seymours questioning on this is about as believable as most of your posts!
Mutlley
2021-05-03 04:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
This is obviously the reason the pushed the Maori representation on
councils with no course of opposition so quickly.
Tony
2021-05-03 04:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by Tony
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/05/03/graham-adams-ardern-in-the-gun-over-he-puapua/
A real worry if this proves to be correct.
This is obviously the reason the pushed the Maori representation on
councils with no course of opposition so quickly.
I did not make that connection. But you could be right.
Loading...