- #1714116lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 2029lilith7 March 11, 2019 at 11:21 am
lilith7, what I find enlightening is it would have been much simpler for you to admit you’d made a mistake.
Which IS exactly what I just did in my previous post. Not sure why you didn’t understand that. 🙄#1714150Hero42 March 11, 2019 at 4:31 pm
That was the response I expected. Lots of complaining about a simple request and no facts.
Re your reply to Henri, who you seem to be more polite to than me but no worries I know that is only because I ask hard to answer questions, I have listened to some interviews between Hoskings and the Prime Minister and I cannot find what you claim the Prime Minster said so I can only assume either you misheard what was said or I cannot find the interview you are referring too.
Perhaps a link to the right interview if you want to prove your point.
As you are so keen to remind us you don’t have to but then again that leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that the Prime Minster never said what you claim.
Cheers 🙂#1714153Hero42 March 11, 2019 at 4:43 pm
So if I understand your many posts to various people you want to discuss what you believe is a double standard. This is possibly supported by Halcyon but from the time the facts were pointed out to Halcyon he hasn’t responded so let’s not include his possible thoughts in this. He can respond if he so wishes to point out his understanding of a possible double standard.
Now I thought I was responding to the points you raised but perhaps I was a little too detailed in my response.
There is no double standard because in both cases the government have applied the international law and practice in relation to the two issues.
Now perhaps you wish to point out where you think there is a double standard given that the government is being consistent.
Cheers 🙂#1714236henriMemberMember since: April 18, 2017
Replies: 167henri March 12, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Well a verifiable source would be a direct link to a reputable web page or even a disreputable web page where their source could be checked. Those web pages can be what you think of as left or right leaning, I don’t mind. Lots of people do it on here, just a direct link that we can click on and see the words you claim Ms Ardern said.
I cannot find anywhere in my searches of what has been said by the Prime Minister that supports what you say. I cannot find anything that says the government are doing anything more than the legal minimum.
As to the deviation and distraction that isn’t something you have done to my posts but it does seem to be something you do to other people’s posts so I just didn’t want to have to waste time going off on tangents or having to do searches.
Maybe you can give me that direct link where the prime Minster says the government are going give Mark Taylor any more assistance than required by law.
Or maybe as you said to Lilith7 it would be much simpler for you to admit you’d made a mistake if you cannot find the words you think you heard.
😎#1714646don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
Replies: 1753don021 March 19, 2019 at 1:42 pm
After all the horror of the murderous rampage by a sick individual, one thing stands out very clearly, our Prime Minister has done a splendi job of presenting this countries reaction and utmost sympathy; well done our P.M. and this from someone not a Labour follower.#1714647cook222MemberMember since: December 23, 2018
Replies: 34cook222 March 19, 2019 at 2:15 pm
Regardless of your political leanings I’m like you Don….one cant help admiring her…shes done a difficult job showing so much empathy. I guess some will disagree though#1714662Hero42 March 19, 2019 at 4:50 pm
She certainly is.
We are not the only ones who think this.
This opinion piece from Australia:
Cheers 🙂#1714687lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 2029lilith7 March 20, 2019 at 11:42 am
Interesting article Hero. If we’re not careful,those damned Aussies will try to nick our PM! 🙂
Yes, she has done very well in dealing with this whole awful situation; as well as any leader could be expected to & better. Although of course there are those whose dislike of her & the govt will not allow them to acknowledge that.#1714746arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10711arandar March 20, 2019 at 6:38 pm
Jacinda is a NZer, born and bred. She’d not go willingly, shall we say, though if Aussie would like to join NZ as another of our provinces I’m sure she and we might consider the proposal. The other way? Not so much. Thanks all the same.
I’ve met Jacinda several times. I know her to be a strong, gentle, intelligent and informed woman with both a good head and a good heart, securely attached to each other.
She’s also confident enough to be herself. No minders or handlers will be able to change her or programme her; she’s authentic and, as time passes and she settles into her Prime Ministership, that may prove to be her ‘superpower’ – authenticity.
That she’s young, female, attractive and the mother of a first child, for me simply adds to her mana – I gather these are things which some here don’t approve in their leaders – I will only follow leaders I respect for their honesty, courage, intelligence, judgement and authenticity.
As an aside, isn’t it interesting that she’s already most often referred to as Jacinda and we all know who we’re talking about.
Arandar#1714747halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4925halcyon March 20, 2019 at 7:12 pm
Hero, in respect to your comment in #1714153. All I did was confirm that I remembered Ardern making two comments. Mommabear’s extrapolation that my comment indicated that Ardern had demonstrated a “double standard” is erroneous. For there to be a double standard requires the questions answered to be the same on both occasions. This was not the case.
The first statement, if my memory serves me correctly, referred to the Government funding the travel for a sick NZ citizen back to NZ. The second statement had to do with providing a NZ citizen, who had destroyed his passport, with a duplicate should he access a NZ Consulate. In both cases the statements were, to my mind the correct statement. In neither case will the Government fund the travel. In the latter, the law requires that the idiot should get another copy of his passport.
Unfortunately some people read more into what is said, especially if their interpretation suits their narrative.
PS my absence was not due to my previous comment 🙂
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.