Moment of Truth?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Moment of Truth?

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 29

3529 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131153 18-Sep-2014 08:08

Technofreak:
BarTender:

Again with the partisan politics. I would be asking these questions of the government of the day no matter who they were. Said that enough times but you and a number of other posters seem to always bring it back to a labour vs national thing which it just so isn't. The problem is that much of it has occurred within the last 6 years.

And one thing I know for certain is now the lid has been blown off the chances and terms of reference for the detailed enquiry from the government of the day couldn't be more different.

Show me where I've made this into a Labour V National thing. You will note I said above David Cunliffe, Helen Clarke or anyone else, that was meant to encompass people like Winston Peters, Russell Norman Peter Sharples et al.

We have only ever had either a Labour or National government for the last 60 or so years so it's hard compare what might or might not have happened with any other party or group.

You attempt to make it seem you are partisan and accuse me of being biased then make this statement "The problem is that much of it has occurred within the last 6 years." Who has been the government for the last six years? If that's not making it into a Labour V National thing I don't know what is.

From my point of view I think by including people who were not leaders of the government for the last 6 years is disingenuous and trying to divert the argument from who was in government.
The vast majority of the issues occured within the last 4 years. And which political parties have committed to a full and independent review. Or perhaps thought another way.

1) Which party do you believe would run a full and frank review to follow up on the Kitteradge report?
2) Will the review ensure the scope is as wide as possible?
3) Will the issues that are found be resolved?

I know whay my views are on the above questions especially when you take into account the last month or so of dirty politics. With the inability to answer seemingly easy questions.

I would hold whatever government of the day to the same high standard.

and

Lenovo

Lenovo computer and accessories deals (affiliate link).

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1131154 18-Sep-2014 08:09

joker97: I'd rather have nuclear subs than FBI's most wanted

Have to agree would love to see a huge US nuclear sub parked up in the harbour even better if offered a tour

MikeB4

18120 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1131156 18-Sep-2014 08:14

BarTender:
Technofreak:
BarTender:

Again with the partisan politics. I would be asking these questions of the government of the day no matter who they were. Said that enough times but you and a number of other posters seem to always bring it back to a labour vs national thing which it just so isn't. The problem is that much of it has occurred within the last 6 years.

And one thing I know for certain is now the lid has been blown off the chances and terms of reference for the detailed enquiry from the government of the day couldn't be more different.

Show me where I've made this into a Labour V National thing. You will note I said above David Cunliffe, Helen Clarke or anyone else, that was meant to encompass people like Winston Peters, Russell Norman Peter Sharples et al.

We have only ever had either a Labour or National government for the last 60 or so years so it's hard compare what might or might not have happened with any other party or group.

You attempt to make it seem you are partisan and accuse me of being biased then make this statement "The problem is that much of it has occurred within the last 6 years." Who has been the government for the last six years? If that's not making it into a Labour V National thing I don't know what is.

From my point of view I think by including people who were not leaders of the government for the last 6 years is disingenuous and trying to divert the argument from who was in government.
The vast majority of the issues occured within the last 4 years. And which political parties have committed to a full and independent review. Or perhaps thought another way.

1) Which party do you believe would run a full and frank review to follow up on the Kitteradge report?
2) Will the review ensure the scope is as wide as possible?
3) Will the issues that are found be resolved?

I know whay my views are on the above questions especially when you take into account the last month or so of dirty politics. With the inability to answer seemingly easy questions.

I would hold whatever government of the day to the same high standard.

Should there be an inquiry?.... yes
Will it achieve anything?...... No, no matter who conducts it and what conclusions are drawn a large percentage of the population will not accept it as it will not fit their preconceived "facts". Also given the subject matter there are many party's concerned any
NZ inquiry has zero jurisdiction over. It will probably cost a fortune, deepen divides, feed egos and be filled away.

MikeB4

18120 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1131166 18-Sep-2014 08:15

johnr:
joker97: I'd rather have nuclear subs than FBI's most wanted

Have to agree would love to see a huge US nuclear sub parked up in the harbour even better if offered a tour

I would rather see a Super Carrier, going in a floating cigar case would give me the willy's

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1131169 18-Sep-2014 08:28

BarTender:

From my point of view I think by including people who were not leaders of the government for the last 6 years is disingenuous and trying to divert the argument from who was in government.
The vast majority of the issues occured within the last 4 years. And which political parties have committed to a full and independent review. Or perhaps thought another way.

1) Which party do you believe would run a full and frank review to follow up on the Kitteradge report?
2) Will the review ensure the scope is as wide as possible?
3) Will the issues that are found be resolved?

I know whay my views are on the above questions especially when you take into account the last month or so of dirty politics. With the inability to answer seemingly easy questions.

I would hold whatever government of the day to the same high standard.

Bar Tender your slip is starting to show.

There is nothing disingenuous about including anyone who hasn't been part of the government for the last 6 years, unless of course you subscribe to the point of view this stuff has only been going on for the last 6 years, which of course is patent nonsense.

Anyone who was the head of government and by default the person with responsibility for the GCSB and national security would have been taking the same stance as John key has. There is no other option.

To answer your questions

1. I wouldn't trust any party to run a full and frank follow up to the Kitteradge report. There will always be a political slant to get the answer the the person requesting the review wants. The terms of reference will ensure the "correct" outcome.

2. See my response to question 1.

3. Any issues found will be to suit political ends. Whether they get resolved or not would be debatable.

I can guess what your views are.

So far as the "easy questions" go see my comments above re the person responsible for the GCSB and national security.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

JimmyC

726 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1131175 18-Sep-2014 08:38

BarTender:

Much as I seriously dislike dotcom... Would any of the below have been admitted by John Key had Monday not occured?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/254849/key-makes-surveillance-concessions
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10508710/NSA-spying-can-t-be-ruled-out-PM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11326387

Again, I don't see why any of that should be in any way surprising. It's not so much an admission as stating the obvious.

BarTender

3529 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131196 18-Sep-2014 09:19

Technofreak:
BarTender:

From my point of view I think by including people who were not leaders of the government for the last 6 years is disingenuous and trying to divert the argument from who was in government.
The vast majority of the issues occured within the last 4 years. And which political parties have committed to a full and independent review. Or perhaps thought another way.

1) Which party do you believe would run a full and frank review to follow up on the Kitteradge report?
2) Will the review ensure the scope is as wide as possible?
3) Will the issues that are found be resolved?

I know whay my views are on the above questions especially when you take into account the last month or so of dirty politics. With the inability to answer seemingly easy questions.

I would hold whatever government of the day to the same high standard.

Bar Tender your slip is starting to show.

There is nothing disingenuous about including anyone who hasn't been part of the government for the last 6 years, unless of course you subscribe to the point of view this stuff has only been going on for the last 6 years, which of course is patent nonsense.

Anyone who was the head of government and by default the person with responsibility for the GCSB and national security would have been taking the same stance as John key has. There is no other option.

To answer your questions

1. I wouldn't trust any party to run a full and frank follow up to the Kitteradge report. There will always be a political slant to get the answer the the person requesting the review wants. The terms of reference will ensure the "correct" outcome.

2. See my response to question 1.

3. Any issues found will be to suit political ends. Whether they get resolved or not would be debatable.

I can guess what your views are.

So far as the "easy questions" go see my comments above re the person responsible for the GCSB and national security.

So remind me again when the RFP went out from the GCSB to purchase a fair amount of tin?? 2008 if the OIA is correct.

Technology has changed a lot in the last 6 years. CPUs are faster and storage is a whole lot cheaper.

I have never had an issue with the GCSB.. but the ability to capture and manage large volumes of metadata seems to be a recent thing.

And to that end I do think there has been a shift in recent times. But I certainly would be asking questions of the previous administration about all of this too.

and

BarTender

3529 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131201 18-Sep-2014 09:24

JimmyC:
BarTender:

Much as I seriously dislike dotcom... Would any of the below have been admitted by John Key had Monday not occured?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/254849/key-makes-surveillance-concessions
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10508710/NSA-spying-can-t-be-ruled-out-PM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11326387

Again, I don't see why any of that should be in any way surprising. It's not so much an admission as stating the obvious.

Really??

Saturday/Sunday: Key. Greenwald is a henchman and everything he says is wrong. We have never had mass surveillance here.
Monday: Key. All of it is lies nothing to see here this is my proof that it's lies. With documents completely unrelated to the questions.
Tuesday: Key. Well maybe a few things could have gone.
Wednesday: Key. Erm so technically Snowden is probably right the Americans have collected metadata...

The shifting truths here.

and

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1131207 18-Sep-2014 09:35

BarTender:
So remind me again when the RFP went out from the GCSB to purchase a fair amount of tin?? 2008 if the OIA is correct.

I take it from that statement you are trying to say this RFP would never have been issued under any other administration? Give us a break, I don't think so.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

JimmyC

726 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1131208 18-Sep-2014 09:38

BarTender:

Really??

Saturday/Sunday: Key. Greenwald is a henchman and everything he says is wrong. We have never had mass surveillance here.
Monday: Key. All of it is lies nothing to see here this is my proof that it's lies. With documents completely unrelated to the questions.
Tuesday: Key. Well maybe a few things could have gone.
Wednesday: Key. Erm so technically Snowden is probably right the Americans have collected metadata...

The shifting truths here.

The main points to me are the definition of 'mass' surveillance, and whether or not the GCSB was doing it. Greenwald and co provided no proof that the GCSB was conducting mass surveillance. What Snowden said was he could search New Zealanders information should he choose to with a simple tick in a magic box. No proof on how many peoples information was there, where it came from, or who provided it.

If you think the NSA doesn't gather information on NZ'ers then I think that's just naive.

BarTender

3529 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131209 18-Sep-2014 09:38

Technofreak:
BarTender:
So remind me again when the RFP went out from the GCSB to purchase a fair amount of tin?? 2008 if the OIA is correct.

I take it from that statement you are trying to say this RFP would never have been issued under any other administration? Give us a break, I don't think so.

So show me where it was issued under another administration.

Trying to blame someone else on it seems rather diversionary to me and still not wanting to hold the government of the day to account.

and

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1131224 18-Sep-2014 09:41

BarTender:
Really??

Saturday/Sunday: Key. Greenwald is a henchman and everything he says is wrong. We have never had mass surveillance here.
Monday: Key. All of it is lies nothing to see here this is my proof that it's lies. With documents completely unrelated to the questions.
Tuesday: Key. Well maybe a few things could have gone.
Wednesday: Key. Erm so technically Snowden is probably right the Americans have collected metadata...

The shifting truths here.

John Key never said there was never any mass surveillance here, what he said the GCSB had never conducted mass surviellance here, two very different things.

Shifting truths? OK how about this?

Greenwald claimed the GCSB had carried out mas surveillance on New Zealand citizens.

Now he or Snowden is saying the mass surveillance was carried out by another organisation.

Who's changed what they've said?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

BarTender

3529 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131225 18-Sep-2014 09:41

JimmyC:
BarTender:

Really??

Saturday/Sunday: Key. Greenwald is a henchman and everything he says is wrong. We have never had mass surveillance here.
Monday: Key. All of it is lies nothing to see here this is my proof that it's lies. With documents completely unrelated to the questions.
Tuesday: Key. Well maybe a few things could have gone.
Wednesday: Key. Erm so technically Snowden is probably right the Americans have collected metadata...

The shifting truths here.

The main points to me are the definition of 'mass' surveillance, and whether or not the GCSB was doing it. Greenwald and co provided no proof that the GCSB was conducting mass surveillance. What Snowden said was he could search New Zealanders information should he choose to with a simple tick in a magic box. No proof on how many peoples information was there, where it came from, or who provided it.

If you think the NSA doesn't gather information on NZ'ers then I think that's just naive.

Never said any such thing. It's about how complicit our government has been.. both current and previous. And if anyone cares to hold the government whoever they may be post Saturday to account.

and

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1131229 18-Sep-2014 09:48

BarTender:
Technofreak:
BarTender:
So remind me again when the RFP went out from the GCSB to purchase a fair amount of tin?? 2008 if the OIA is correct.

I take it from that statement you are trying to say this RFP would never have been issued under any other administration? Give us a break, I don't think so.

So show me where it was issued under another administration.

Trying to blame someone else on it seems rather diversionary to me and still not wanting to hold the government of the day to account.

We could go around in circles here.

Prove to me the RFP wouldn't have been issued under another administration. You can't do that, no more than I can say it would have been issued.

It's a fact of life that any organisation will be upgrading their capabilities on a regular basis. I would say the RFP issued in 2008 was most likely just part of a normal process and would have happened no matter which government was in power. The GCSB would have initiated the RFP not the government of the day.

What are we trying to hold the government accountable for? If it's for the security of the country and it's citizens then I'm all for that.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Klathman

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1131256 18-Sep-2014 10:11

BarTender:

Never said any such thing. It's about how complicit our government has been.. both current and previous. And if anyone cares to hold the government whoever they may be post Saturday to account.

Considering the NSA lied to their own oversight commitee about what they were collecting (The whole lesser untruth saga) do you really think that the US tells NZ the full story about what they're collecting.

Then the follow up. As an Allie if you find out do you publically go and create a stink about it and demand that the NSA remove all data that has been collected about NZers? That would be the equivalent of withdrawing from the 5 eyes network and would almost guarantee that more spying would occur on NZers.

It sucks and is wrong but is this about the US or NZ? Feels like we're just the pawn here.

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 29