| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 85600 | 2007-12-15 20:50:00 | Children's Hospital turns down funds. | B.M. (505) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 621561 | 2007-12-17 02:05:00 | The point is Peters hasn’t broken the law and the party has the legal right to donate the money to whoever they like. Some Charity is going to be the benefactor and I’m annoyed it isn’t Starship. :mad: Ah I see now,wondered what you were getting at. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 621562 | 2007-12-17 02:19:00 | The point is Peters hasn’t broken the law and the party has the legal right to donate the money to whoever they like. Some Charity is going to be the benefactor and I’m annoyed it isn’t Starship. :mad: How do you KNOW that some charity will benefit? home.nzcity.co.nz Do not bother to debate as you seem to have a mind that is one track. By the way (and just for your information) a "benefactor" is the donator rather than the recipient. You may have meant beneficiary perhaps. Thank you for not answering my questions. They may be a little hard for you to comprehend. The party, due to retrospective legislation, has the right not to pay any money at all. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 621563 | 2007-12-17 02:34:00 | Why did NZFirst not pay the money to State Services? Winston P being a lawyer likes to complicate things. He claims that because of the retrospective legislation even if they did owe the money (which he disputes), it isn't owed any more. Paying money that isn't owed turns it into a gift, so giving Parliamentary Services $158,000 would leave NZ First liable for a lot of extra Gift Duty tax. This argument hasn't surfaced with the other parties. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 621564 | 2007-12-17 02:35:00 | Sigh, it's all shambles . I'm glad I don't vote . Tell me again how Winston and his ego got into parliament in the first place . Winstone arrived on a bike . His ego arrived in a 30 wheel semitrailer . Ken PS Must confess the man got at me early on in the piece . :mad: |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 621565 | 2007-12-17 03:08:00 | By the way (and just for your information) a "benefactor" is the donator rather than the recipient . You may have meant beneficiary perhaps . Quite right Sweep . It should have read beneficiary . :blush: However, I haven’t bothered with your questions because they are nothing but Humbug and not the issue . :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 621566 | 2007-12-17 03:11:00 | Ah I see now,wondered what you were getting at. I just wish some others would. :D Must try to remember to put my teeth in. :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 621567 | 2007-12-17 03:29:00 | I just wish some others would. :D Must try to remember to put my teeth in. :D I cook my "beef" blue.:D |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 621568 | 2007-12-17 04:10:00 | Quite right Sweep. It should have read beneficiary. :blush: However, I haven’t bothered with your questions because they are nothing but Humbug and not the issue. :D Well what is your defintion of humbug? en.wikipedia.org The questions were asked and you failed to answer. I guess you know my motivation for asking of course. A debate means a person or persons defends a position (or point of view) against another person or persons. As you appear to be a team of one, then please try to present your point in a form the forum can understand. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 621569 | 2007-12-17 07:09:00 | Sweep, let me put my teeth in again and make it perfectly clear. I have no political party allegiances. As I said in an earlier post, I believe the last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. My ***** is purely with the Starship Foundation for turning the money down and making an issue of it. Your ramblings about tax, invoices, GST , and so on are totally irreverent. The fact of the matter is that perfectly legitimate money was refused on political grounds. It isn’t and wasn’t their job to get involved in politics. Their job is to do their best for the welfare of the children, not take part in political games. Now, I hope that is clear enough? :rolleyes: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 621570 | 2007-12-17 07:36:00 | Sweep, let me put my teeth in again and make it perfectly clear. I have no political party allegiances. As I said in an earlier post, I believe the last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. My ***** is purely with the Starship Foundation for turning the money down and making an issue of it. Your ramblings about tax, invoices, GST , and so on are totally irreverent. The fact of the matter is that perfectly legitimate money was refused on political grounds. It isn’t and wasn’t their job to get involved in politics. Their job is to do their best for the welfare of the children, not take part in political games. Now, I hope that is clear enough? :rolleyes: But isnt starship if accepting the money getting involved in the politics of it? And by them saying thanxs but no thanxs and keeping their noses clean......or trying to do what they consider best and not political axe grinding........that this is not a pollitical agenda by the people that gave it? or is it? I dont think it was wrong, but for it to be publicised has made it political.... reguardless of good or bad intentions by the giver or taker. It seems they are doomed if they do take it, and doomed if they dont, you cant keep all the people happy ever........ beetle:stare: |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||