Don't worry, they're not Chinese...

[JohnO]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-at-a-discount

Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about the Crafar farm sale.

Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist, xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-at-a-discount
>
>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about the Crafar farm sale.
>
>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist, xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.

The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners. The Crafar deal was
public information for a long time before National found a way to
pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.

Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?

[JohnO]

LOL, you are a demented loon seeing conspiracies.

Do tell us how the National party kept it quiet. Please cover off how this political party has extended its tentacles into the public service so as to hide this sale.

> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?

I have no interest in protesting against a perfectly legitimate and normal transaction.

But you Dickbot, have completely failed to provide an alternative answer as to why there is no complaining about this sale. Therefore I take it you agree that you and your lot are only opposed to sales to the Chinese. You are a pack of common racists.

[george152]

So no-one told pitiful Peters that it was happening ?

[JohnO]

He was probably taking his midday nap.

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-at-
a-discount
>>
>>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about the
>>Crafar farm sale.
>>
>>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist, xenophobic
>>knee-jerk reaction.
>
> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners.

National didn't sell this farm because they didn't own it. It was a private
sale.

> The Crafar deal was
> public information for a long time before National found a way to
> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.

Nothing to do with the government. It was private land.

> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?

Why would you protest someone selling their own property?
--
A.

[Liberty]

More twaddle from Labours resident apologist.
Labour along with your coalition minions would have known about this sale.
And yet have said nothing .
That is because the people who are purchasing the farm are not Chinese.

[Liberty]

In Richs warped world.
It is acceptable for an Australian bank to hold a mortgage on a farm
But unacceptable for the Chinese to pay for a farm.
It is selective morality.

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ohoj8denfiq3en87...@4ax.com...

Ease up on the meds Dickie. Your getting sillier every time you post.

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:r97qj8dis0r28lkrg...@4ax.com...

Yet Clark was quite happy to kow tow to the Chinese so she could get an FTA
with thewm that has done stuff all for New Zealand. Hypocrisy is a good name
for Labour and it's marxist followers.

Pooh

[Rich80105]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, 10 March 2013 21:57:23 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-at-a-discount
>>
>> >Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about the Crafar farm sale.
>>
>> >Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist, xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners. The Crafar deal was
>> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>
>LOL, you are a demented loon seeing conspiracies.

As the article said:
"A new Swedish property fund quietly invested about $108 million in
Australian and New Zealand rural land in 2012, according to its annual
report, which also reveals the price it paid for eight dairy farms
near Tokoroa sold by Forbes rich-lister Graeme Hart after being on the
market for three years. "

Who kept it quiet, JohnO?

>
>Do tell us how the National party kept it quiet. Please cover off how this political party has extended its tentacles into the public service so as to hide this sale.

The National party could not, and did not, keep the Crafar farm sales
quiet - they were public sales due to court action.

>> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>
>I have no interest in protesting against a perfectly legitimate and normal transaction.

Which does not answer my question - did you hear abut the sales in
time to protest - even if you wanted to?

>But you Dickbot, have completely failed to provide an alternative answer as to why there is no complaining about this sale. Therefore I take it you agree that you and your lot are only opposed to sales to the Chinese. You are a pack of common racists.

The article said it - the news only came through from the annual
report of a Swedish property fund . . .

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:43:40 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-at-
>a-discount
>>>
>>>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about the
>>>Crafar farm sale.
>>>
>>>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist, xenophobic
>>>knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners.
>
>National didn't sell this farm because they didn't own it. It was a private
>sale.

NAtional had to approve any sale to an overseas investor.

>> The Crafar deal was
>> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>
>Nothing to do with the government. It was private land.
>
>> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>
>Why would you protest someone selling their own property?

The purchaser will have required government approval for the sale.
No-one has advocated protesting anyone selling their own property.

Do keep up, Allistar.

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:54:59 +1300, Liberty <libe...@live.com>
wrote:

What are you talking about. I have no mentioned Australian Banks!
Where did that come from?

[JohnO]

On Monday, 11 March 2013 16:04:53 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>

<snip>

>
> >> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
> >> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners. The Crafar deal was
> >> public information for a long time before National found a way to
> >> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>
> >LOL, you are a demented loon seeing conspiracies.
>
> As the article said:
> "A new Swedish property fund quietly invested about $108 million in
> Australian and New Zealand rural land in 2012, according to its annual
> report, which also reveals the price it paid for eight dairy farms
> near Tokoroa sold by Forbes rich-lister Graeme Hart after being on the
> market for three years. "
>
> Who kept it quiet, JohnO?

Can't you read, Dickbot? The Swedish property fund kept quiet about it. My primary school children would be able to read that and comprehend it. Why can't you?

>
> >Do tell us how the National party kept it quiet. Please cover off how this political party has extended its tentacles into the public service so as to hide this sale.
>
> The National party could not, and did not, keep the Crafar farm sales
> quiet - they were public sales due to court action.

I am not talking about Crafar you fucking imbecile. I asked you how you think the National party kept the sale of Rank Group farms to a Swedish property fund quiet. Can't you back up your claim? Of course not, you never do.

>
> >> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>
> >I have no interest in protesting against a perfectly legitimate and normal transaction.
>
> Which does not answer my question - did you hear abut the sales in
> time to protest - even if you wanted to?

If I wanted to, then yes of course I could. Applications to OIO are public record, you dingbat. Anyone who is not too stupid and lazy can go have a look. I guess that exclude dipshits like you who rely on others to spoon-feed them.

> >But you Dickbot, have completely failed to provide an alternative answer as to why there is no complaining about this sale. Therefore I take it you agree that you and your lot are only opposed to sales to the Chinese. You are a pack of common racists.
>
> The article said it - the news only came through from the annual
> report of a Swedish property fund . . .

Stop lying. A company report comes out some time after the end of the company's financial reporting year us complete. In this case, the annual report has only been released in February. The decision summary in this case from the OIO came out in December last year. So not only were the details of the approval available from OIO before the annual report, but the application in the first place was a matter of public record. If some useless reporter didn't twig until months later then it was a huge secret conspiracy in the wierd world of Dickbot.


So in summary folks, Dickbot's defense against claims of racism is that he and his lefty idiot friends are simply too stupid to have availed themselves of the opportunity to display their racism!

[Rich80105]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 11 March 2013 16:04:53 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
><snip>
>>
>> >> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>> >> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners. The Crafar deal was
>> >> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>> >> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>>
>> >LOL, you are a demented loon seeing conspiracies.
>>
>> As the article said:
>> "A new Swedish property fund quietly invested about $108 million in
>> Australian and New Zealand rural land in 2012, according to its annual
>> report, which also reveals the price it paid for eight dairy farms
>> near Tokoroa sold by Forbes rich-lister Graeme Hart after being on the
>> market for three years. "
>>
>> Who kept it quiet, JohnO?
>
>Can't you read, Dickbot? The Swedish property fund kept quiet about it. My primary school children would be able to read that and comprehend it. Why can't you?

You responses below indicate that the news media did not do their job.
The Swedish property fund would not have cared about informing the
public - just as National don;t care about informing hte NZ public..

>
>> >Do tell us how the National party kept it quiet. Please cover off how this political party has extended its tentacles into the public service so as to hide this sale.
>>
>> The National party could not, and did not, keep the Crafar farm sales
>> quiet - they were public sales due to court action.
>
>I am not talking about Crafar you fucking imbecile. I asked you how you think the National party kept the sale of Rank Group farms to a Swedish property fund quiet. Can't you back up your claim? Of course not, you never do.

No you didn't, but National keep things quiet by a variety of methods.
Most people would not know how to access OIO decisions . . .

I do accept your conclusion about lazy reporters though - we are
certainly not getting a good service from news media.

>>
>> >> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>>
>> >I have no interest in protesting against a perfectly legitimate and normal transaction.
>>
>> Which does not answer my question - did you hear abut the sales in
>> time to protest - even if you wanted to?
>
>If I wanted to, then yes of course I could. Applications to OIO are public record, you dingbat. Anyone who is not too stupid and lazy can go have a look. I guess that exclude dipshits like you who rely on others to spoon-feed them.

In other words, you were not aware of it. Fair enough, but you could
have said that when I first asked.

>> >But you Dickbot, have completely failed to provide an alternative answer as to why there is no complaining about this sale. Therefore I take it you agree that you and your lot are only opposed to sales to the Chinese. You are a pack of common racists.
>>
>> The article said it - the news only came through from the annual
>> report of a Swedish property fund . . .
>
>Stop lying. A company report comes out some time after the end of the company's financial reporting year us complete. In this case, the annual report has only been released in February. The decision summary in this case from the OIO came out in December last year. So not only were the details of the approval available from OIO before the annual report, but the application in the first place was a matter of public record. If some useless reporter didn't twig until months later then it was a huge secret conspiracy in the wierd world of Dickbot.
>
>So in summary folks, Dickbot's defense against claims of racism is that he and his lefty idiot friends are simply too stupid to have availed themselves of the opportunity to display their racism!

I challenge you to demonstrate any racism on my part. The question of
selective protests is an unsupported allegation by the far-right for
political purposes - it has always been a crock of shit for most
people.

[JohnO]

On Monday, 11 March 2013 16:49:43 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>

<snip>

> >> Who kept it quiet, JohnO?
>
> >Can't you read, Dickbot? The Swedish property fund kept quiet about it. My primary school children would be able to read that and comprehend it. Why can't you?
>
> You responses below indicate that the news media did not do their job.
>
> The Swedish property fund would not have cared about informing the
> public - just as National don;t care about informing hte NZ public..

That is not what you said. You alleged the National Party kept it quiet, which is a ludicrous lie. Now like the slimy lying little weasel you are, you now backtrack to the pathetic whine that the National Party did not inform the NZ public about the sale. Even from you, that is surprisingly stupid. The National Party's role is in Parliament. It is not the job of the National Party to perform the day to day operations of the OIO and it is not even the OIO's job to advertise every or any application it receives. Interested parties are free to get off their arses and research it for themselves.

>
> >> >Do tell us how the National party kept it quiet. Please cover off how this political party has extended its tentacles into the public service so as to hide this sale.

No answer, of course.

> >> The National party could not, and did not, keep the Crafar farm sales
> >> quiet - they were public sales due to court action.
>
> >I am not talking about Crafar you fucking imbecile. I asked you how you think the National party kept the sale of Rank Group farms to a Swedish property fund quiet. Can't you back up your claim? Of course not, you never do.
>
> No you didn't, but National keep things quiet by a variety of methods.

Go on, how did they keep this sale quiet, you lying worm? Still waiting ...

>
> Most people would not know how to access OIO decisions . . .

> I do accept your conclusion about lazy reporters though - we are
> certainly not getting a good service from news media.

Yet they are your only source of information because you are too stupid and lazy to go get it yourself.

> >> >> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>
> >> >I have no interest in protesting against a perfectly legitimate and normal transaction.
>
> >> Which does not answer my question - did you hear abut the sales in
> >> time to protest - even if you wanted to?
>
> >If I wanted to, then yes of course I could. Applications to OIO are public record, you dingbat. Anyone who is not too stupid and lazy can go have a look. I guess that exclude dipshits like you who rely on others to spoon-feed them.
>
> In other words, you were not aware of it. Fair enough, but you could
> have said that when I first asked.

The point is, Dickbot, if I wanted to know I would have known. You seem to think that the only way you can become aware of anything is to have it spoon-fed to you. This shows your socialist mindset, relying on the state for all truth. Here's a tip: try working something out for yourself. It will require some initiative, work and smarts so may be unattainable for you, I fear.

> >> >But you Dickbot, have completely failed to provide an alternative answer as to why there is no complaining about this sale. Therefore I take it you agree that you and your lot are only opposed to sales to the Chinese. You are a pack of common racists.
>
> >> The article said it - the news only came through from the annual
> >> report of a Swedish property fund . . .
>
> >Stop lying. A company report comes out some time after the end of the company's financial reporting year us complete. In this case, the annual report has only been released in February. The decision summary in this case from the OIO came out in December last year. So not only were the details of the approval available from OIO before the annual report, but the application in the first place was a matter of public record. If some useless reporter didn't twig until months later then it was a huge secret conspiracy in the wierd world of Dickbot.
>
> >So in summary folks, Dickbot's defense against claims of racism is that he and his lefty idiot friends are simply too stupid to have availed themselves of the opportunity to display their racism!
>
> I challenge you to demonstrate any racism on my part. The question of
> selective protests is an unsupported allegation by the far-right for
> political purposes - it has always been a crock of shit for most
> people.

As I said - it was racism or stupidity. Past actions speak the former. Your choice.

[JohnO]

No shit. In a post above it's complaining that the National Party is suppressing the truth by not advertising all OIO applications. As if that's their job! Dickbot is quite demented.

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3pkqj8dobl88haq1p...@4ax.com...

So now you're admitting that Labour is slacking in their job in opposition
Dickie. If Labour stopped dicking around and looked at real issues instead
of waffling about trivia they'd be in a much better position come the next
elections and the country would have had a chance to protest these sales.

Pooh

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:43:40 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-
at-
>>a-discount
>>>>
>>>>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about
>>>>the Crafar farm sale.
>>>>
>>>>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist,
>>>>xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.
>>>
>>> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>>> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners.
>>
>>National didn't sell this farm because they didn't own it. It was a
>>private sale.
>
> NAtional had to approve any sale to an overseas investor.

That doesn't equate to National selling it.

Besides, they shouldn't have to. That's an infringement on personal property
rights.

>>> The Crafar deal was
>>> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>>> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>>
>>Nothing to do with the government. It was private land.
>>
>>> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>>
>>Why would you protest someone selling their own property?
>
> The purchaser will have required government approval for the sale.

They shouldn't have to get approval from anyone.

> No-one has advocated protesting anyone selling their own property.

Sure they do - there has been uproars in the past over people trying to sell
their private property.

> Do keep up, Allistar.
--
A.

[Pooh]

"Allistar" <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote in message
news:Juqdnftwn9WrF6DM...@giganews.com...

Funny how Dickie forgets the Auckland Airport fiasco when Clark was PM.

Pooh

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:40:26 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

wrote:

>Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:43:40 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-
>at-
>>>a-discount
>>>>>
>>>>>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about
>>>>>the Crafar farm sale.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist,
>>>>>xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.
>>>>
>>>> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>>>> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners.
>>>
>>>National didn't sell this farm because they didn't own it. It was a
>>>private sale.
>>
>> NAtional had to approve any sale to an overseas investor.
>
>That doesn't equate to National selling it.

Who said it did? Why do you keep trying to introduce irrelevancies?
National is clearly sensitive about the rate they are selling off New
Zealand.

>Besides, they shouldn't have to. That's an infringement on personal property
>rights.

So?

>>>> The Crafar deal was
>>>> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>>>> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>>>
>>>Nothing to do with the government. It was private land.

NZ law says differently. . .

>>>
>>>> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>>>
>>>Why would you protest someone selling their own property?
>>
>> The purchaser will have required government approval for the sale.
>
>They shouldn't have to get approval from anyone.

But they do. Get a sniff of relaity Allistar - if Nationa;l, who are
so hell bent on flogging off New Zealand, aren't prepared to do way
with the requirement your bleating is unlikely to make any difference.

>> No-one has advocated protesting anyone selling their own property.
>
>Sure they do - there has been uproars in the past over people trying to sell
>their private property.

Name one example.

>> Do keep up, Allistar.
Or have you given up?

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:40:26 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:43:40 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:22:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8400314/Hart-dairy-farms-sold-
>>at-
>>>>a-discount
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a peep from the idiot lefties who were screaming blue murder about
>>>>>>the Crafar farm sale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why the difference? Because this sale did not trigger a racist,
>>>>>>xenophobic knee-jerk reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sale is an example of National keeping things very quiet regarding
>>>>> its continuing sale of New Zealand to foreigners.
>>>>
>>>>National didn't sell this farm because they didn't own it. It was a
>>>>private sale.
>>>
>>> NAtional had to approve any sale to an overseas investor.
>>
>>That doesn't equate to National selling it.
>
> Who said it did? Why do you keep trying to introduce irrelevancies?

You said they did, just one line down...

> National is clearly sensitive about the rate they are selling off New
> Zealand.

..there you go. You just said that National is selling of New Zealand. This
was not a case of National selling anything.

Why do you keep blatently lying?

>>Besides, they shouldn't have to. That's an infringement on personal
>>property rights.

> So?

The state has no business preventing one man from selling something to
another.

>>>>> The Crafar deal was
>>>>> public information for a long time before National found a way to
>>>>> pretend they were keeping something for New Zealand.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing to do with the government. It was private land.
>
> NZ law says differently. . .

NZ law is full of unnecessary restrictions and regulations. The law should
exist to protect us, not to harm us.

>>>>> Did you hear about this sale in time to protest, JohnO?
>>>>
>>>>Why would you protest someone selling their own property?
>>>
>>> The purchaser will have required government approval for the sale.
>>
>>They shouldn't have to get approval from anyone.

> But they do. Get a sniff of relaity Allistar - if Nationa;l, who are
> so hell bent on flogging off New Zealand,

How is this National flogging of New Zealand?

> aren't prepared to do way
> with the requirement your bleating is unlikely to make any difference.

The requirement shoudl be done away with.

>>> No-one has advocated protesting anyone selling their own property.
>>
>>Sure they do - there has been uproars in the past over people trying to
>>sell their private property.
>
> Name one example.

The Crafar farms is one example.

>>> Do keep up, Allistar.

> Or have you given up?

I'll never give up showing your lies to be what they are. You can't even get
your own story straight.
--
A.

[Katipo]

> "JohnO" wrote in message
> news:f297526b-3490-4462...@googlegroups.com...

Presumably the Swedes aren't planning to turn the farms, production into
milk powder and ship it all back to Sweden.

[JohnO]

What relevance has that to anything? Milk powder is already the largest revenue earner of all dairy products and shipped all over the world from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe.

[Pooh]

"Allistar" <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote in message

news:KqKdnUIf4f7hq6PM...@giganews.com...

Dickie should look at Labours record if he realy wants to see how to 'flog
off' New Zealand.

Pooh

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:55:27 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

The Crafar family were the ones not wanting the property's to be sold.
Who else objected, Allistar? Most protest was about the volume of
sales of these and other properties to non-New Zealand owners.

>>>> Do keep up, Allistar.
>
>> Or have you given up?
>
>I'll never give up showing your lies to be what they are. You can't even get
>your own story straight.

You haven;t shown that - try again.

[Allistar]

Why are you saying the National are selling off New Zealand in relation to
this thread when it's self evident that they are not? Why the dishonesty?

People should be able to sell their property to whomever they like.

>>>>> Do keep up, Allistar.
>>
>>> Or have you given up?
>>
>>I'll never give up showing your lies to be what they are. You can't even
>>get your own story straight.
>
> You haven;t shown that - try again.

You were caught out in a lie above. You said in on breath that you didn't
claim National are selling off NZ, then in another breath you cliamed that
they are.
--
A.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:19 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

National are trying to sell off assets owned by the government, and
are approving many sales by individuals to overseas owners - more such
sales are being approved than most New Zealanders want to happen. In
relative terms, yes National are trying to flog off New Zealand.

No inconsistency, no lies. You really are starting to get nasty in
your posts, Allistar - there used to be at least a veneer of
politeness in your posts. Are you getting frustrated at your lack of
success in persuading others to accept your political views?

[JohnO]

On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:57:05 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

>
> National are trying to sell off assets owned by the government, and
> are approving many sales by individuals to overseas owners - more such

Another lie. The OIO, like any public sector organisation, runs its day to day operations without political interference.

>
> sales are being approved than most New Zealanders want to happen.

Stop making up stories.

> In
> relative terms,

> yes National are trying to flog off New Zealand.

You have real obsession with National and should get help. And how the fuck do you "flog off New Zealand". That is mindless and meaningless drivel, indicative of your dogma driven unthinking mind.

>
> No inconsistency, no lies. You really are starting to get nasty in
> your posts, Allistar - there used to be at least a veneer of
> politeness in your posts. Are you getting frustrated at your lack of
> success in persuading others to accept your political views?

Allistar is simply being truthful.

I have been nasty to you, Dickbot, because I despise liars.

You, Dickbot, have been nasty, not only by lying, but you have made a disgraceful and proven false smear against Dr Richard McGrath in claiming he released patient details. So stop being precious and for once in your miserable life stop lying.

[Allistar]

Irrelevant. Companies owned by the state are not "New Zealand".

> and
> are approving many sales by individuals to overseas owners

Of their own private property. It's the individuals that are selling, not
the government.

> - more such
> sales are being approved than most New Zealanders want to happen.

...of private property. This still does not equate to National selling New
Zealand.

> In
> relative terms, yes National are trying to flog off New Zealand.

No they aren't. This thread is a bout a farm not owned by the National
party, not ownded by the government and not owned by New Zealand.

> No inconsistency, no lies.

You said in relation to this thread that National is flogging off New
Zealand. That is patently untrue.

> You really are starting to get nasty in
> your posts, Allistar

Pointing out lies to be what they are is not nasty.

> - there used to be at least a veneer of
> politeness in your posts. Are you getting frustrated at your lack of
> success in persuading others to accept your political views?

My frustration lies in debating with those whose views and so inconsistent
and obviously false. In debating those that seek to smear people or
organisation for something they have not even done.
--
A.