Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>rat
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:rat
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a
shit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little
Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:rat
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a
doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It
Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. Looks like another Liebor get Key
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >Looks like another Liebor get Key
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It
nuke weapons.Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >>Looks like another Liebor get Key
What are you trying to say, george? Your nasty mis-spelling of Labour
implies that someone in Labour has lied - if so, what was that lie?
Has a nuclear powered Chinese ship visited New Zealand? If so, when?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>a rat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat
It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest littleAs 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you?
nuke weapons.Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >> Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat >>As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >> >> >>> http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to >> >> >> do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >> >> Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:12:59 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Apparently you cannot - difficult of course when there is no lie - thePoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships >>>are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >>>Looks like another Liebor get Key
What are you trying to say, george? Your nasty mis-spelling of Labour >>implies that someone in Labour has lied - if so, what was that lie?
Where do you start?
No answer from you to this one Liberty? I suspect george has no answer
Has a nuclear powered Chinese ship visited New Zealand? If so, when?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>eat a rat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to
you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >> >> >>> http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to >> >> >> do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't
armed..Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships >> >> are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear
carry nuke weapons.Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't
powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear
Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:eat a rat
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to
As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that hePoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships >> >> >> are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I >> >> >> >> understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship visits?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>to eat a rat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have
visit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to
tohttp://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a >> >> >> >> concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I >> >> >> >> understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want
don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths,
shipsPoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered
armed..are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out. >> >> >> We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear
carry nuke weapons.Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't
powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear
visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:to eat a rat
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have
powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered shipsAs 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a >> >> >> >> >> concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will >> >> >> >> >> automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out. >> >> >> >> We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear
Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was. IOf course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many".
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little shit.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com><johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<liberty48@live.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty
have to eat a ratwrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to
visit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to
ahttp://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of
in. Iconcern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will >> >> >> >> >> automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship
want tounderstand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to
don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths,
shipsPoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered
out.are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked
armed..We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear
don't carry nuke weapons.Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships
nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is
visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary. >> >> So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship
shit.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many".
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little
Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit
was an issue in the first place.
Do you think it was never an issue?
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:05:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:visit.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to
shipsPoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear poweredhttp://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
shit.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that heare known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary. >> >> >> So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many".
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little
So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
By saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That isI
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit
was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that theDo you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little shit.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO? >>> >
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
By saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit
was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
hardly a smear.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:29:43 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little shit.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO? >>>> >
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
By saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit >>>> was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
hardly a smear.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
but you may think lange,Moore,Clark
automatically lied to keep nuclear armed or powered out.
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It
On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com><johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:05:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<liberty48@live.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty
have to eat a ratwrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to
to visit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships
of ahttp://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit
willconcern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key
in. Iautomatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship
to want tounderstand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely
mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look likedo that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples'
powered shipsPoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear
out.are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked
nuclear armed..We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're
don't carry nuke weapons.Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships
nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about >> >> >> >> admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is
necessary.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he >> >> >> will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not
visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship
little shit.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship >> >> visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask >> >> - and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many >> >> that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many". >> >
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as AucklandI never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an >> >> issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO? >> >
Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit
was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.By saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
hardly a smear.
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 18:29:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:to visit.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:05:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships
a dishonest little shit.http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like
And it is still a legitimate question on the basis of your posts toSo what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he >> >> >> >> will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key isWhat are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about >> >> >> >> >> admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO? >> >> >> >> >
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are >> >> >> >> automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a >> >> >> distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless >> >> >> you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship >> >> >> visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask >> >> >> - and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many >> >> >> that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many". >> >> >
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as AucklandI never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying little shit.
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an >> >> >> issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO? >> >> >
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
You wrote this, Dumbo:
"So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?"
Of course it is - your contribution makes it yours, to at leasttheBy saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit
was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
hardly a smear.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
It's not my thread or title you irredeemably thick fool.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:34:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com><johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 18:29:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:05:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<liberty48@live.com>wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty
to have to eat a ratwrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going
warships to visit.As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American
bit of ahttp://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a
Key willconcern about the likely cost, but you may think John
ship in. Iautomatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered
unlikely to want tounderstand why you may think so, but even Key is
mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look likedo that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples'
powered shipsPoor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear
worked out.are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well
nuclear armed..We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're
ships don't carry nuke weapons.Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface
about
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie
nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO? >> >> >> >> >What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is
heOf course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that
necessary.will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is >> >> >> >> unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are >> >> >> >> automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not
ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a >> >> >> >> problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the
ship
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a >> >> >> distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless >> >> >> you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a
askvisit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to
many- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by
"many".that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While >> >> >"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not
an
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland >> >> >> housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on
JohnO?issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place,
little shit.
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying
So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
You wrote this, Dumbo:
"So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?"And it is still a legitimate question on the basis of your posts to
this thread. Do you claim that it is not an issue?
By saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the visit >> >> was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
hardly a smear.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
It's not my thread or title you irredeemably thick fool.Of course it is - your contribution makes it yours, to at leastthe
sameextent tht it is mone. You should learn to take personal
responsibility for your own actions - when you say something in a
thread that makes you part of the thread.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:57:55 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Since you posted the initial post in this thread, and decided on the >>Subject, perhaps you can explain what you were meaning - there doesn't
seem to be anything to "suck on" unless you believe Key will lie . . .
It has nothing to do with Key.
The Labour party have had hatred of American international policy
For years. Climaxing in Lange telling America to Fuck off in the 1980s.
It now appears grass roots labour (Thats is whats left of the party)wants American boats back.
Will the current Party co leaders little,Shaw and Turei Come out and welcome >And American ship?
Since you posted the initial post in this thread, and decided on the
Subject, perhaps you can explain what you were meaning - there doesn't
seem to be anything to "suck on" unless you believe Key will lie . . .
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:57:55 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Bet they will rush out and welcome a Russian or Chinese ship..
Since you posted the initial post in this thread, and decided on the
Subject, perhaps you can explain what you were meaning - there doesn't
seem to be anything to "suck on" unless you believe Key will lie . . .
It has nothing to do with Key.
The Labour party have had hatred of American international policy
For years. Climaxing in Lange telling America to Fuck off in the 1980s.
It now appears grass roots labour (Thats is whats left of the party)wants American boats back.
Will the current Party co leaders little,Shaw and Turei Come out and welcome
And American ship?
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:32:17 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:57:55 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Really? They certainly have worked well with the United States in
Since you posted the initial post in this thread, and decided on the >>>Subject, perhaps you can explain what you were meaning - there doesn't >>>seem to be anything to "suck on" unless you believe Key will lie . . .
It has nothing to do with Key.
The Labour party have had hatred of American international policy
every area except that of nuclear weapons. Can you give a cite?
no I didn't say Pre I said 1980sFor years. Climaxing in Lange telling America to Fuck off in the 1980s.
So you are talking about pre-1980
National were in power, and a few people got upset at the Vietnam War?
I doubt anyone in the USA would hold a few protests against New
Zealand - after all there were plenty of similar protests in teh USA
itself. What were you referring to?
It now appears grass roots labour (Thats is whats left of the party)wants American boats back.
Will the current Party co leaders little,Shaw and Turei Come out and welcome
And American ship?
Why would they want to? This is just a photo-op really - what good is
it doing for New Zealand? I am sure all politicians would want to talk
to their people about ways in which we can work better together, but a
ship visit just isn't really very important in itself. But I cannot
speak for either Labour or the Greens - lets wait and see if it
happens.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:57:55 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Really? They certainly have worked well with the United States in
Since you posted the initial post in this thread, and decided on the >>Subject, perhaps you can explain what you were meaning - there doesn't
seem to be anything to "suck on" unless you believe Key will lie . . .
It has nothing to do with Key.
The Labour party have had hatred of American international policy
For years. Climaxing in Lange telling America to Fuck off in the 1980s.
It now appears grass roots labour (Thats is whats left of the party)wants American boats back.
Will the current Party co leaders little,Shaw and Turei Come out and welcome >And American ship?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a
rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to
eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't
you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a
dishonest little shit.
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear
armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't carry >>nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have
to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to
visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in.
I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to
want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths,
don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you
look like a dishonest little shit.
ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear
armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships don't
carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is nuclear
powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have lie? Answer:
he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion
to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that he
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty
<liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to
have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to
visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit
of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key
will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship
in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to
want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths,
don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you
look like a dishonest little shit.
ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked
out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're
nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface ships
don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right", JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship is
nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would Key have
lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing its head again.
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a
problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the ship
visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia and compulsion
to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance. Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While
"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not "many".
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland
housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying
little shit.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:34:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 18:29:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:And it is still a legitimate question on the basis of your posts to
On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:06:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:05:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So what words did I put in anyones mouth in this thread?
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:05 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Indeed, but you didn't exactly object to Liberty saynig it was.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO"Concern by many"? You and your handful of deluded mates are not
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 11:34:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:14:24 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course Key wil not lie - some of the deranged may think that >>> >> >> >> he
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty
<liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are
going to have to eat a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American
warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is
a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John
Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is
unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples'
mouths, don't you? It doesn't make you look clever. It
just makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
powered ships
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well
worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're >>> >> >> >> >> >> nuclear armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
The unoffical fact of the matter is that US Navy surface
ships don't carry nuke weapons.
Which is why it would be silly for Key or National to lie
about
admitting a nuclear-powered or armed ship in - "right",
JohnO?
What are you talking about? It is plainly obvious if the ship
is nuclear powered and it won't be nuclear armed so why would
Key have lie? Answer: he won't and it's just your KDS rearing
its head again.
will let a nuclear ship in and pretend it isn;t, but even Key
is
unlikely to do that when the truth is likely to be known. You
are
automatically defending Key when on this occasion it is not
necessary.
So as I said, provided the law is upheld, there is not really a >>> >> >> >> problem with a ship visit.
Then why did you have to raise the spectre of Key lying about the >>> >> >> >ship visits? As I said, the answer is simply your KDS dementia
and compulsion to smear anyone to the right of Marx.
Because the whole story is a non-issue - a beat up about Labour as >>> >> >> a
distraction from Key and Nationals lies and poor performance.
Unless
you believe that Key would lie, there never was a problem with a
ship
visit - it was always up to the United States to be prepared to
confirm that ships are non-nuclear, and for the Prime Minister to
ask
- and not lie about the result. So we get back to the concern by
many
that NAtional will create a problem for themselves by lying. While >>> >> >
"many".
that is certainly true in respect of other issues such as Auckland >>> >> >> housing, I do no believe even Key will deliberately plan to lie on >>> >> >> an
issue where he could be fairly certain of being caught.
So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place,
JohnO?
I never said it was. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths you lying >>> >> >little shit.
What I object to is you putting words in peoples' mouths.
You wrote this, Dumbo:
"So why did you think the visit was an issue in the first place, JohnO?"
this thread. Do you claim that it is not an issue?
Of course it is - your contribution makes it yours, to at leasttheBy saying that I didn't think he would lie on this issue? That is
I
didn't say you did of course, I just asked you why you think the
visit
was an issue in the first place.
And you also took the opportunity to smear Key.
hardly a smear.
Look at the Subject of the thread - clearly an implication that the
Do you think it was never an issue?
Irrelevant.
survey had some relevance to Labour - someone thought it was an issue
- do you?
It's not my thread or title you irredeemably thick fool.
sameextent tht it is mone. You should learn to take personal
responsibility for your own actions - when you say something in a
thread that makes you part of the thread.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:09 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat >>>>> a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? >>> It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest >>> little shit.
are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear armed.. >>Looks like another Liebor get Key
What are you trying to say, george? Your nasty mis-spelling of Labour
implies that someone in Labour has lied - if so, what was that lie?
Has a nuclear powered Chinese ship visited New Zealand? If so, when?
On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:26:57 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:12:59 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Apparently you cannot - difficult of course when there is no lie - the
wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:15:42 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Poor little man. He doesn't realise that the USN nuclear powered ships >>>>are known and those armed with nukes can be pretty well worked out.
We allow Chinese warships in, no-one asks them if they're nuclear >>>>armed..
Looks like another Liebor get Key
What are you trying to say, george? Your nasty mis-spelling of Labour >>>implies that someone in Labour has lied - if so, what was that lie?
Where do you start?
lies are with National so george's unwarranted slur is just a
defensive mechanism
No answer from you to this one Liberty? I suspect george has no answer either.
Has a nuclear powered Chinese ship visited New Zealand? If so, when?
On 30/05/2016 8:09 p.m., JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 18:06:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat >>>> a rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will
automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I
understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
Dickbot, you really do like putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you?
It doesn't make you look clever. It just makes you look like a dishonest
little shit.
More like a despicable little cunt.
On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:06:40 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:06:41 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
Suck on this labour
Green/Labour anti American Central Committees are going to have to eat a >>> rat
As 65% of labour /Green supporters want American warships to visit. >>>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/05/another-poll-shows-elft-wing-still-touch/#more-252809
Provided they comply with our laws, why not? There is a bit of a
concern about the likely cost, but you may think John Key will >>automatically lie and allow a nuclear armed or powered ship in. I >>understand why you may think so, but even Key is unlikely to want to
do that when the truth is likely to be known anyway.
As you should be fully aware. American surface ships don't carry nuclear arms.
So you are talking shit as usual.
If labour hadn't pissed of our friends in the 1980s to the extent. Our
navy
Has been blacklisted for years.
Some right seedy countries have had more contact.
Don't forget labour reneged on the f16 deal.
Because labour had pissed of our friends. The skyhawks
couldn't be sold.
Don't forget Goff bullshit lie just before and election he had sold the skyhawks.
Then labour have always been anti American.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 38:00:55 |
| Calls: | 2,096 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,843 |