jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 1:13:54 PM UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com >> >wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

National have consistently lied and then abused the Official
Information Act to hide their lies - here is an example of them being
proved liars - they probably hoped they would be able to hold off the
Privacy Commissioner for just a few more weeks.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/339438/saudi-sheep-deal-no-mfat-legal-advice-on-lawsuit-risk

Sure the gross incompetence was initially with McCully, but the
cover-up has been consistently fought by all thoe who were in Cabinet
when they supported the lies in parliament, including Bill English,
Bennet, Joyce, etc.

We cannot believe anything the liars say. Time for a Labour/Green
government

You could be right, but you are a notoriously bad judge and you yourself >> >>are
a
proven liar!

The Saudi deal demonstrates just what an obsequious, lily-livered bunch the >> >government are.

The same lot of cowering ninnies cynically stiffed the New Zealand
taxpayers
by using their earnings to climb out of the sheep-deal hole they had dug
for
themselves.

But then, when it comes to stiffing the taxpayer, National MPs have more
form
than the Kray twins.

You may also remember there was that other McCully dumbfuck moment when, at >> >an
official Foreign Ministry reception, the Saudis were greeted by the
unedifying
sight of their national flag hung upside-down.

As a Kuwaiti LSE graduate once grinningly told me:

God gave New Zealanders their sheep; but he gave the arabs their oil.

My point remains as constant as your bias.

Whatever you may think your points are worth, they constantly amount to little >more than your constant pissing-into-the-wind rhetoric.

No government is perfect including the incumbent.

People have always known this, so that's another example of your redundant >rhetoric.

What we have no choice but to

do is choose the best of what is available

Again, people have always known this, so there you go again.....and you don't >even know you're doing it! Mindless thumb-twiddling.

and if that choice is made based on
the sort of stuff you are descibing then it will be a very badly informed >>one.

How better can anyone be informed than by the historical and self-evident >facts before him?

The choice, particularly when the opposition has not been in power for a >>long
time, has to be based on promises, policy, personnel and ideas.

Redundant verbiage again, yet...

This is where the New Zealand voter - who in reality can be counted on to look >no further than his own wallet - has to calculate the risks and rewards of >taking a punt on a vibrant, upstart candidate who is not only a fast learner, >but has also had the particular advantage of some political grooming during her
few high-pressure and instructive years spent in No 10's cabinet office.

So, given the nod, she might well prove able and worthy of the top >office....provided whatever advice given is worth having. Robertson is also >said to be no slouch with the numbers, this encomium having come more than >enough times from both sides of the political spectrum. And I also reckon that
when it comes to economic policies per se, Cullen[1] will be on hand as >Labour's eminence grise.

In fact, if the history of political changings of the guard is anything to go >by, the books are unlikely to be in anything resembling the good order that's >been suggested.

continue to make my choice based on that.

And, as one man, the nation will declare, "Be still, my beating heart!" and >hold its breath as you do so!

Have you decided to tell me who you are going to vote for as discussed in >>another thread?

When did I give you any such undertaking?

But not to worry. Know that I'm always inclined to vote for the candidate and >the party I reckon likely to do no worse damage than that previously dealt to >New Zealand by the outgoing administration.

[1] It was Cullen whose legacy made it possible for New Zealand to ride out >the GFC. Next time there's a GFC - and there will be - there will be no such >buffer.