Nat/act/nzf 2023

[mistaTea]

Need to get to my laptop to switch you off but that will be after lunch.

How many interactions have you personally had with Winston Peter's or Shane Jones?
I ran a social media campaign for Peter's to get him elected in 2015. Even then I had frank discussions with him about his at the time xenophobic remarks & how I could only support him if he toned that down.

Shane Jones I have had a similar minor relationship with. At odds one minute but agree on other things. Some of the funding he supplied through the PGF was excellent, some was ill advised, some seemed a bit slippery for my liking and some certainly didn't meet the criteria that the Fund or the Covid Response set out.

Anyway, I better be careful as I want a fair chunk of change from him for my next charitable venture.

Relationships are nuanced, well for the educated they are. One thing doesn't necessarily mean another & the world certainly isn't black & white.
I know you will struggle with that concept, but just breathe buddy, before you keep shooting from the hip.

Nobody believes your supercilious bs mate.

Now just hush for the live of God.

[Panda-NZ-]

Seems to me that Bob Carr is a Chinese puppet. Winston may well be right.

Why? for having an opinion. Try andrew robb if you want to go down that road (where actions were taken vs words).

[Panda-NZ-]

Excerpts from Bobb Carr's letter to our esteemed foreign minister.

We place you on notice that we are now in the process of instructing New Zealand lawyers to advise in relation to the immediate commencement in New Zealand of defamation proceedings against you," the letter read. "…The Statements are indefensibly defamatory of our client and have no basis in fact. In that regard, our client has never had any business relationship with any Chinese entity, nor has he ever served on the Board of any Chinese company. "Further, he has never acted as an adviser or consultant to any Chinese company, nor has he ever been in receipt of any income from any Chinese shareholding or investment consultancy."

Seems fair enough.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...med-shill.html

[Daytr]

Nobody believes your supercilious bs mate.

Now just hush for the live of God.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
Seriously that's the best response you can come up with? Some people have the benefit of enough wisdom to know when to give up and keep their mouths shut.
Others....

I'm sure everyone is as bored as I am with this ridiculous tit for tat. So I'm on my lap top now buddy so see ya.

No doubt you will keep trying to bait & engage like you have until now. But that's just because like the great song Zombie goes.
I'm in your head, in your head...
Well let's face it, there's plenty of room in there.

[Ferg]

Excerpts from Bobb Carr's letter to our esteemed foreign minister.

[snip]

our client has never had any business relationship with any Chinese entity, nor has he ever served on the Board of any Chinese company. "Further, he has never acted as an adviser or consultant to any Chinese company, nor has he ever been in receipt of any income from any Chinese shareholding or investment consultancy.

Those are highly specific refutations and not necessarily all-encompassing. It doesn't mention employment relationships, nor does it define 'Chinese company' (what is a Chinese company?) and the refutation regarding receipts only include those from shareholdings and investment consultancy. That excludes business consultancy, political consultancy and many other forms of consultancy - not forgetting there are many other forms of remuneration. It would be better to have a wide ranging and all encompassing refutation rather than one that is highly specific and narrowly defined.

So far this sounds like dogs barking at each other. Interesting that Carr never sued the AFR for similar statements - I wonder why...?

Aren't we missing the bigger point - why is some formerly employed foreigner coming here and telling Kiwis what we can and can't do (or should or should not do) with our foreign policy? He can piss right off to where he came from. He's not part of any Government delegation that I'm aware of so for others to think this is some sort of massive international incident should stick to watching James Shaw videos.

[ynot]

Those are highly specific refutations and not necessarily all-encompassing. It doesn't mention employment relationships, nor does it define 'Chinese company' (what is a Chinese company?) and the refutation regarding receipts only include those from shareholdings and investment consultancy. That excludes business consultancy, political consultancy and many other forms of consultancy - not forgetting there are many other forms of remuneration. It would be better to have a wide ranging and all encompassing refutation rather than one that is highly specific and narrowly defined.

So far this sounds like dogs barking at each other. Interesting that Carr never sued the AFR for similar statements - I wonder why...?

Aren't we missing the bigger point - why is some formerly employed foreigner coming here and telling Kiwis what we can and can't do (or should or should not do) with our foreign policy? He can piss right off to where he came from. He's not part of any Government delegation that I'm aware of so for others to think this is some sort of massive international incident should stick to watching James Shaw videos.

Agree. He is just another has been politician like Helen Clark that think they have a god given right to continue to wield political clout well after their best by date.

[Daytr]

Those are highly specific refutations and not necessarily all-encompassing. It doesn't mention employment relationships, nor does it define 'Chinese company' (what is a Chinese company?) and the refutation regarding receipts only include those from shareholdings and investment consultancy. That excludes business consultancy, political consultancy and many other forms of consultancy - not forgetting there are many other forms of remuneration. It would be better to have a wide ranging and all encompassing refutation rather than one that is highly specific and narrowly defined.

So far this sounds like dogs barking at each other. Interesting that Carr never sued the AFR for similar statements - I wonder why...?

Aren't we missing the bigger point - why is some formerly employed foreigner coming here and telling Kiwis what we can and can't do (or should or should not do) with our foreign policy? He can piss right off to where he came from. He's not part of any Government delegation that I'm aware of so for others to think this is some sort of massive international incident should stick to watching James Shaw videos.

Well it's more interesting that it appears Carr is prepared to go to court over what Peters said. So perhaps what Peters said over stepped what the AFR reported.
We will find out.

Carr was asked his opinion of AUKUS and he gave it. Nothing wrong in that even if you don't agree with his opinion. He isn't representing Australia, unlike Peters and Carr has knowledge of the subject.

Apparently Peters doesn't, or that's what he is telling us.

[mistaTea]

Those are highly specific refutations and not necessarily all-encompassing. It doesn't mention employment relationships, nor does it define 'Chinese company' (what is a Chinese company?) and the refutation regarding receipts only include those from shareholdings and investment consultancy. That excludes business consultancy, political consultancy and many other forms of consultancy - not forgetting there are many other forms of remuneration. It would be better to have a wide ranging and all encompassing refutation rather than one that is highly specific and narrowly defined.

So far this sounds like dogs barking at each other. Interesting that Carr never sued the AFR for similar statements - I wonder why...?

Aren't we missing the bigger point - why is some formerly employed foreigner coming here and telling Kiwis what we can and can't do (or should or should not do) with our foreign policy? He can piss right off to where he came from. He's not part of any Government delegation that I'm aware of so for others to think this is some sort of massive international incident should stick to watching James Shaw videos.

Yeah and very easy to say someone has ‘defamed’ you.

Let’s see if it goes anywhere and is tested in court.

The hurdle for ‘defamation’ should be high.