|
The Hamster Man posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10784735 I can see the point Paul Holmes is trying to make about violence on Waitangi day, but it's like he downs a bottle of whiskey and he always makes his points in the angriest, white people privilege, racist way that it's hard to take him any more seriously than your drunk and inappropriate uncle in Christmas Day. That said, I actually think a lot of the Herald's political news is quite good, I think Claire Trevett writes hilarious parliamentary sketches and I think their Press Gallery team are largely separated from the awful editorials and a variety of awful columnists across the rest of the paper by virtue of just being in Wellington. I think the Herald's political journalists based out of Wellington do a good and fair job but stupid hacks like Paul Holmes and Garth George and other loonies on freelance contracts are letting their coverage down. Fairfax is much more hysterical in day to day news writing I've found.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Speaking of hacks writing for the Herald, it seems like John Armstrong has been spooked enough by the rumours that Key will resign some time before 2014 to write a column trying to address it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Speaking of hacks writing for the Herald, it seems like John Armstrong has been spooked enough by the rumours that Key will resign some time before 2014 to write a column trying to address it. I think this is largely wishful thinking by people (i.e Labour) who don't believe they can beat him. No doubt it's been a lot of poo poo churning around for the last couple of weeks, but I don't think most of it is as consequential to the long-term fortunes of the government as those against it would like it to be. There's certainly a lot of major issues facing the government this year, but it doesn't get much worse than everything that happened last year, and I can't help but think the NZ public response to Key's style as: 'can you really blame him?' I don't see Key resigning from Parliament before the 2014 election barring some major catastrophe or scandal that pushes him out, and god knows Labour has tried and failed enough times to make that happen. Edit: I noted how Armstrong said things inevitably start to go wrong at the start of the 2nd term. Well if everything has "gone right" for the Government until now I'm not sure I want to even think about what terrible things may happen to the country in the next years. The plague? Wellington being hit by a quake? miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:I think this is largely wishful thinking by people (i.e Labour) who don't believe they can beat him. No doubt it's been a lot of poo poo churning around for the last couple of weeks, but I don't think most of it is as consequential to the long-term fortunes of the government as those against it would like it to be. There's certainly a lot of major issues facing the government this year, but it doesn't get much worse than everything that happened last year, and I can't help but think the NZ public response to Key's style as: 'can you really blame him?' I've only heard the suggestion twice (Nicky Hagar's article on pundit right after the elections and this article - although both Hagar and Armstrong are likely to be more tuned in with what's going on in the National caucus since Hagar mentioned things that were told to him by "his source in the party" and Armstrong was a former National MP, IIRC who probably has friends in parliament), so I'm not really sure why Armstrong suddenly felt the need to address them but evidently, he does think that there is a possibility. Maybe he will, maybe he wont. If he does resign, it's going to be catastrophic for the National government, especially considering they've done exceptionally well on his cult of personality and likeability (although personally, I find him to be a smug, slimy oval office and he reminds me of Peter Creedy from V for Vendetta*) if he's gone, that leaves the likes of Bennett, Brownlee or English. There also does appear to be some disappointment with Key as well and the RM polls that I posted earlier does indicate that people may be getting tired of him. It's still the only poll I've seen taken this year (with a sample size of 933 on landlines, so take that for what you will), so it's obviously not definitive but it does demonstrate a trend that should have the National party more nervous than they apparently are. *see what I mean? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Do you really think if John Key was planning to leave that he would go around telling people, knowing the likelihood it would get out? I think Hagar is full of poo poo on this one. Like I say, it suits people who want to get rid of Key to believe this rumour but if that's all they have as an election strategy then they are in for a world of disappointment. Again, there's been hardly any polling so far to indicate that Key is beginning the journey to getting kicked out having just been re-elected, RM bounces around a lot and it's way way to early in the cycle to make any kind of predictions. I think all this KEY IS ON THE WAY OUT IS GOING TO RETIRE is just wishful thinking. Maybe effort would be better concentrated on getting Shearer to lift his game. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:Do you really think if John Key was planning to leave that he would go around telling people, knowing the likelihood it would get out? I think Hagar is full of poo poo on this one. Like I say, it suits people who want to get rid of Key to believe this rumour but if that's all they have as an election strategy then they are in for a world of disappointment. I don't know what to make of it, but if it's not just Hagar but Armstrong as well talking about it, then there could be something to the rumours. Like I said, maybe he'll leave and maybe he won't, so we can all cross that bridge when we get there, but early indications are Key won't have the sweet ride he had in his first 3 years as PM and Armstrong reckons that may be weighing a bit heavily on Key. Nobody's really said it's anything more than speculation and as far as I'm aware, no one from opposition's really had anything to say on the matter. miss_chaos posted:Again, there's been hardly any polling so far to indicate that Key is beginning the journey to getting kicked out having just been re-elected, RM bounces around a lot and it's way way to early in the cycle to make any kind of predictions. I think all this KEY IS ON THE WAY OUT IS GOING TO RETIRE is just wishful thinking. Maybe effort would be better concentrated on getting Shearer to lift his game. Yes, you've already talked about the RM poll bouncing around a lot and that is plainly visible in the period between March 2009~mid-October 2011, but you're failing to take into account the fact that the RM poll results from around October 23 onwards has been steadily declining with no little upward bounce. It briefly plateaus shortly before election day and at the period between January 16~29th, the National Party is sitting a good 10% below where they were just before the World Cup final. Further, you keep repeating how it's just "wishful thinking," so do you mind telling me where anyone's said it's anything other than speculation? Hell, you're the only person who's even suggesting it's an opposition tactic, unless I've missed any posts anywhere. Fact is, despite your apparent protestations otherwise, the currently available information strongly suggests that the country's apparent love affair with John Key and the National Party is waning fast. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Getting people angry about that would go a long way to getting people to think about how much better their standards of living could be, and that's before you even look at wages. ... Mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Further, you keep repeating how it's just "wishful thinking," so do you mind telling me where anyone's said it's anything other than speculation? Hell, you're the only person who's even suggesting it's an opposition tactic, unless I've missed any posts anywhere. Fact is, despite your apparent protestations otherwise, the currently available information strongly suggests that the country's apparent love affair with John Key and the National Party is waning fast. It's obviously just speculation, with the hope that if it's said enough times it might come true. Labour MPs bring it up all the time in the House, in fact I'm pretty sure there's actually been Questions about it at some point. Obviously it would be fabulous for Labour if Key did go, because he's seen as such a critical part of the National Party brand. There's little doubt that many hope this is the case. The currently available information suggests that 47% of those who voted in the election voted for National, compared to Labour's 27%. MMP politics aside, that's a big endorsement over the only other viable governing party in terms of party vote. That was two months ago. I think it's far too early to put any stocks in the polls and what they might been long term for 2014. There's no groundswell of public opinion anywhere mainstream (political blogs are not mainstream) that suggests that Key is becoming unpopular. After the summer break with little political news and basically nothing in the way of polls, the New Zealand public is largely checked out of politics still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Welp, new poll is out, this time from UMR. I'm trying to find more stories on it, but here's what a poorly written, stupid article from the Sunday Star Times, via Stuff says.quote:Prime Minister John Key wins hearts if not minds You can pretty much ignore everything that isn't bolded since it's stupid poo poo. The key point is that from the looks of things, if Labour had planned on putting a dent on Key's image by complaining to the Electoral Commission over RNZ being a bunch of sycophants at election time, it looks like it worked and the shocking start he's had to this current election cycle probably hasn't helped either. Armstrong talked about the inevitable dip in the second term and it looks like we're starting to see it. It suggests UMR's findings (750 people polled) more or less follows RM's findings and if we didn't already know it before, demonstrates how much the John Key brand is tied in with the National Party strategy. Edit: The Herald's published a very scathing editorial by Matt McCarten quote:Key's power play won't stop the bills going up http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10784912 edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Feb 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
The Herald posted:Commercially, it also makes no sense to sell. Even the right-wingers no longer pretend that privatisation makes any business sense for us. The Government disclosed that the average annual shareholders' return from the four power companies over the past five years was an eye-watering 18.5 per cent. This. 18.5% returns? No one in their right mind would sell stock in a company performing that well. Any anti-privatisation movement should be making this their number one point, not any sovereignty thing, as anyone can see that selling off something that you'd get the same money for by just hanging on to it for 5 years is a stupid, stupid idea driven by ideology rather than any good reason. This just makes me so angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
I would even say that your reading is generous, attributing this to misguided ideology rather than cynical greed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Ah, but you see, selling off our assets will prompt more competition and there will be less bureaucracy/more efficient and they'll be able to charge less and won't be making 18.5% anymore because free markets!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
asdfsdfg posted:Ah, but you see, selling off our assets will prompt more competition and there will be less bureaucracy/more efficient and they'll be able to charge less and won't be making 18.5% anymore because free markets! Yes and I can point to many varied an interesting examples of where corporations in monopoly-like situations improved services and lowered prices instead of slashing and burning and making as much money as possible while running infrastructure into the ground, such as
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
The Hamster Man posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10784735 Just popped in to post these responses to Paul Holmes's article. Good ole' Paul used to come in to the cafe that I used to work at when I was at uni. He would park his ugly Bentley on the yellow lines right next to a busy round-about then stroll in to the cafe, ignore the line of people waiting to order and come straight up to the person on the coffee machine and tell them rudely that he wanted a coffee. gently caress that guy. Here. And here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Yes and I can point to many varied an interesting examples of where corporations in monopoly-like situations improved services and lowered prices instead of slashing and burning and making as much money as possible while running infrastructure into the ground, such as The stupidest thing about the asset sales is that no one is asking why SOEs are making those amazing returns each year while being Government-owned and still jacking up prices? (Hint: It's because citizens are treated like cash cows). Frankly I'd just rather our power and water companies weren't used to cynically screw people on the basic necessities just so politicians can pretend they haven't raised taxes/rates. Ratios and Tendency posted:I would even say that your reading is generous, attributing this to misguided ideology rather than cynical greed. There's literally only one thing that could warrant flogging off assets with a return rate of 18.5% - if the costs of servicing and repaying it gets above that rate of return. However, given we're currently in the midst of a prolonged recession now, I'd say there's a good chance Western society would have to collapse for that to happen. As far as I'm aware, society has not collapsed. Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Feb 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
The Hamster Man posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10784735 Almost every word in that article speaks true. Waitangi day means nothing. It is just a day off work for a lot of the country. The radical Maori people of New Zealand had better wake up to themselves soon, a treaty is just that. A treaty, there is no legal binding too continue too honor it if either one of the party's decides it does not want too. Meaning. 1 .When the government wakes up(if ever), it can just turn around and tell them all to shut up and go away. 2. Maori people would be treated under the same law as every other citizen.(wow how fair is that?) 3. New Zealand can start spending dollars on growing instead of having to sell off assets to pay money to maori. I for one cannot wait until this day arrives. It will almost welcome New Zealand to the real world instead of the isolated dreamland we live in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Almost every word in that article speaks true. Waitangi day means nothing. It is just a day off work for a lot of the country. Hey look everyone, it's Don Brash circa 2005! You are a stupid, painfully ignorant redneck piece of poo poo and despite your wishful thinking to the contrary you are actually part of an embarrassingly vocal, but increasingly irrelevant, minority. Hurry up and die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Almost every word in that article speaks true. Waitangi day means nothing. It is just a day off work for a lot of the country. A searing criticism of New Zealand's education system if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Maori people would be treated under the same law as every other citizen.(wow how fair is that? I agree, the white heterosexual male is truly a second class citizen, WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:A searing criticism of New Zealand's education system if nothing else. A treaty, there is no legal binding too continue too honor it if either one of the party's decides it does not want too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
I love people who want to ignore the fact that New Zealand came about as close as it could to making the act of being Maori illegal when they complain about Maoris. History never repeats. There's a lot of things wrong with the way the Treaty is handled, how settlements arguably further the interests of a few members of Iwi afflicted with an ironic white privilege instead of actually being used to help the development of their people and culture and how Maori rights over assets won't achieve better outcomes for their people if it only benefits those select few institutionalised Maori. And maybe some vocal Maori do spend too much time waxing on about the Treaty, despite the fact we uphold the principles derived from it and not the document itself. But do you know why? It's because of people like you. You say 'Geez, it's been 150 years, let it go' and want to pretend like we never tried to assfuck Maori out of existence, and then wonder why people are still talking about colonial injustice. There's going to be vocal idiots in any crowd, but maybe a lot of those vocal Maori would be a lot happier if New Zealanders actually realised how we almost legislated their culture out of existence, instead of angrily folding the Herald opinion pages in disgust, shaking their heads and wondering how these bloody Maoris seem to get everything for nothing. The reason this happens at Waitangi Day every year is because you don't understand why it happens every year. You are literally the problem. If you want to have a problem with the Treaty, there are some actual issues and proper talking points in the second paragraph of this post. But just saying 'people object to something and I'm not going to consider the possibility they might have an actual grievance I don't yet understand' isn't an argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
EDIT: Clubman has said it more beautifully than I could.Ark Silva posted:A treaty, there is no legal binding too continue too honor it if either one of the party's decides it does not want too. Even if this was technically correct (several acts bind the New Zealand government to the principles of the Treaty and while the specifics of that phrase are rigorously disputed, the government is bound by it unless they want to hurt themselves), that would not make you any less of a monster for saying this. A Privileged Bastard posted:2. Maori people would be treated under the same law as every other citizen.(wow how fair is that?) Oh absolutely, we'll just magic away that century or so of stealing Maori land, murdering Maori citizens, institutionally discriminating against them and shutting them out of any adequate legal recourse because we're all ~~**so equal**~~ now. quote:3. New Zealand can start spending dollars on growing instead of having to sell off assets to pay money to maori. You don't even know what you're talking about, you racist twat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Just off of a probation and you're already proving yourself to be a worthless loving idiot. Who wants to bet that we'll see either a ban or a probation for this guy within a week?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Almost every word in that article speaks true. Waitangi day means nothing. It is just a day off work for a lot of the country. My white privilege!  You need to grow up and get some perspective I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Almost every word in that article speaks true. Waitangi day means nothing. It is just a day off work for a lot of the country. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Famous Socially-Liberal Politician, Believer in Human Rights, and All-Round Good Guy Lockwood Smith has made another great decision today in Parliament! http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6414948/Deaf-MP-made-to-pay Stuff posted:
Oh hang on a second
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
In todays news Lockwood Smith appears to have opened parliament up to a complaint to the human rights commission by saying that a new Green MP has to provide funding on her own for facilities to enable her to perform part of her job as an MP. Sure she is deaf and as such needs some additional facilities but as a society we recognise disabilities should not hold people back as much as we can avoid it. Surely once the facilities are in place then other deaf people will be able to participate in our parliamentary process. I also imagine some of the other MPs might find the automatic note-taking to be useful. Imagine if an employer told a new employee they had to pay out of their own pocket for a wheelchair access ramp. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6414948/Deaf-MP-made-to-pay
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Just sent an email to Lockwood Smith. I doubt anything will come of it, but here it is:quote:I am emailing to let you know how disappointed and disgusted I am, as a New Zealand citizen and voter, with your decision to force Mathers to pay for equipment to help her in her duties as a Member of Parliament. Further, in your capacity as speaker, it appears you may have opened up Parliament to a Human Rights complaint, due to your discriminatory decision. It was a huge step forward for Mathers to become a member of Parliament and to represent Green voters by virtue of being a list MP for the Green Party. Your decision demonstrates retardation when it comes to understanding and demonstrating empathy for those who face the challenges surrounding disabilities and quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your decision-making shows either callousness, stupidity or a cynical ploy to destabilise the 3rd largest party in parliament who sits in opposition to the government, which I also note happens to be the party you yourself are affiliated with - since you have demonstrated double standards in your capacity as speaker, I wonder if you would have made such a mean-spirited decision had it been a National MP who was deaf and required the equipment to accommodate them in their duties as a Member of Parliament.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Imagine if an employer told a new employee they had to pay out of their own pocket for a wheelchair access ramp. I was just talking about this at work. In that case you are employed voluntarily by someone who knows you're disabled then refuses to provide the tools you need to do the work. In her case, she was appointed to a position, and the employer (the House of Representatives) is not set up to have her work in a role they did not select her for specifically. It is lovely but it is not a directly transferable situation. On the other hand, the people of New Zealand "hired" her to do the job, so as her employer we should pay out of our pocket (with taxes) to enable her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Nice^^^Vagabundo http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785474 Winston had something to say about it, I can never figure him out. I think he just likes stirring but good on him for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
I find it really hard to believe that the funding for Mathers' equipment - equipment necessary for her to perform "her role and functions as a member of Parliament" - isn't "part of the appropriation" as the spokesperson for Smith says. This is just based on a cursory reading of the Parliamentary Services Act, but Parliamentary Services' job is "to administer, in accordance with directions given by the Speaker, the payment of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes" (s7(b)) and the Parliamentary Services Commission can only "advise" the Speaker on "the nature of the services to be provided to the House of Representatives and to members of Parliament" and "the objectives to be achieved by providing those services" (s14(1)(a)). The only thing standing in the way of the Speaker actually going "gently caress it give her the money" is that he has to provide Parliamentary Services with direction at the start of every financial year and they follow that, but even then I find it hard to believe that Smith didn't set some extra cash aside in the case of unforeseen expenses such as this (and that's assuming that he's exactly the kind of idiot who would set aside money for 'physical disabilities' and then not include deafness within the meaning of that). Again, this is all based on a very cursory reading of the PSA but it seems like the only thing stopping Smith is him not doing his job properly a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:Even if this was technically correct (several acts bind the New Zealand government to the principles of the Treaty and while the specifics of that phrase are rigorously disputed, the government is bound by it unless they want to hurt themselves), that would not make you any less of a monster for saying this. You are correct that common law exists now referencing the " Principals of the treaty" How ever if I asked what those were, all I would get is a bunch of gibberish derived from the Maori version of the treaty(Lets not go there)Those principals do not exist in a signed version of the treaty. Have you actually read it? Or do people just listen to what they hear on the news? Pigeon Shamus posted:Oh absolutely, we'll just magic away that century or so of stealing Maori land, murdering Maori citizens, institutionally discriminating against them and shutting them out of any adequate legal recourse because we're all ~~**so equal**~~ now. Really Sir? I suppose your of the opinion that the Maori people were first to New Zealand and that somehow magically gives them more rights? For the record. Maori are not native to New Zealand and in fact ate (Yes Ate) the people here before them. They are a cannibalistic race that is still emerging into the 21st century, Tho they have somehow found the use of the lawyer very much to there liking( who is the only person who wins from this situation). I am not a racist and I resent those comments. If you want to have a debate on the subject then by all means. But get your facts right first and do not come in with the racist comment that usually prevails whenever someone says anything that might upset the Maori people. It is only the vocal radical Maori that get the media coverage. From my experience most Maori don't care and just get on with there lives like everyone else. The smart ones go to Uni get degrees and move to Aussie like all the other Kiwis. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:You are correct that common law exists now referencing the " Principals of the treaty" How ever if I asked what those were, all I would get is a bunch of gibberish derived from the Maori version of the treaty(Lets not go there)Those principals do not exist in a signed version of the treaty. Have you actually read it? Or do people just listen to what they hear on the news? The Moriori myth is at least 30 years out of date you racist moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:They are a cannibalistic race that is still emerging into the 21st century, Ark Silva posted:I am not a racist and I resent those comments. Just gonna leave this sitting right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:get your facts right first Take your own advice first, you stupid piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:You are correct that common law exists now referencing the " Principals of the treaty" How ever if I asked what those were, all I would get is a bunch of gibberish derived from the Maori version of the treaty(Lets not go there)Those principals do not exist in a signed version of the treaty. Have you actually read it? Or do people just listen to what they hear on the news? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:You are correct that common law exists now referencing the " Principals of the treaty" How ever if I asked what those were, all I would get is a bunch of gibberish derived from the Maori version of the treaty(Lets not go there)Those principals do not exist in a signed version of the treaty. Have you actually read it? Or do people just listen to what they hear on the news? The nature of the translation means there's a lot of debate over what specifically the principles are, yes, though given the Maoris were the ones who were ceding sovereignty/governmental authority (depending on which translation you prefer), I'm more inclined to prefer the Maori translation which grants the British governorship and keeps chiefly authority over taonga in Maori hands. So yes, I have read it. Further, the basic accepted principles of Partnership, Active Protection of Maori interests, Consultation with Maori groups and availability of adequate Redress in situations where an action must be taken in contrary to their interests (as first suggested in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987]) are pretty decent starting points, though somewhat vague in application. There is debate, yes, but the fluidity of the principles is part of their benefit - they can be adapted to changing social climates and offer a way of dealing with the issue that isn't a checklist. It's a shame you can't deal with the 'gibberish', but the Courts do a pretty good job of it. You Are A Racist posted:Really Sir? I suppose your of the opinion that the Maori people were first to New Zealand and that somehow magically gives them more rights? For the record. Maori are not native to New Zealand and in fact ate (Yes Ate) the people here before them. They are a cannibalistic race that is still emerging into the 21st century, Tho they have somehow found the use of the lawyer very much to there liking( who is the only person who wins from this situation). The concept of a racially-distinct Moriori people has been rejected by anthropologists and historians like Michael King, Arthur Thomson and James Belich. To quote Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand - quote:In the case of Māori, the census of 1896 showed their numbers (42,000) to be the lowest since colonisation began. That Māori had caused the extinction of the Moriori (the people thought to be living in New Zealand before Māori), and were now in turn being supplanted by European colonists was nobody’s fault, but simply the way it must be. The Great Fleet theory legitimised European colonisation and the possibility of Māori extinction. This includes your cannibalism rubbish. quote:I am not a racist and I resent those comments. If you want to have a debate on the subject then by all means. But get your facts right first and do not come in with the racist comment that usually prevails whenever someone says anything that might upset the Maori people. It is only the vocal radical Maori that get the media coverage. From my experience most Maori don't care and just get on with there lives like everyone else. The smart ones go to Uni get degrees and move to Aussie like all the other Kiwis. You have called the Maori version of the Treaty "gibberish", proposed that any injustice they have suffered is irrelevant now because we're all ~~New Zealanders~~ and actively put forward a discredited anthropological theory that was used to justify English colonisation and racial oppression. You've given me literally no reason to think that you aren't a closet racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:You are correct that common law exists now referencing the " Principals of the treaty" How ever if I asked what those were, all I would get is a bunch of gibberish derived from the Maori version of the treaty(Lets not go there)Those principals do not exist in a signed version of the treaty. Have you actually read it? Or do people just listen to what they hear on the news? I have read it. I'm not going to assume about whether or not Pigeon's read it, but he's not a loving idiot, unlike you, so I'd wager he knows what the gently caress he's talking about. Do you even know the differences between the commonly accepted Maori version of the treaty and the English version? The fact that you've claimed it's "gibberish" suggests that you're talking out of your butt so unless proven otherwise, I'd say "no, you don't have a loving clue what you're talking about." Edit: Shock horror, Pigeon Shamus knows what he's talking about when it comes to the Treaty. It looks like you're hopefully out of your depth, dipshit. Ark Silva posted:Really Sir? I suppose your of the opinion that the Maori people were first to New Zealand and that somehow magically gives them more rights? For the record. Maori are not native to New Zealand and in fact ate (Yes Ate) the people here before them. They are a cannibalistic race that is still emerging into the 21st century, Tho they have somehow found the use of the lawyer very much to there liking( who is the only person who wins from this situation). No, you shut the gently caress up. Moriori were an off-shoot of Maori that ended up on the Chatham Islands and developed their own unique culture there. The "Moriori were on NZ first" is a complete and utter myth that was debunked around 30 years ago, as Ratios and Tendency has kindly pointed out. Ark Silva posted:I am not a racist and I resent those comments. If you want to have a debate on the subject then by all means. But get your facts right first and do not come in with the racist comment that usually prevails whenever someone says anything that might upset the Maori people. It is only the vocal radical Maori that get the media coverage. From my experience most Maori don't care and just get on with there lives like everyone else. The smart ones go to Uni get degrees and move to Aussie like all the other Kiwis. No, you get your facts straight first, you stupid motherfucker. The preceding two paragraphs have demonstrated that you haven't the slightest clue about what you speak and despite your resentment of being called a racist, you have done nothing but confirm to everyone here that you are one. Either that, or you're too loving stupid to realise how much of a raging racist you are. Both seem plausible, because you're an idiot. And a racist. Now, gently caress off. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Edit: Shock horror, he knows Pigeon Shamus knows what he's talking about when it comes to the Treaty. It looks like you're hopefully out of your depth, dipshit. I'm studying to be a lawyer, I have to know it considering we're the only ones who benefit from the Treaty in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:13
|
|