|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Infotainment! posted:Death blow.
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Oh man you're totally right, the way they massively expanded their territory and trade in the 19th century was just an 150 year dead cat bounce. It would be really weird if, between the US war of independence and the mid 20th century, the British took India and large sections of Africa directly as well as seizing almost total control of trade coming from Asia. So you deeply believe new zealand should not become a republic?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:So you deeply believe new zealand should not become a republic? I legit do, but only because having NZers elect a head of state seems like letting lunatics run the asylum. We've never had a GG brainfart like Australia and given the contention over letting go of the Privy Council, I don't think we're ready. There's nothing hugely wrong with the current system.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:So you deeply believe new zealand should not become a republic? You are saying a historical thing happened, which it did not. I'm telling you you're wrong. I have no strong feelings on the republican debate. The monarchy's role is purely symbolic at this point, so who cares?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:What. Where the hell did you get that from? It kind of sucks that we have to pay for a clan of inbred Germans to travel here and be expected to act like they're special though. Infotainment! posted:The independence of the United States was the death blow (60 ish years isn't too bad for internet hyperbole), the body just writhed around for a bit on the way out. Also, you're utterly and demonstrably wrong. The British Empire was lost in the mid-20th Century, and the loss of the US at the time wasn't really a priority for the British, when they had a war to fight in continental Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
You're delusional if you think becoming a republic would stop our government from footing the bill every time the British monarchy wanted to visit us. It would simply reduce the number of times they did.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
No. The logic of what was a fairly off the cuff remark should be relatively evident: the independence of the United States was the first large British colonial loss. The effect on the psyche of both Britain and it's colonies is obvious in the shift in their interaction which followed. It also obviously lead to the rise of the American empire which displaced the British completely as a world power. If you can't see the signifcance of this event in the decline of the British Empire I can only say lololol to you sir, and lololol again.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
This is you right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B9MqNzQuuk You've downgraded from "death", to "deathblow", to the "the decline". These terms are not synonymous. Big Bad Beetleborg fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:No. The logic of what was a fairly off the cuff remark should be relatively evident: But it wasn't off the cuff. You were challenged and stood by it. The logic isn;t self evident, and it's not even close to correct. It's not correct to the point that the years known as "Britain's imperial century" started 100 years after you said the empire ended.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Of course they're synonymous, as used in conjunction with the metaphor I used earlier of the body writhing. You do understand that an empire doesn't literally die right? That the use of the iconography of "death" is a metaphorical representation of an empire ending/falling/declining.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:Of course they're synonymous, as used in conjunction with the metaphor I used earlier of the body writhing. You do understand that an empire doesn't literally die right? That the use of the iconography of "death" is a metaphorical representation of an empire ending/falling/declining. newtestleper posted:But it wasn't off the cuff. You were challenged and stood by it. The logic isn;t self evident, and it's not even close to correct. It's not correct to the point that the years known as "Britain's imperial century" started 100 years after you said the empire ended.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Oh man, look at all those colonies paying taxes without local government after the American Revolution. Look at how the Indian independence movement is completely uninformed by it. The IRA didn't even know it happened and had no assistance from American Irish. Thanks for the sweet history lesson.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Britain is still pretty powerful 300 years after you said it died.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:How are you not getting this. Over a century of expansion and prosperity is not a decline. I get it. I know it happened. What I am trying and failing to get across is that all the events which followed can be traced back to that one. That over the course of history that particular event influenced everything else and without it there's a good chance the British Empire would still exist.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:I get it. I know it happened. What I am trying and failing to get across is that all the events which followed can be traced back to that one. That over the course of history that particular event influenced everything else and without it there's a good chance the British Empire would still exist. Probably because that's not what you said to begin with. Probably.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:I'm pretty sure Britain is still pretty powerful 300 years after you said it died. The powerful country being forced to buy lovely planes that don't work by a former colony for billions of dollars? That fights bullshit wars because they're told to with no reciprocity? There's an obvious argument against the majority of my position but this is pretty retarded.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Probably because that's not what you said to begin with. Probably. I'd concede poorly expressed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:I get it. I know it happened. What I am trying and failing to get across is that all the events which followed can be traced back to that one. That over the course of history that particular event influenced everything else and without it there's a good chance the British Empire would still exist. Nah I'm pretty sure World War 2 would have still happened regardless of America being a colony or not
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:The powerful country being forced to buy lovely planes that don't work by a former colony for billions of dollars? That fights bullshit wars because they're told to with no reciprocity? There's an obvious argument against the majority of my position but this is pretty retarded. lol ok
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
swampland posted:Nah I'm pretty sure World War 2 would have still happened regardless of America being a colony or not Quite possibly, however the US would have been involved in the league of nations, participated in the treaty of Versailles, and fought against the axis from 1939, rather than being an active trading partner with Germany until 1941. That would likely have changed the outcome. All this is a bit Harry Turtledove though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Now this is some debate and discussion! 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I like how even in the NZ thread NZers can only find the energy to talk about other countries' politics.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Well I mean the only really exciting thing happening at the moment is the PM promising us that he'll deepen New Zealand's business links to known terrorist supporting and human rights violation committing super-pal Saudi Arabia. Oh, and also promising that he won't take public funds to pay for his personal legal costs. How magnanimous.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Oh, and also promising that he won't take public funds to pay for his personal legal costs. How magnanimous. Three months from now: "Well, those expenditures don't count as 'my legal costs' per se, I was operating under my authority as Prime Minister to transfer funds from the office of the Prime Minister to the office of the Prime Minister, who, at the time of receipt, was not wearing his Prime Minister hat, and would you turn down a windfall like suddenly finding a few million dollars in your bank account? By the way, by stating that I wouldn't use public funds to pay my legal costs, I was implying that I could, which, ha, no-one corrected me on, no takesies backsies."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
JK's victim is going to meet with Unite Union tomorrow to decide whether to pursue legal action. She asked Graham McReady to drop his lawsuit but like the tosser he is he got all smug and said no. Also regarding the republican movement in NZ, the only strong argument I've ever heard one way or another is that if we lose the monarchy then the Treaty of Waitangi is no longer valid and Maori would have to trust the government to include the same protections and principles in whatever constitution got drawn up. Compared to "national pride" or "gently caress the monarchy" etc on the other side I'm happy with the status quo. Is there a decent argument in favour of being a republic?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
In terms of the head of state it probably won't change much in how things work. The idea of replacing the Treaty with a new Constitution sounds promising, especially if it goes the way of the Iceland "crowdsourced constitution". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11443525 In other news, the only thing that the voters get a say on recently launched today. Yes, the Great Flag Debate is on! Maybe we should start a subversive submissions campaign & submit copies of the current flag as "replacements".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
fong posted:Also regarding the republican movement in NZ, the only strong argument I've ever heard one way or another is that if we lose the monarchy then the Treaty of Waitangi is no longer valid and Maori would have to trust the government to include the same protections and principles in whatever constitution got drawn up. Compared to "national pride" or "gently caress the monarchy" etc on the other side I'm happy with the status quo. Is there a decent argument in favour of being a republic? That's basically how the Treaty is now though, it has never had constitutional status legally and basically only has force where specific legislation says that it has.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Māori distrust of the government is pretty much why the Treaty doesn't have constitutional status - once it's legislative text it can be altered and amended by the government rather than serving as a tool to hold the government to account. ps vote for my flag
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
That looks more like the design for the $1000 note, not a flag
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:That looks more like the design for the $1000 note, not a flag Money as our flag would be pretty appropriate imo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
In which case, I propose this as our new flag.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:In which case, I propose this as our new flag. make it a $20 with a weed leaf on it
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:make it a $20 with a weed leaf on it
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo John Key's enunciation is drat near unintelligible in this, particularly at the start. Is it getting worse?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
fong posted:Holy poo poo John Key's enunciation is drat near unintelligible in this, particularly at the start. Is it getting worse? "It's always going to be, you know, a challenging issue, but I think that when New Zealanders get a chance to consider the alternatives, and consider the merits of the argument, it's eminently possible we'll get it over the line." "Why not just have a yes/no referendum?" "Because a yes/no referendum doesn't actually take you very far. The people who vote yes will only vote yes if they know what they're moving to." - John Key, explaining why New Zealanders will be allowed to vote on
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
The eternal impossibility of just including the existing flag as an option in the referendum.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
So apparently that Lauda Finem blog is buddy-buddy with Slater? They've gone after Ben Rachinger hard. horns.aiff
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Referendums, voting on what matters. I remember during the last referendum he made a point of it not being binding, so what's the point of even having them then? "Yeah, I see you guys all like the silver fern, well I think it looks too much like the Isis flag so I'll just use the National party logo instead. It wasn't binding!" Anyway, I think it's stupid and a waste of money. I don't like our current flag but now's not really the time to change it, and these aren't the people who should decide.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
 pls support
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:
Make the hammer a patu tyia
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:48
|
|