New Zealand politics [Archive]

JRV

25-10-2004, 09:31

Do Kiwi politicians and political parties actually have differing policies, or have they degraded into clones of each other, the way they have on this side of the Tasman?
If they still differ, what are the options you've got?
Thanks.

The centre-right parties are all accusing each other of stealing one another's policies and indeed the main ones do share similar ideas on some issues. The race debate has made a come back here, with a question mark hanging over whether Maori get special treatment. National party leader Don Brash has made an election issue out of it, saying that all New Zealanders should be treated equally and that aid should not be given on the basis of race blah, blah [he got later got hit by mud at Waitangi Day celebrations] . Winston Peters, a Maori MP and leader of the New Zealand First party later accused him of stealing his policies. Since Brash's speech National has gone from nearly nothing in the polls to be kneck and kneck with Labour. The government, in a bid to get back support, has changed its policies regarding race and Treaty of Waitangi claims.

So yeah...

Schnappslant

25-10-2004, 09:31

I can't work out from your posts (Ok I didn't read them very thoroughly) whether Clarky's still in power. She was firmly in power when I was there last (2001) but I just kept getting confused between her and the Ladies' Hockey Goalkeeper.

On that note, vote in the Ladies Hockey Team. Like any of the guys wouldn't do what they said!!

Right read the posts poperly now. She's still around huh? Bet she's glad she doesn't have to rule a hole like England. Does 'Labour' in NZ have anything to do with the original Labour values. See in England we had Labour, then 'New Labour' (who got in power) who have essentially become a better organised Conservative party. wtf

I've forgotten, who's the rambling old git who gets aired on NZ TV (Channel 2?) at about 7pm. Dark hair, glasses etc.

Being in NZ did allow me to experience the most amazing cultural event ever. Namely, seeing the Toyota 'Bugger' ad.

Findecano Calaelen

25-10-2004, 09:33

dont the Kiwi's just rightly do what us Aussies tell them to do?

just kidding guys ;)

just wanted to add I know nothing about politics in New Zealand, so continue to post so I may learn something. Thankyou for your time

JRV

25-10-2004, 09:38

I can't work out from your posts (Ok I didn't read them very thoroughly) whether Clarky's still in power. Guessing not. She was firmly in power when I was there last (2001) but I just kept getting confused between her and the Ladies' Hockey Goalkeeper.

On that note, vote in the Ladies Hockey Team. Like any of the guys wouldn't do what they said!!

I've forgotten, who's the rambling old git who comes on NZ TV at about 7pm. Dark hair, glasses etc.

Being in NZ did allow me to experience the most amazing cultural event ever. Namely, seeing the Toyota 'Bugger' ad.

Helen's still in power. She won the last electon (2002) in a land slide, she is currently the most preferred PM and Labour is kneck and kneck with National in the polls. Next years election will probably be close.

The old git = Paul Holmes. He recently got into a bit of trouble for calling the Secretary General of the UN a 'cheeky darky'. He lost his sponsor and had to find a new one, he also had a couple of threats made on his life.

The bugger ad has got to be a Kiwi classic! Unfortunately that dog which starred in it passed away this year.

Findecano Calaelen

25-10-2004, 09:46

Also: with an Australian Passport would I be able to join the NZ millitary and go to uni there?

I would also like an answer to this

Fugee-La

25-10-2004, 09:50

Helen's still in power. She won the last electon (2002) in a land slide, she is currently the most preferred PM and Labour is kneck and kneck with National in the polls. Next years election will probably be close.

The old git = Paul Holmes. He recently got into a bit of trouble for calling the Secretary General of the UN a 'cheeky darky'. He lost his sponsor and had to find a new one, he also had a couple of threats made on his life.

The bugger ad has got to be a Kiwi classic! Unfortunately that dog which starred in it passed away this year.

The bugger add is in Australia too.

JRV

25-10-2004, 09:51

Hmmm... I wouldn't know, sorry. Illegal immigrants are allowed to come in and set up businesses. As long as you're not an Israeli spy...

JRV

25-10-2004, 09:53

The bugger add is in Australia too.

Yeah, I suspect you stole it from us. Like you stole our design for a flag. Funny how you came up with a strikingly familiar one just weeks after ours was made official :P

He Far Strelso

25-10-2004, 10:13

Illegal immigrants get jumped on very heavily here actually.
(The Israeli passport scam - and the Saudi one currently before the courts
indicate just how seriously we take encroachments on our national sovereignity.)
Helen Clark - and the Labour government - are ahead by 9 points from the Nats (in the last NBR poll) and Brash is 13 points behind as 'preferred PM"
NZ has an MMP voting system, a unicameral House, and 4 parties that currently poll above the 5% cutoff line - Labour, Nats, NZ First, and Greens,
Act, United Future, Maori Party, and all others are currently *under* (way under) that limit.
You'd have to have more than just an Aussie passport to get into the Armed Forces: all you need is money (a lot of it!) and a residency permit to study here. Cheers, kia ora- The Far Strelso

Fugee-La

25-10-2004, 10:15

The Holy Palatinate

25-10-2004, 10:36

NZ has an MMP voting system,
Err - what does this mean?
Oh, are you still first past the post, or have you got preferential voting now?
Tah.

The Holy Palatinate

25-10-2004, 10:41

Yeah, I suspect you stole it from us. Like you stole our design for a flag. Funny how you came up with a strikingly familiar one just weeks after ours was made official :P
The Australian flag was chosen by a national competition, which was public - so the design was on display long before you made a decision. Of course, theft may have been involved - just not by us.... :P

Phaiakia

25-10-2004, 10:41

I have my concerns about ol' Brashy, or atleast his speech writers. They're a bit lacking in research. In one of his recentish speeches, he made the claim that he would reduce the age of criminal responsibility only, the problem was that the age he said he would reduce it to already can be held criminally responsible. There's just a few other procedural hoops is all.
I can't remember exactly what the age was, but he wanted to reduce it from 14 only the thing is the actual complete cut off age is 10 anyway.

He seems a good guy, but I don't know that he has the leadership to cut it as Prime Minister. National just hasn't been the same since Jimmy was overthrown...

I'm thinking Labour is probably going to be in again, though it will be alot closer. Especially with the possibility of losing their maori seats. Hows that Maori party trucking along by the way? Anyone know?

I reckon that if the Greens spruced their image up a bit, they could do all right. They have some good policies, it's just that no one can take them seriously.

Destiny Church can never be allowed to enter Parliament. I'd like to believe that they would not be able to find support amongst voters. I have a feeling they're just a little too extreme for NZ voters really...

How about that National Front though. They're looking at trying to get into Parliament too aren't they?

How crazy would that be if we had both Destiny and the National Front in Parliament AND if they held the balance of power...that would be somewhat scary...

Phaiakia

25-10-2004, 10:43

The Australian flag was chosen by a national competition, which was public - so the design was on display long before you made a decision. Of course, theft may have been involved - just not by us.... :P

Yeah, I suppose you came up with the Pavlova, Phar Lap was an Aussie horse, and Crowded House is a superb band from Aus too...

You can hold onto Russel Crowe though...

Phaiakia

25-10-2004, 10:49

Err - what does this mean?
Oh, are you still first past the post, or have you got preferential voting now?
Tah.

It's Mixed Member Proportional.
Basically you get two votes; the party vote and the electorate vote.
For the party, you vote for the party you want in government.
For the electorate, you vote for the person you want to represent you as your Minister.

A person that wins his/her electorate automatically gets that seat in Parliament.
A party has to reach 5% of the vote to receive a share of seats, once they get above that the party gets a certain percentage of the rest of the seats in parliament allocated to them, which they fill in order from their party list.

There are also 5 (I think it's 5) Maori seats. These are for the 5 maori electorates. You have to be registered as a Maori voter to vote for these ones. They vote for their relevant maori electorate rather than the ordinary electorates.

Thus providing a more representative parliament than FPP ever did.

Monkeypimp

25-10-2004, 11:52

I really don't like Brash (although he seems to have disapeared over the past few months) but I'm not that big on Helen either. Next election I'll probably give my party vote to the Greens (I probably wouldn't want them running the country, but I like having them in parliment) and give my candidate vote to whoever the hell labour throws in here to lose. Sadly my electorate is a foregone conclusion every time. One thing I'd like to see would be compulsary NZ history at school. It might make people think twice about the crap Brash chucks out about Maori.

Labour might lose a few Maori seats, but they'll bend over to accomidate them if they need a majority anyway. Unless labour moves too far right, they should be able to patch things over with the Maori party.

Labour, greens, national and NZ first will get in on Party votes, but United and Maori will get in on Candidate votes.

Schnappslant

25-10-2004, 12:00

The bugger ad is in Australia too.
Yeah it's an aussie ad. I just saw it in New Zealand. Poor little doggy, he was cool.

As for your flag debate, both of yous nicked it off Britain anyway. Just because we own you!
:D Just kidding. In a 'state of the country' argument there's definitely more reason for oz or nz to be in overall control of Britain. At least your politicians still think they're human beings, not omnipotent warmongers.

Holmes, that's it. What a twat. If I remember rightly he used a story about his son to up the ratings while I was there.

When's the next NZ-OZ rugby grudge?

Xanadoool

25-10-2004, 12:19

I know very little about what it takes to get into, and more importantly say in politics. But from my observations in New Zealand, I have to say that being trust-worthy, good-natured, intelligent and compitant definately are not ideals that help.

Did anyone think about the fact that Helen Clarke supported the communist movement in her university days? At the same time, sharing a doobie with my mother at a party(They attended uni the same year).

Parlourment is filled with hypocricy. This is mainly because of the shocking level of apathy in this country. I say wait ten years for people my age to start getting places of power in the government, and you will see a radical swing to the left, never recorded before... or at least I hope. :)

Jeruselem

25-10-2004, 13:38

Yeah, I suppose you came up with the Pavlova, Phar Lap was an Aussie horse, and Crowded House is a superb band from Aus too...

You can hold onto Russel Crowe though...

Fighting around the World! Our passport to world domination lead by Russell Crowe (coming to bar near you).

Demented Hamsters

25-10-2004, 14:28

I can't understand why anyone would seriously consider voting for anyone other than Labour (aside from a minor party because it has a particularly attractive policy).
I mean, Inflation is well under control, the Economy is continuing to grow, Unemployment is down, the Govt continues to run a surplus. As a result the NZ$ is at the highest it's been in years (almost at parity with the Oz$ since god-knows-when), which is a reflection of the faith International Business and Traders have in the strength and robustness of the NZ economy.
So why vote out the party that has been responsible for this over the previous 6 years? Makes no sense to me.
This is also why National is finding it difficult to gain a foothold against Labour. Labour's policies are definitely centrist (slightly leaning to the left), which is where National traditionally was (albeit slightly to the right). This reflects the average Kiwi's attitude. So there's little they can do. If National agree on Labour's pretty reasonable financially prudent policies, they are in effect admitting to the public there's no point voting for them. If they try to out-ACT ACT, they'll alienate the vast hordes of traditional Nat voters.

Personally I hope ACT will disappear the next election - they really are the most repulsive, arrogant, slimy bunch of scumbags I've ever seen. I can't believe they decided on Rodney Hide for leader - surely that's the kiss of death for them. He is such a hideous sleasy toad, I can't see how it'll encourage ppl to vote for them. Ken Shirley would have been a better choice - he looks like a typical Kiwi bloke and is a good public speaker. Still, as I said, I hope ACT will whither away to nothing, so I was in fact quite pleased they chose Rodney. BTW anyone else hear the real reason behind Prebbles sudden step down from the Leadership and retirement from Politics (after how many years?)?

As for Destiny Church, I view it as just another way Brian Tamaki is using to squeeze money from the poor uneducated masses that are attracted to the flashing lights and colourful baubles that go hand in hand with D.C. It's sad, pathetic and kinda sick, but it's their choice to go (and give their tithe - the tithe is the minimum too) so I don't have much sympathy. I can't see it having much effect. The ppl attracted to DC (low education, low paid or unemployed) aren't the ones who vote too often anyway.

The Maori party will probably win most, if not all the Maori seats. But I don't see Turiana being much of a leader, so it'll probably self-destruct before the following election. Also hopefully they'll be realistic about supporting Labour. Cause if their withdrawal of support meant a National-led coalition, the Maoris can kiss everything they've fought for and got over the last few years goodbye.

I used to supoort the Greens but I think they're gone too fruit-loopy. I thought all they would do is push for more funding for DOC, better, more environmentally-friendly ways of transport, bike lanes, that sort of thing. But now they've gone like Greenpeace and gotten involved with areas that I think shouldn't concern a Green party.

Monkeypimp

25-10-2004, 14:36

*snip*

National have gone a bit quiet because they're having a hard time thinking up an economic policy. They're going to have problems justifying why they've attacked labours policy, which means they'll have to come up with something quite different, and then justify it.

Findecano Calaelen

25-10-2004, 14:43

Yeah, I suspect you stole it from us. Like you stole our design for a flag. Funny how you came up with a strikingly familiar one just weeks after ours was made official :P

so we're lazy, what ya gonna do about it?

Ruatha Weyr

25-10-2004, 15:04

I'm an American who is seriously considering becoming a "skilled migrant" ex-pat in the land of the kiwis...I'd started a thread last week asking for infor about everyday life...America has become overwhelmed by the fundies...even if Kerry wins, I don't think I want to live with these hate filled people any more...Oh! I teach HS and my husband is a talented programmer.

Schnappslant

25-10-2004, 15:45

I'd started a thread last week asking for infor about everyday life...
Have you got some way of learning New Zenglish before you go? If not you won't be able to understand a word for a couple of weeks.

Demented Hamsters

25-10-2004, 16:52

Planta Genestae

25-10-2004, 16:59

Yes, a thread on the internal politics of New Zealand. I don't know whether this is a waste of time or not, but any other Kiwis about these forums?

I don't like Kiwis. :mad:

Too bitter for me.

Genetrix

25-10-2004, 20:04

Phaiakia

25-10-2004, 23:45

I don't like Kiwis. :mad:

Too bitter for me.

I'd imagine they'd taste a little more like chicken...

Phaiakia

25-10-2004, 23:49

Yeah it's an aussie ad. I just saw it in New Zealand. Poor little doggy, he was cool.

As for your flag debate, both of yous nicked it off Britain anyway. Just because we own you!
:D Just kidding. In a 'state of the country' argument there's definitely more reason for oz or nz to be in overall control of Britain. At least your politicians still think they're human beings, not omnipotent warmongers.

Holmes, that's it. What a twat. If I remember rightly he used a story about his son to up the ratings while I was there.

When's the next NZ-OZ rugby grudge?

Isn't the England-NZ-Aus league tournament thingy happening at the moment? From what I can recall Aus just thrashed us this weekend somewhere in England.
Union won't kick back in for a few months now, it's Cricket season!

Heh, Aus is just the United State's puppy.

The Holy Palatinate

26-10-2004, 01:08

As for your flag debate, both of yous nicked it off Britain anyway. Just because we own you!
Didn't anyone tell you that in '88 an aboriginal elder stuck a spear into the turf at the MCG and claimed England for the Australian Aborigines? If Murdoch hadn't defected to the US you'd all be on reservations by now :P
:D Just kidding. In a 'state of the country' argument there's definitely more reason for oz or nz to be in overall control of Britain. At least your politicians still think they're human beings, not omnipotent warmongers.

Yeah, they think they're humans, but we make them sleep out back with the other animals, no matter how much they whine and wag their tails...

The Holy Palatinate

26-10-2004, 01:13

A person that wins his/her electorate automatically gets that seat in Parliament.
A party has to reach 5% of the vote to receive a share of seats, once they get above that the party gets a certain percentage of the rest of the seats in parliament allocated to them, which they fill in order from their party list.

Interesting. Does a candidate need 50% to get a seat, or just have the most votes?
Thanks for this!

Phaiakia

26-10-2004, 02:25

Interesting. Does a candidate need 50% to get a seat, or just have the most votes?
Thanks for this!

Ah yes, the electorate vote is FPP. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Phaiakia

26-10-2004, 02:32

I. One thing I'd like to see would be compulsary NZ history at school.

I totally agree here, I mean at my school in Social Studies (compulsory in 3rd and 4th form) we learnt about World War II and the holocaust (which is good), we learnt about the American Civil War (why?), the Industrial Revolution, to name a few. There was the Treaty of Waitangi thrown in with talking about the political and judicial systems in NZ. That was about it.
We didn't learn anything about the history before the Treaty or after it. Education about what happened back in those days, the NZ Land Wars in particular, would go a long way I think.
Heck, I consider myself fairly well educated, and I'd know alot more about the Treaty and maori land issues than many, but I knew very little about the land wars until I saw the display at the Auckland Museum...it was enlightening.

Trotterstan

26-10-2004, 03:29

I really don't like Brash (although he seems to have disapeared over the past few months) but I'm not that big on Helen either. Next election I'll probably give my party vote to the Greens (I probably wouldn't want them running the country, but I like having them in parliment) and give my candidate vote to whoever the hell labour throws in here to lose. Sadly my electorate is a foregone conclusion every time. One thing I'd like to see would be compulsary NZ history at school. It might make people think twice about the crap Brash chucks out about Maori.

all so very true. Vote green everybody.

If anyone is interested by the way, hit the link below for some interestign informaiton on race relation issues in New Zealand

http://speeches.com/treaty/index.aspx

Kiwicrog

26-10-2004, 04:17

I don't like Kiwis. :mad:

Too bitter for me.

Hmm, probably true.

Seems that too many people here can't enjoy themselves or be happy without copious amounts of alcohol. But maybe that's global.

Doesn't mean you should come here, just find the soberly happy people :D

And I gotta visit the mediteranian some day.

Craig

Kiwicrog

26-10-2004, 04:23

There was the Treaty of Waitangi thrown in with talking about the political and judicial systems in NZ. That was about it.
We didn't learn anything about the history before the Treaty or after it. Education about what happened back in those days, the NZ Land Wars in particular, would go a long way I think.

God, we did the Treaty every bloody year. Seriously, from the age I was 8 it seemed we would learn the same things about the treaty every year. Not only that, every single thing you can possible learn seems to have a "Treaty of Waitangi" component.

"Unblocking toilets in compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi"

(And before anyone says it, yes I am exaggerating)

And please don't pull out the racism claims. My Great-Grandmother is Maori and had ten kids, so I have a few hundred Maori cousins and Maori blood myself.

I find it funny that people call Brash, who says that people should be treated the same regardless of race, a racist.

Craig

Theoretical Theory

26-10-2004, 04:29

I find it funny that people call Brash, who says that people should be treated the same regardless of race, a racist.

Craig

it's because maori have been recieving social and economic advantages for so long that treating NZ europeans etc. equally would cause them to loose benefits because of their race, people just don't look at the fact they are getting so much more already

The Bloody Reaper

26-10-2004, 04:45

I personly hate all of this moari crap i get thrown at me every day
BURN THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

BURN DESTAINY CHURCH
I want to shoot there leader :upyours: WHATS HIS NAME

And i am from NZ
I love Dunedin, Crischurch and don't mind Auckland

Trotterstan

26-10-2004, 04:50

I find it funny that people call Brash, who says that people should be treated the same regardless of race, a racist.

CraigBut the fact remains that people are not all equal so it is not always appropriate to treat them the same.

Monkeypimp

26-10-2004, 04:53

I personly hate all of this moari crap i get thrown at me every day
BURN THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

I'll take it you really don't know anything about the treaty of waitangi? And whats the 'moari (sic) crap you get thrown at you? Are you one of the people that gets annoyed at news readers saying 'kia ora' ?

Monkeypimp

26-10-2004, 04:56

God, we did the Treaty every bloody year. Seriously, from the age I was 8 it seemed we would learn the same things about the treaty every year. Not only that, every single thing you can possible learn seems to have a "Treaty of Waitangi" component.

"Unblocking toilets in compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi"

(And before anyone says it, yes I am exaggerating)

And please don't pull out the racism claims. My Great-Grandmother is Maori and had ten kids, so I have a few hundred Maori cousins and Maori blood myself.

I find it funny that people call Brash, who says that people should be treated the same regardless of race, a racist.

Craig

What's your iwi? My uncle is Ngati Porou. Maybe we're related.

Kiwicrog

26-10-2004, 04:59

But the fact remains that people are not all equal so it is not always appropriate to treat them the same.

Hey, fine if that's your view, but don't label the guy that wants equal treatment as discriminatory.

And don't try to hide the fact that you are being racist. It may be what you percieve as "good" racism, but it is racism none the less.

Craig

Kiwicrog

26-10-2004, 05:02

What's your iwi? My uncle is Ngati Porou. Maybe we're related.

Ngäi Tai. Us being related :) there's a scary thought!

Craig

The Bloody Reaper

26-10-2004, 05:04

im kinda anoyed because all i hear about on the news is the moari this the moari that (and the fact that i only no about NZ history and nothing about WW2 or WW1 (witch i read alot about))

Snorklenork

26-10-2004, 05:06

The Australian flag was chosen by a national competition, which was public - so the design was on display long before you made a decision. Of course, theft may have been involved - just not by us.... :P
Nah, the New Zealanders actually beat us to that one, by about 30 years.

Peopleandstuff

26-10-2004, 05:14

God, we did the Treaty every bloody year. Seriously, from the age I was 8 it seemed we would learn the same things about the treaty every year.
I guess it depends what school you go to. The Treaty was mentioned when I was at school, but we learned nothing about the contents and implications of it.

To be honest I think that the goverment has been somewhat negligent over the whole issue throughout the years. Today the Treaty of Waitangi exerts influence over many areas of public life including the law, social policy (such as health and educational provisions) etc.

If you dont understand the premises which underline discussions about these things, then you cant fully participate, yet the Treaty has a huge impact in society, so much so that an inability to fully participate in discussions and decisions about Treaty implications is tatamount to an inability to fully participate in the discussions and decisions about society itself.

The Bloody Reaper

26-10-2004, 05:21

BRUN DESTAINY CHURCH
I hate NZ pollitics
I could do a better job ;)

Trotterstan

26-10-2004, 05:30

Hey, fine if that's your view, but don't label the guy that wants equal treatment as discriminatory.

And don't try to hide the fact that you are being racist. It may be what you percieve as "good" racism, but it is racism none the less.

Craig
I'm not being racist, all i am saying is that not everyone is the same. Its not wrong for instance to treat women in a different way to men because they are different. We offer women preferential medical care for instance on the basis that they go through childbirth and i dont see you campaigning to close down maternity wards on the basis of 'special privelledge. The same applies for cultural differences, you cant just ignore them.

The Bloody Reaper

26-10-2004, 05:40

moari seem to whine all the time

He Far Strelso

26-10-2004, 05:44

Couple of things: the Maori Party will not take all (7) Maori seats- the Labour/Ratana alliance still seems to be holding, and *no* iwi authority has endorsed the Maori Party (despite considerable lobbying). I'm Kai Tahu, by the way, as well as Pakeha (Scots and English forbears too), but I wouldnt vote for 'em, & know of no member of my rather large family group who would.

There are surprisingly *few* treaties between NZ & OZ, and there is none that gives unlimited right of access to each other's country (try getting into to OZ if you have a criminal record or life-threatening disease, for examples, and vice versa.)

Oooo, look! A dear little troll who cant spell! *pat pat*- Chair Entity of the Far Strelso where spelling is not the utmost virtuue.

Peopleandstuff

26-10-2004, 06:26

moari seem to whine all the time
Everyone seems to whine all the time, why single out the maori particularly? :rolleyes:

The Holy Palatinate

26-10-2004, 06:41

Nah, the New Zealanders actually beat us to that one, by about 30 years.
Not according to the official NZ site – the Aus flag was on view during 1901, the Kiwi flag didn’t exist until 1902.

http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/history.htm

http://www.a1flags.com.au/Guidelines/Australian_Flag_History.asp

I don't believe I bothered to check something so unimportant!

The Bloody Reaper

26-10-2004, 06:41

because they think they own every thing
i.e. trying to own the fore shore and sea bed
all around NZ

Peopleandstuff

26-10-2004, 06:53

because they think they own every thing
i.e. trying to own the fore shore and sea bed
all around NZ
Your premise is as flawed as your example.

Monkeypimp

26-10-2004, 09:19

because they think they own every thing
i.e. trying to own the fore shore and sea bed
all around NZ

Well lets see... There has been no real legislation until recently regarding the foreshore and seabed, so technically, Maori, being the first people to it owned it until the recent legislation (or possible one that was passed in '99, I'm a little sketchy there) Maori owned the Foreshore and seabed. Did you have any problems going to the beach then? I still think if you went and tried to steal a white persons land to build.. say a bypass (lo craig) people would be up in arms. Still you get people wondering why Maori got rather annoyed when it was taken off them..

Phaiakia

26-10-2004, 09:46

God, we did the Treaty every bloody year. Seriously, from the age I was 8 it seemed we would learn the same things about the treaty every year. Not only that, every single thing you can possible learn seems to have a "Treaty of Waitangi" component.

Okay, I should also say that yes I had lessons about the Treaty from a very young age and in fact, I've only just stopped having it being involved in something this year, and I'm now 23. That's my fault for studying law though I guess...

But I guess my point was that it's not taught in a particularly satisfactory manner, in the classes I had at school I was only taught the words of the Treaty, the disagreement between the words, and what it entitled Maori to.
There was no discussion about the history before the Treaty nor about why it was prompted. There was no discussion about what happened after the Treaty, with the land wars etc. You cannot understand this sort of document and all the grievances by looking simply to the document.

It wasn't until getting to uni that there was any kind of valuable discourse on it. The funny thing was that they were adamant that we were not going to focus on the difference in wording, which is what the focus seemed entirely on at school.

Incidentally, do you realise that no claims can arise out of the Treaty itself. Claims only arise from domestic legislation that require consideration of the spirit of the Treaty for example.

Well lets see... There has been no real legislation until recently regarding the foreshore and seabed, so technically, Maori, being the first people to it owned it until the recent legislation (or possible one that was passed in '99, I'm a little sketchy there) Maori owned the Foreshore and seabed. Did you have any problems going to the beach then? I still think if you went and tried to steal a white persons land to build.. say a bypass (lo craig) people would be up in arms. Still you get people wondering why Maori got rather annoyed when it was taken off them..

Careful there, if they could establish native title, then it was theirs. Otherwise not so much.
I don't believe there was any such legislation. The only legislation on it is the bill currently going through the processes.
But the current legal position in the courts, is that if they can establish native title to the adjacent land they can get the foreshore too.
You couldn't actually claim the foreshore itself as it was unable to be lived upon and yeah, there was some sketchy thing there about that...

Damn bypass... :mad:

Monkeypimp

26-10-2004, 09:58

Careful there, if they could establish native title, then it was theirs. Otherwise not so much.
I don't believe there was any such legislation. The only legislation on it is the bill currently going through the processes.
But the current legal position in the courts, is that if they can establish native title to the adjacent land they can get the foreshore too.
You couldn't actually claim the foreshore itself as it was unable to be lived upon and yeah, there was some sketchy thing there about that...

Damn bypass... :mad:

Maori found the NZ foreshore first and were never paid for it (along with 98% of the rest of NZ) so does it go back to the case of finders vs keepers?

Phaiakia

26-10-2004, 10:14

The Moriori found it before the Maori, the Maori ate them instead of paying...
;)

Lets get over the I saw it first, you stole it, you should give it back mentality.
The system regarding land is not that simple.
If the claimant can establish native title, they are good to go.
Native title involves showing a traditional connection to the land, it's not just about finding, it's about using.
Technically, we havn't taken the foreshore either.
Indeed, there isn't even any proposal to extinguish what may possibly be native title in some instances.
What is disgusting about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, is that it is taking away the right to go to court to argue native title to the foreshore.

Ofcourse, we're making the decision as to whether Maori could own the foreshore under our law... But then, you can't have one law for some and another for the rest. So, do Maori own the foreshore? Well, some iwi may be able to establish ownership of certain tracts. But I guess we won't ever find out.

Incidentally, I find it laughable that so much controversy was caused by the Court of Appeal judgment. All of a sudden it seemed to be saying that Maori owned the foreshore, when all it said was that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to decide whether there was native title to the foreshore.

Phaiakia

26-10-2004, 10:18

all so very true. Vote green everybody.

If anyone is interested by the way, hit the link below for some interestign informaiton on race relation issues in New Zealand

http://speeches.com/treaty/index.aspx

How crazy is it, that the graph of results is pretty much a bell curve?!

Kiwicrog

26-10-2004, 10:46

I'm not being racist, all i am saying is that not everyone is the same.
What are the differences between Pakeha and Maori then, that need us to have all of these discriminatory policies?

Are Maori naturally dumber? More violent?

Its not wrong for instance to treat women in a different way to men because they are different. We offer women preferential medical care for instance on the basis that they go through childbirth and i dont see you campaigning to close down maternity wards on the basis of 'special privelledge. The same applies for cultural differences, you cant just ignore them.
Ok, what makes Maori such an inferior race that they need racist policies to lift them up to the "superior level" of Pakeha?

Seriously, you may not mean it, but you are being extremely patronizing. Biological differences between gender are significant. Obviously a woman can't get testicular cancer and a man can't become pregnant.

Are you saying that Maori are fundamentally and biologically inferior enough from "us white people" to have to be compensated for their differences?

Craig

Monkeypimp

26-10-2004, 11:05

How crazy is it, that the graph of results is pretty much a bell curve?!

New Zealanders love their bell curves :D

I remember my 7th form maths teacher was horrified when the PAT tests of her third form had 2 peaks.

Xanadoool

26-10-2004, 18:42

Okay, whenever politics come into the conversation, everyone seems to get hot under the collar... or say things like "I could do better". Unfortunately, I never hear people saying things like, "I'm glad I didn't get my hand cut off by that shop keeper", or, "Isn't it great that we get to vote for our leaders."

The problem with democracy is the fact that you CAN have an opinion, and as everybody's opinions are different, no matter who is running the country, people will have a problem with who and how the country is being run.

Take heart though... because, as Socrates realised, true democracy is infact Anarchy... :)

Parcheezi

26-10-2004, 20:28

Hey I posted in that, and I don't think you ever replied! :(
I read your post!!! Thank-you for taking your time to help me out :) I've got a load of mid-term papers from my students that I've been working on ...hence I've been inattentive to my virtual responsibilities...The more I hear from NZ, the more I want to make the move. :)

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 01:01

Ok, what makes Maori such an inferior race that they need racist policies to lift them up to the "superior level" of Pakeha?

Craig

That's exactly the problem with 'positive' discrimination, it perpetuates the myths by saying that they aren't as good as the dominant race and therefore need a hand.

I seriously doubt that the way to solve poverty is to give certain special treatment to Maori because there happens to be a larger proportion of Maori than there is proportion of Pakeha below the poverty line. THe best way to address it is infact on the basis of need. Which is what Brash said and is in fact what NZ First has been saying for much longer.

I really hate that term Pakeha too. It's supposed to be some PC way of referring to white people but it just serves to deepen the differences. It's Maori against Pakeha (ie. everyone else). Plus it seems to say that my ethnic identity is dependant on the identification of Maori, because being a Pakeha is to simply not be Maori.

The Holy Palatinate

27-10-2004, 01:43

Damn bypass... :mad:
Second time you've mentioned that - is there some story attached to a bypass?

He Far Strelso

27-10-2004, 02:05

Another couple of things - nice lively thread by the by-

*Moriori is a name that correctly belongs to the people who originally settled Rekohu (Chatham Islands). They were people who left the South Island in the 14th century. Rather a lot of them were eaten - in the 1830s by Te Ati Awa invaders of the Chathams. Moriori/Maruiwi were *not* the original settlers/first settlers of NZ - that is a 19th century Pakeha myth, promulgated right up until today...

*A lot of NZers of European ancestry prefer to call themselves Pakeha. Some dont. The word comes from 'pakepakeha' - sea beings who were pale-skinned
(not from pop etymologies that include a Maorisation of 'bugger ya'.) The only matter I find hilarious is New Zealanders calling themselves 'Europeans'...

Snorklenork

27-10-2004, 03:15

Not according to the official NZ site – the Aus flag was on view during 1901, the Kiwi flag didn’t exist until 1902.

http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/history.htm

http://www.a1flags.com.au/Guidelines/Australian_Flag_History.asp

I don't believe I bothered to check something so unimportant!

http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/history/mari-time.html

As far as I can tell, they were the first country to use the Southern Cross in their flag. "This emblem was shortlived and in 1869, was replaced by the earlier suggestion of the Southern Cross, comprised of 4 red stars with white borders."

Sure it wasn't officially their national flag until 1902, but it was around a lot longer than ours. I think it's probable that somebody in Australia just looked at the NZ flag, which was probably quite visible in NZ by the time, even though it wasn't official, and entered that in the competition with some differences. Of course, ours does look better.

Sorry, they beat us to it by 30 years, and we probably did copy them.

The Bloody Reaper

27-10-2004, 03:57

whatmakes moari so bad (and polyniesians) is that they are left behind by people who read ie Pakeha

Peopleandstuff

27-10-2004, 04:49

What are the differences between Pakeha and Maori then, that need us to have all of these discriminatory policies?

Are Maori naturally dumber? More violent?
There are all sorts of differences between individuals, and in some cases these differences are clustered according to categorisable traits such as ethnicity. In such cases the very fact of this clustering can become a barrier to participation. Although I prefer assistance to be based on merit or need, the need of the person assisted is not the only need involved. The community's needs should also be addressed. How can any group be expected to participate in society if they are under-represented in decision making or in the organisation/delivery of services?

If for whatever reason one particular seemingly arbitary group in society such as an ethnic group are found to underacheive statistically, there is probably some cause for that, yet waiting to know exactly what factors aside from ethnicity are involved, is simply allowing the problem to get worse while searching for an answer that might never be 100% ascertained. The very fact of low participation in for instance tertiary education is a proven cause of low participation, so hanging around letting the problem compound while you try to work out the why of it is creating another problem on top of the one you already have.

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 05:16

*A lot of NZers of European ancestry prefer to call themselves Pakeha. Some dont. The word comes from 'pakepakeha' - sea beings who were pale-skinned
(not from pop etymologies that include a Maorisation of 'bugger ya'.) The only matter I find hilarious is New Zealanders calling themselves 'Europeans'...

If we're talking about nationality, I am a New Zealander all the way.
If we're talking about ethnicity, I am European.

No need for racially divisive words such as Pakeha ;)
Maori's are New Zealanders nationality speaking too, but ethnically speaking they are Maori. Though nationality is fluid so there would be some who are Aussies etc depending on what country they identify themselves as being from, just like with everyone else. You can't change your ethnicity though.
Ack, I'm rambling, I don't know what my point is anymore....a

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 05:23

Second time you've mentioned that - is there some story attached to a bypass?

Yes

http://saveourstreets.co.nz/
http://www.nobypass.co.nz/

Haha, two completely unbiased sources of information on the bypass :D

It's a road that isn't necessary, that is going to cut through an historic part of Wellington, with heritage buildings being relocated and some buildings just plain ol' torn down. Bad bypass, bad...

Kiwicrog

27-10-2004, 05:35

There are all sorts of differences between individuals, and in some cases these differences are clustered according to categorisable traits such as ethnicity. In such cases the very fact of this clustering can become a barrier to participation. Although I prefer assistance to be based on merit or need, the need of the person assisted is not the only need involved. The community's needs should also be addressed. How can any group be expected to participate in society if they are under-represented in decision making or in the organisation/delivery of services?

People don't have a view as a group, they are individual people.

Pushing a view of a group being represented instead of individuals makes the racism and stereotypes worse.

Notice how many people refer to, "Maori want..", "the maori view" etc, etc?

If for whatever reason one particular seemingly arbitary group in society such as an ethnic group are found to underacheive statistically, there is probably some cause for that, yet waiting to know exactly what factors aside from ethnicity are involved, is simply allowing the problem to get worse while searching for an answer that might never be 100% ascertained.
All these hand-outs haven't seemed to make much of a mark.

If you are worried about people underachieving, why not support a plan based on need? Then you are not implying a view that Maori are stupid, and individuals who need assistance get it.

The very fact of low participation in for instance tertiary education is a proven cause of low participation, so hanging around letting the problem compound while you try to work out the why of it is creating another problem on top of the one you already have.
If reporting of low participation causes more low participation, couldn't implying that Maori are dumber than everyone else become a self-fufilling prophecy too?

Even if you think you can even up the game by forcing race-based scholarships, etc, what happens when people get the choice between a white doctor and a Maori doctor who people know do not have to meet the same standards? You aren't helping Maori by making them a seperate class of citizen.

I also find it hilarious that Brash has been labelled as "divisive," when he wants everyone to be treated the same. Unlike Helen, who wants seperate standards for each race...

Craig

Northern Gimpland

27-10-2004, 05:43

Hey all,

I am a New Zealander as well and keep up with political news. If I could vote, then I would go Greens or Labour. I am against National's policies, they favour a racist, white Christian society, and they completely destroy the youth of the nation i.e. me. Just some general comments:

1) Give the Maori the foreshore and seabed. So far the main arguement against this is "the Maori ate the Moriori." This is increadibly ignorant. Do two wrongs really make a right? Perhaps they did, but our race was aggressively colonising the world, killing and taking land of many innocent natives. You want to take the land off the Maori, then shouldn't we have all our land taken off us? And that is what is happening, their land which belongs to them is literally being stolen and they are being told it is no longer theirs. If you ever tried to take my land off me, then I would sit outside it with a shotgun begging you to come and try. All things considered the Maori are behaving very politely.

2) Asians, despite what many New Zealanders think, are not all social parasites. Most of them come here to live properly, and we should accept them. Sure, some of them are bad, but our race is not perfect either.

3) Gay marriage should be legalised, or at least the Civil Unions Bill should be passed. I can't be bothered explaining why being gay is not wrong, but I will if someone pressess me. Being homosexual is not a sin or a mental illness, it is a way of living, and we should accept it.

The Bloody Reaper

27-10-2004, 05:52

4) BRUN DESTAINY CHURCH
they are SUM BAGS!!!!!
The NAZIS is what they remind me of and all offence ment to any body who believes in there ideas
BURN IN HELL

Death and Hatred

27-10-2004, 06:01

Peopleandstuff

27-10-2004, 06:11

People don't have a view as a group, they are individual people.

Pushing a view of a group being represented instead of individuals makes the racism and stereotypes worse.

Notice how many people refer to, "Maori want..", "the maori view" etc, etc?
People's view does not ignore the existence of groups, nor do most people's views remain divorced from their own perceptions of groups that they define themselves as belonging to or not. Whatever may be your idealised notion of 'world peace' the fact is people do view themselves in accordance with their own notions of identity and most people include their ethnicity as a major factor in compositing their self-identification. People identify themselves as belonging to certain groups and if they percieve a group they belong to as being disenfranchised from society then they percieve their disenfranchisment as being coincidental. Whether or not this is good or healthy or divisive or whatever label you wish to attach, it is also reality. Addressing the world as it is has to be more effective than closing our eyes to anything that doesnt fit with our 'wish list'

All these hand-outs haven't seemed to make much of a mark.
I'm not sure what you mean. The fact is since targeted assistance was implemented groups targeted have proven (via higher participation rates in for instance tertiary studies) that such assistance does have a positive impact.

If you are worried about people underachieving, why not support a plan based on need?
As I have already pointed out needs are being addressed. The needs of the community as a whole are important needs and should not be disregarded when we decide the manner in which we will offer assistance.

Then you are not implying a view that Maori are stupid, and individuals who need assistance get it.
There is no implication that maori are stupid.

If reporting of low participation causes more low participation, couldn't implying that Maori are dumber than everyone else become a self-fufilling prophecy too?
Perhaps, however reporting low participation has not been proven to be a cause of low participation so far as I am aware. Low participation causes low participation as a direct result of practical effects.

Even if you think you can even up the game by forcing race-based scholarships, etc, what happens when people get the choice between a white doctor and a Maori doctor who people know do not have to meet the same standards?
You are clearly reasoning with false premises. You dont get to be a doctor unless you pass the requirements for being a doctor, ethnicity is not involved.

I also find it hilarious that Brash has been labelled as "divisive," when he wants everyone to be treated the same. Unlike Helen, who wants seperate standards for each race...
Brash is being divisive. If he really wanted everyone to be treated the same he would be wanting to do away with inheritance laws and limit the amount of money any one couple could spend on any particular off-spring while ensuring anyone who's parents did not spend that much was given a government top up, or had their parents sued on their behalf (by the state).
Everyone does not start out on an even platform. Some people start way up high and some start way down low. A good society will ensure there are opportunities of upward mobility for everyone and in order to do so certain other pre-conditions must exist and for those conditions, certain other conditions and so on. To simply make a blanket assertion that assistance should be need based does not exclude assistance targeted according to ethnicity, and this is what Brash's position appears to disregard. Whether or not ethnically targeted assistance represents unfair discrimination, or supports greater equality can only be determined contextually.

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 06:35

1) Give the Maori the foreshore and seabed. So far the main arguement against this is "the Maori ate the Moriori." This is increadibly ignorant. Do two wrongs really make a right? Perhaps they did, but our race was aggressively colonising the world, killing and taking land of many innocent natives. You want to take the land off the Maori, then shouldn't we have all our land taken off us? And that is what is happening, their land which belongs to them is literally being stolen and they are being told it is no longer theirs. If you ever tried to take my land off me, then I would sit outside it with a shotgun begging you to come and try. All things considered the Maori are behaving very politely.

Ah, excuse me. Perhaps you should read my posts again. No read them. Understand them. Realise that my saying that about the Moriori was in jest.
In fact I am making no arguments either way as to whether or not they should own the foreshore. Merely stating a few legal principles.

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 06:39

Hi, I'm from New Zealand and I really dislike the way our country is run. I think Don Brash would do a much better job than Aunty Helen, but then again I don't like her and think she is ugly. Grow some real hair Helen!

Why do you dislike the way its run?
We're doing pretty well at the moment don't you think...?

Phaiakia

27-10-2004, 06:47

) Give the Maori the foreshore and seabed. So far the main arguement against this is "the Maori ate the Moriori." This is increadibly ignorant. Do two wrongs really make a right? Perhaps they did, but our race was aggressively colonising the world, killing and taking land of many innocent natives. You want to take the land off the Maori, then shouldn't we have all our land taken off us? And that is what is happening, their land which belongs to them is literally being stolen and they are being told it is no longer theirs. If you ever tried to take my land off me, then I would sit outside it with a shotgun begging you to come and try. All things considered the Maori are behaving very politely.

Ah, excuse me. Perhaps you should read my posts again. No read them. Understand them. Realise that my saying that about the Moriori was in jest.
In fact I am making no arguments either way as to whether or not they should own the foreshore. Merely stating a few legal principles.

:mad: I can't believe the temerity you've displayed in labelling me ignorant, if you even paid any attention to the rest of the SAME post in which I made the little jest about the Maori eating the Moriori, you would've seen that I am in fact against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It's number 77 in case you want to go back and read it.

Congratulations, you're the first person to ever annoy me on the net. It's not just beause you called me ignorant. It's because you had no foundation for it. I wouldn't care if I'd simply made the jest and said nothing more but I did say more. And what I said was so far away from being what you've implied I said...

It just irritates me that people can so clearly twist words and take things out of context and actually use it in their twisted little way.

Peopleandstuff

27-10-2004, 06:54

In fact I am making no arguments either way as to whether or not they should own the foreshore. Merely stating a few legal principles.
Aha, but it comes back to the earlier made point about a lack of information. Even stating a fact can be construed as 'taking a side' because people have no idea what the heck the issues involved actually are. It's a bit hard to know when to defend a position when you're not quite sure what the position is. Despite all the so called 'Treaty' content of New Zealand education, there appears to be a distinct lack of knowledge about issues relating to the Treaty. For instance can anyone besides Phaiakia actually outline the chain of events that led to the emergence of the foreshore and seabed discourse, or describe any of the relevent material facts? Do any of those who commented about the issue actually know what the issue is?

The Holy Palatinate

27-10-2004, 09:14

As far as I can tell, they were the first country to use the Southern Cross in their flag.
So, the Eureka flag doesn't count? (Again, I don't believe how trivial I'm being! :D)

Kiwicrog

27-10-2004, 10:29

People's view does not ignore the existence of groups, nor do most people's views remain divorced from their own perceptions of groups that they define themselves as belonging to or not.
Whatever may be your idealised notion of 'world peace' the fact is people do view themselves in accordance with their own notions of identity and most people include their ethnicity as a major factor in compositing their self-identification. People identify themselves as belonging to certain groups and if they percieve a group they belong to as being disenfranchised from society then they percieve their disenfranchisment as being coincidental. Whether or not this is good or healthy or divisive or whatever label you wish to attach, it is also reality. Addressing the world as it is has to be more effective than closing our eyes to anything that doesnt fit with our 'wish list'
You have made the point I was trying to make. It's all about people. Not groups, people. Whether or not someone percieves themself as in a group, it's not a group that feels the effects of anything, it's the people in it. What is a group but an labelling of individuals?
As I have already pointed out needs are being addressed. The needs of the community as a whole are important needs and should not be disregarded when we decide the manner in which we will offer assistance.
How does giving out benefits on the basis of race address the "needs of the community"?

Why are you people so opposed to discriminating on the basis of need rather than race :confused: :confused:

There is no implication that maori are stupid. "If you are Maori, we are going to make it easier for you to get into University, because you obviously can't compete with white kids just on your own merits"

Brash is being divisive. If he really wanted everyone to be treated the same he would be wanting to do away with inheritance laws and limit the amount of money any one couple could spend on any particular off-spring while ensuring anyone who's parents did not spend that much was given a government top up, or had their parents sued on their behalf (by the state).
Uh, treating everyone the same regardless of race (i.e. not supporting any form of racism) is a bit different from communist-style, statist redistribution of wealth.

Everyone does not start out on an even platform. Some people start way up high and some start way down low. A good society will ensure there are opportunities of upward mobility for everyone and in order to do so certain other pre-conditions must exist and for those conditions, certain other conditions and so on. To simply make a blanket assertion that assistance should be need based does not exclude assistance targeted according to ethnicity
So you are saying that Maori are automatically inferior to white people? You can say, without knowing anything else about an individual, that because they are Maori they need help to compete with white people?

and this is what Brash's position appears to disregard. Whether or not ethnically targeted assistance represents unfair discrimination, or supports greater equality can only be determined contextually.
I can't understand your motive when you claim to want to give all people "equal oppurtunity" in life, but refuse to do this through assessing which people actually need extra benefits, instead wanting to give extra benefits to people because of their race alone.

Craig

Deviantopolis

27-10-2004, 10:46

im from nz, im not bitter. but after sitting here in a nic eplace. looking atthe way teh rest of teh world is slowly but surely wrecking the place for us can u blame us kiwis for being a tad bitter? huh? noooo. u cant .

anyway the new carthaginian empire will eventully rule u all. and anyone caught bitching will be shot. ha!
:mp5:

and america will be a parking lot. paved by lawers and tax officials

Monkeypimp

27-10-2004, 13:03

Why do you dislike the way its run?
We're doing pretty well at the moment don't you think...?

Maybe they export to America? I hear that's becoming pretty hard with the current exchange rate..

Fugee-La

27-10-2004, 13:16

Apparentally meth has ruined Auckland... can anybody confirm or deny that?

I was smoking weed at Kings Cross (Sydney) with some Kiwi today who had come here 6 months ago. While we were talking he said that the only thing happening in Auckland is meth... and that it ruined New Zealand.

Sorta sucks... hard drugs :<

JRV

27-10-2004, 23:24

Well unfortunately I am not quite of voting age, but I do however support Don Brash. I think he is perfectly justified in saying that all New Zealanders should be equal, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Those who need aid need aid and should be entitled to it. But aid should be given on the basis of need, not on the basis of race as seems to be the case in this country.

As for the foreshore debate, the beaches and seabed belong to all New Zealanders and that is the way it should be.

I am against National's policies, they favour a racist, white Christian society, and they completely destroy the youth of the nation i.e.

I disagree. National doesn't necessarily favour a 'white Christian' society. I know some of its MP's probably do, but you have radicals in every party.

Take Brash for example, despite popular belief he is actually more of a social-liberal and is not a Christian. He voted for the Prostitution Reform and the Civil Unions bills. He may be a Capitalist (though he started out as a commie in his university days), but he is certainly not a right-wing social-conservative. I personally view him as being a moderate than anything else. Heck, the guy recently set up a gay-wing of National the party.
So to say that National on a whole favours a 'white Christian' society is ludicrous. There are plenty of sensible, more moderate members amongst them.

Anyhow, I say it's time for a change in New Zealand Government. Labour has done a lot of good things in the last 6 years or so but I believe that a National-led government under Brash could do even better. We need to strengthen our relationship with the United States and Australia (not necessarily by lifting the nuclear-ban). More importantly we need better housing, better health-care, and better education and to get all that we need economic growth. National will acheive that much better than any Labour government.

Just remember inflation is at an all-time low partially because Don Brash was the Governor of the Reserve Bank through the late '80s and '90s. Also the Labour and National governments of that time contributed significantly - Helen and co. can't take all the credit.

Peopleandstuff

28-10-2004, 02:57

You have made the point I was trying to make. It's all about people. Not groups, people. Whether or not someone percieves themself as in a group, it's not a group that feels the effects of anything, it's the people in it. What is a group but an labelling of individuals?
You cant have it about people and not groups when a large part of what people are about is directly linked to their perceptions of 'groups'.

How does giving out benefits on the basis of race address the "needs of the community"?
I'm not advocating giving anything on the basis of race. If the only basis for giving something is race, then this is not related to need and is outside the scope of things I am referring to.

Why are you people so opposed to discriminating on the basis of need rather than race
Who are 'you people', I am just myself. I can only speak for myself, but speaking for myself I am in favour of needs based inititives.

"If you are Maori, we are going to make it easier for you to get into University, because you obviously can't compete with white kids just on your own merits"
This is nonesense, because you have not defined merits, nor linked this interpretation to what it is you are interpreting. I dont of any situation where the facts could be honestly interpreted as you describe.

Uh, treating everyone the same regardless of race (i.e. not supporting any form of racism) is a bit different from communist-style, statist redistribution of wealth.
Treating everyone the same regardless of any other relevent factors is not the same as facilitating equal opportunity to participate.

So you are saying that Maori are automatically inferior to white people? You can say, without knowing anything else about an individual, that because they are Maori they need help to compete with white people?
Actually I made no reference to any group, much less a particular ethnic group. If you really think my comments meant anything of the kind, re-read them, if you are merely being disengenious... :rolleyes:

I can't understand your motive when you claim to want to give all people "equal oppurtunity" in life, but refuse to do this through assessing which people actually need extra benefits, instead wanting to give extra benefits to people because of their race alone.
I cant understand why you would construe my words to infer, much less mean that I support giving anything to anyone or doing anything at all because of 'race alone'.

Apparentally meth has ruined Auckland... can anybody confirm or deny that?

I was smoking weed at Kings Cross (Sydney) with some Kiwi today who had come here 6 months ago. While we were talking he said that the only thing happening in Auckland is meth... and that it ruined New Zealand.
By meth he will probably have been referring to 'P'. Basically like a lot of drugs it's abuse can lead to a lot of problems. It's also quite a lot quicker to make than other alternatives (ie cannabis) so for someone out to make a profit it has definite advantages. However a lot of people are totally unaffected, some people are only effected because they cant score, some have the odd bit, and some go off the rails, or are impacted by someone who goes off the rails. It hasnt 'ruined' Auckland, but it has ruined some people's lives.

I think he is perfectly justified in saying that all New Zealanders should be equal, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Those who need aid need aid and should be entitled to it. But aid should be given on the basis of need, not on the basis of race as seems to be the case in this country.
I'm not disputing the right to say New Zealanders should be equal. I simply dispute that Brash hasnt acted divisively. I note you say 'as seems to be the case'. Just to reiterate (since there seems to be some confusion) I dont support giving a benefit on the 'basis of race'.

As for the foreshore debate, the beaches and seabed belong to all New Zealanders and that is the way it should be.
Says who, and by what right? Who exactly are 'New Zealanders' and what is meant by 'belong' and why is that the way it should be?

More importantly we need better housing, better health-care, and better education and to get all that we need economic growth. National will acheive that much better than any Labour government.
I think you must have National confused with someone else...

Trotterstan

28-10-2004, 05:03

I personally think that the governments foreshore policy is quite reasonable. It puts the beaches into public ownership while recognising cultural rights.

JRV

28-10-2004, 05:17

Says who, and by what right? Who exactly are 'New Zealanders' and what is meant by 'belong' and why is that the way it should be?

If Maori were granted ownership, then they had might as well claim the entire pacific ocean (heck, why not go even further and claim every single piece of land and water which they crossed to get here?). It is ridiculous and you have to draw the line somewhere. No country actually owns the seas, they are just given jurisdiction over their waters.

By the way - I don't dispute that Maori have suffered past grievances, but for goodness sake we have nearly done all that we can to correct those wrongs. Where does it end? Do they [Maori] want control of the country? Do they want as one protestor in the hikoi put it, 'to be our [non-Maori] landlords'? I hope not. Both Maori and non-Maori must make this country work, not one or the other.

Let's cut the BS and work towards protecting New Zealand from right-wing extremists such as the National Front and Destiny Church. Both those groups actually truely scare me. When you have Brian Tamaki saying he'll have control over New Zealand in 4 years you kind of get edgy -- as the only way that could happen is if there's violence. However unlikely it seems, you never know...

The Bloody Reaper

28-10-2004, 05:31

Destiny Church. Both those groups actually truely scare me. When you have Brian Tamaki saying he'll have control over New Zealand in 4 years you kind of get edgy -- as the only way that could happen is if there's violence. However unlikely it seems, you never know...
I WAS GONNA SAY THAT ABOUT DESTINY CHURCH!!!! :mad:

Peopleandstuff

28-10-2004, 05:33

Says who, and by what right? Who exactly are 'New Zealanders' and what is meant by 'belong' and why is that the way it should be?
When I posted these questions I intended for a literal attempt at the answers, ie who actually does say that it is New Zealanders that own the foreshore/seabed, and what actual right does this entity claim their authority to make such a determination stems from?

If Maori were granted ownership, then they had might as well claim the entire pacific ocean (heck, why not go even further and claim every single piece of land and water which they crossed to get here?).
Your comments dont make any sense, that's like saying if I claim ownership to my computer the next thing I'll be claiming to own the entire internet.

It is ridiculous and you have to draw the line somewhere. What exactly is ridiculous, honestly, do you actually have any idea what the issue we are discussing actually involved?

By the way - I don't dispute that Maori have suffered past grievances, but for goodness sake we have nearly done all that we can to correct those wrongs.
How so?

Where does it end? Do they [Maori] want control of the country?
Probably some Maori do want control of the country, as probably do some non-maori. However where exactly does what end? What actually is it? The question may seem silly, but it's one that gets overlooked. How can you know when 'it' is resolved (and so at an 'end') if you dont actually know what 'it' is.

Do they want as one protestor in the hikoi put it, 'to be our [non-Maori] landlords'?
As I conceded, I'm sure some do, but then I'm certain that many non-Maori people would be equally amenable to being handed control of the country. That is not the issue, in fact it is in effect irrelevent to issues as they currently stand.

Let's cut the BS and work towards protecting New Zealand from right-wing extremists such as the National Front and Destiny Church.
What BS? I really do suspect that you dont actually know what the issues are so how can you judge the concerns of involved parties to be valid or not?

JRV

28-10-2004, 05:47

I think you must have National confused with someone else...

Heh. National carried on the economic reforms of the Lange administration through the 1990's. Though they cut the benefit and pissed a few people off, as a result inflation has been low and stable since 1991. Now avergaing approximately 2% on a regular day.

As I said, you can thank Brash for that and the National party (though they cut the benefit and pissed a few people off, in the long run low inflation has eventually led to lower unemployment).

But Brash is now saying that more economic growth if we want to get back on top of the world. We need faster economic growth and he says National can acheive that. Faster economic growth means better living standards for all New Zealanders.

As well as that I think New Zealand needs an improved defence force, and I don't see any signs of that happening under Labour. It's all very well having a peacekeeping force (our role in that area is vital to world stability) but I think we need to start pulling our weight more in the regional security. Plus lets get an airforce for goodness sake.

Peopleandstuff

28-10-2004, 05:59

Heh. National carried on the economic reforms of the Lange administration through the 1990's. Though they cut the benefit and pissed a few people off, the result was getting inflation has been low and stable since 1991. Now avergaing approximately 2% on a regular day.

As I said, you can thank Brash for that and the National party (though they cut the benefit and pissed a few people off, in the long run low inflation has eventually led to lower unemployment).
So in summary, Labour conceived of and started to apply reforms, National continued what Labour had already started, and we can thank National for the entire thing...
Whether or not you can identify the flaw in this reason, it's not actually relevent to National improving education and health anyway...

But Brash is now saying that more economic growth if we want to get back on top of the world. We need faster economic growth and he says National can acheive that. Faster economic growth means better living standards for all New Zealanders.
You do realise that all you are saying is that Brash has several opinions. Brash has not substantiated his claims about economic growth, and in fact if he spoke about being 'back on top of the world' one can only wonder quite what he might mean by that.

As well as that I think New Zealand needs an improved defence force, and I don't see any signs of that happening under Labour. It's all very well having a peacekeeping force (our role in that area is vital to world stability) but I think we need to start pulling our weight more in the regional security. Plus lets get an airforce for goodness sake.
Hang on we play a vital role in world security but somehow are not pulling our weight with regard to regional security...that doesnt really make sense when you consider that the region is most certainly located in the world...

The Bloody Reaper

28-10-2004, 06:40

What BS? I really do suspect that you dont actually know what the issues are so how can you judge the concerns of involved parties to be valid or not?
OH MY GOD
Destainy Church marched on parliment shouting enough is enough against gays WITH KIDS who dident know what it was against

JRV

28-10-2004, 06:45

Your comments dont make any sense, that's like saying if I claim ownership to my computer the next thing I'll be claiming to own the entire internet.

If Maori claim the foreshore and air over Lake Taupo then why don't you?

What exactly is ridiculous, honestly, do you actually have any idea what the issue we are discussing actually involved?

I am not an expert on the matter, nor do I claim to be. All I know is what I have read, or heard through the media. However, I think I have enough of an idea to believe that the claiming of the foreshore and seabed is as I put it - ridiculous. There can be no other word to describe it. No where else in the world has anybody claimed a country's foreshore and seabed, why? Because it's like saying you own air - it seems too radical. I can understand land claims, but I cannot in anyway see the justification for the claiming of foreshore and seabed by ANYONE. As I said, where would you draw the line (for Maori claims)?

As I conceded, I'm sure some do, but then I'm certain that many non-Maori people would be equally amenable to being handed control of the country. That is not the issue, in fact it is in effect irrelevent to issues as they currently stand.

Well, whatever. As I said, 'it' meaning Maori claims. The protestor was participating in protest against the foreshore and seabed legislation when he made the comment. You don't see how it ties into this? Well, my apologizes.

What BS? I really do suspect that you dont actually know what the issues are so how can you judge the concerns of involved parties to be valid or not?

You'll have to excuse the derogatory. I was referring to all the fuss over Dr. Brash's Orewa speech. As I've written, what he said was perfectly justifiable and had a lot of truth to it.

You have mentioned no less than two times now that I apparently do not 'know what the issues are'. As I said above, I do not claim to be an expert but I think I probably know enough on the issues at hand to comment. I never claim to be right, I am just simply giving you my take on the matter.
No need to tell someone they are illiterate on something when you disagree with something they say.

So in summary, Labour conceived of and started to apply reforms, National continued what Labour had already started, and we can thank National for the entire thing...
Whether or not you can identify the flaw in this reason, it's not actually relevent to National improving education and health anyway...

What I was implying (whether or not you detect that in my last post) was if National had not carried on the reforms, then the economy probably wouldn't be in the same state. (If they hadn't of cut the benefit etc.etc.)
I don't see that as being flawed.

You do realise that all you are saying is that Brash has several opinions. Brash has not substantiated his claims about economic growth, and in fact if he spoke about being 'back on top of the world' one can only wonder quite what he might mean by that.

True. I am waiting, as you are, to see his claims substantiated. As for getting back on top of the world, his speech 'Faster growth if we want it' seems to explain what he means.

Hang on we play a vital role in world security but somehow are not pulling our weight with regard to regional security...that doesnt really make sense when you consider that the region is most certainly located in the world...

Hang on, it does make sense. What I am saying is, we have sent forces over to Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed helped out a lot in these parts of the world. But there is much to be done in the pacific as well. We should be working much more closer with Australia. Again, I don't see that as being flawed - just not as clear as it could have been. You'll have to forgive me for that.

JRV

28-10-2004, 06:48

OH MY GOD
Destainy Church marched on parliment shouting enough is enough against gays WITH KIDS who dident know what it was against

Destiny Church is full of BS. But what I meant by BS was all the fuss from Brash's Orewa speech.

The Bloody Reaper

28-10-2004, 06:49

do you read what i say??? :confused: :confused:

JRV

28-10-2004, 06:55

Do you think DC will be running the country in 4 years? I doubt they will, and I certainly hope they won't be, but Brian Tamaki is deadly serious when he says it. So...

Peopleandstuff

28-10-2004, 08:13

JVC, the reason I suggest that you dont know enough to come to a useful fact based opinion is because 1 it is statistically likely (most New Zealanders know too little about the issue to actually make heads or tails of it) and 2 because the contents of your post imply misunderstandings.

Ask yourself what event/s caused the government to initiate the foreshore and seabed bill?
Ask yourself if Parliament does not want a group to own something who gets the final say regardless of all other considerations?

If you know the answer to these two questions some of what you post becomes irrelevent. It doesnt matter what protestor X on hikoi Y says he or she wants, because only possible outcomes are relevent enough to warrant considersation.

So while I appreciate your decision to interpret my comments about the extent of your knowledge in the vein in which they were posted rather than choosing to consider it as an attack, I'm still not convinced that you really have thought about the extent of your knowledge on this particular issue (one which media reporting tends to be somewhat distortive of).

I'm not so much interested in the conclusion you come to, as I am the information with which you reason in order to reach your conclusion.

You'll have to excuse the derogatory. I was referring to all the fuss over Dr. Brash's Orewa speech. As I've written, what he said was perfectly justifiable and had a lot of truth to it.
If by derogatory you mean 'BS', it doesnt offend or concern me. I understand your view, but I'm not convinced that Brash presented his information honestly. Certainly it cant not be called divisive, because it did divide. I'm not convinced that the information he presented couldnt have been presented in a way that was less divisive, so I am left believing that he presented information in a manner that was more divisive than necessary. I dont take issue with the content of his speech, but rather with the fact that the way Brash presented the content, he made it harder for both sides of the debate to hear and be heard.

No need to tell someone they are illiterate on something when you disagree with something they say.
If I thought you were stupid or unintelligent I wouldnt take the time to converse with you. Keep in mind that I dont think you are ignorant about the issue, rather I think that accurate information is difficult to come by. To be honest I based a lot of my speculation (regarding the extent of your knowledge) on my own perception that the information is that hard to come by most people wont have stumbled on it unless specifically directed to it.

What I was implying (whether or not you detect that in my last post) was if National had not carried on the reforms, then the economy probably wouldn't be in the same state. (If they hadn't of cut the benefit etc.etc.)
I don't see that as being flawed.
That National didnt mess up by undoing or not continuing policy set in place by labour doesnt strike me as substantiating the notion that National will fix the economy. Labour appears to have started something that National carried on, whatever cuts they may have continued didnt improve health or education and the economic policy they pursued was labour's. Nothing in that is indicitive of any particular reason for perceiving that National is better equiped (or even inclined) to fix health, education etc.

As for getting back on top of the world, his speech 'Faster growth if we want it' seems to explain what he means
That's what I mean about being dishonest. Can you remind me again when New Zealand was ever a super-power? How can we go back to being something we never were? What does he mean by 'top'?

Hang on, it does make sense. What I am saying is, we have sent forces over to Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed helped out a lot in these parts of the world. But there is much to be done in the pacific as well.
But we do 'help out' in the Pacific. I think it would be more helpful if you actually stated the outcome that you would prefer because, I cant really understand what you want if you say 'more'; I might perceive we do more than we do, or you might perceive that we do less than we do, I'd understand better what you were driving at if you explained in terms of what you wanted rather than explaining in terms of relative improvements to what we currently have.

In my estimation we do a lot, we provide peacekeepers in the Pacific and out, we provide emergency rescue services and provide emergency relief all right here in the Pacific, then on top of this we also pay all our UN fees up to date (which is more than can be said for many of the 'defence bigwigs') and help out in UN operations as required, and in addition we also supply support to allies. Not too crabby for a country that has less people than a lot of overseas cities...

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 08:39

Do you think DC will be running the country in 4 years? I doubt they will, and I certainly hope they won't be, but Brian Tamaki is deadly serious when he says it. So...

Well to do that, they'll need to first get at least around 45% of the general vote, as well as a decent percentage of eltorate seats. Even then they'd have to go into a coaltion. Now, the christian heritage party who as far as I know are a bit more moderate, could only manage a 3rd place as their best return in an electorate. They lost to a transvestite, so maybe they picked the wrong one to go for.

Still, Destiny church = no chance of being more than whingers.

JRV

28-10-2004, 08:42

Well to do that, they'll need to first get at least around 45% of the general vote, as well as a decent percentage of eltorate seats. Even then they'd have to go into a coaltion. Now, the christian heritage party who as far as I know are a bit more moderate, could only manage a 3rd place as their best return in an electorate. They lost to a transvestite, so maybe they picked the wrong one to go for.

Still, Destiny church = no chance of being more than whingers.

Yeah, that's if it is done democratically. What if they attempt a coup? However unlikely, we have seen overseas how cults like these can end up. And it looks kinda messy...

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 08:43

Yeah, that's if it is done democratically. What if they attempt a coup? However unlikely, we have seen overseas how cults like these can end up. And it looks kinda messy...

I'll cruise into town and throw stuff at them.

Phaiakia

28-10-2004, 08:56

If Maori claim the foreshore and air over Lake Taupo then why don't you?

I am not an expert on the matter, nor do I claim to be. All I know is what I have read, or heard through the media. However, I think I have enough of an idea to believe that the claiming of the foreshore and seabed is as I put it - ridiculous. There can be no other word to describe it. No where else in the world has anybody claimed a country's foreshore and seabed, why? Because it's like saying you own air - it seems too radical. I can understand land claims, but I cannot in anyway see the justification for the claiming of foreshore and seabed by ANYONE. As I said, where would you draw the line (for Maori claims)?

The media is very, very, very flawed. If all your information is from the media, you need to do some research. The foreshore and seabed claim hasn't even been heard yet and never will be, so we will never know if the Maori could ever have taken ownership of said areas.

There is a line. It's called native title. There's a legal test.
By the way, let me dispel a myth for everyone here. They cannot claim the land you have title to. No maori will ever be able to dispossess you of your home and land by laying some claim to native title, that native title has been extinguished.

I'd also like to note that when you own land, you own it from the centre of the earth to the heavens. So technically, you do also own the air above it. This is far from radical, in fact it is a rather old and established legal rule.

Okay, we're all familiar with the fact that the foreshore refers to the area between low water mark and the high water mark right? Now back in the 1960's the Court of Appeal heard a claim to the foreshore along ninety mile beach. The problem there was that some parcels of land adjacent to the beach had been granted with the boundary to the low water mark whilst others had their boundary set to high water mark. What happened in the end, was that the court said they had title to the foreshore which had its boundary set to the low water mark otherwise the foreshore remained in Crown ownership. Ofcourse recent decisions have been scathing of this decision. So the claim to foreshore is hardly radical nor novel and ownership of it has been recognised for quite some time.

Also as regards the seabed, the claim would be to the seabed beneath the terrritorial waters of New Zealand, I'm assuming. Further than that, nobody can claim as it belongs to no one.

It's really not that easy to just go and claim the seabed and foreshore as the media would have you believe. They have to establish a traditional connection and the best test for that is that they lived/live on the claimed land. You simply cannot live on those areas, so they have to resort to usage. Plus there's the whole fact that a traditional connection can be lost so as to extinguish native title by the mere passage of time. In any case, if they did get native title, they'd probably only be able to be granted access rights anyway. I couldn't see exclusive ownership being granted to an area that is unable to be lived upon...

He Far Strelso

28-10-2004, 09:03

Destiny church has less than 5000 members and the majority of those are in Auckland. Numerous people have left the organisation, and at least one of their organising people was publically reprimanded and forced to apologise for sexual misconduct while a pastor in the Elim church. Pentecostal, evangelical, and fundamentalist Xtian sects have publically deplored Brain Tamaki's actions.
Dont think they've got traction, and their chances of a successful coup are zilch.

Incidentally, the National Front appears to have less than 100 active members.

There's more people associated with the Mongrel Mob & Black Power than both Destiny & National Front combined...

For a laugh, enter Density Church (not a spelling error!) into Google NZ - kia ora/cheers Islander9 :cool:

Phaiakia

28-10-2004, 09:05

Yeah, that's if it is done democratically. What if they attempt a coup? However unlikely, we have seen overseas how cults like these can end up. And it looks kinda messy...

"We are here to take over, not here to take sides. We are here to take over, no room for compromise"
"I hear the sounds of a new breed marching toward the gates of the enemy"

Yeah, those are some excerpts from Destiny Church hymns. That Brian Tamaki doesn't have democratic peaceful means in mind...
He doesn't have a chance.
Seriously, we New Zealanders don't care enough to actually enable him to get a strong enough backing.

Phaiakia

28-10-2004, 09:08

For a laugh, enter Density Church (not a spelling error!) into Google NZ - kia ora/cheers Islander9 :cool:

:D nice

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:16

If you know the answer to these two questions some of what you post becomes irrelevent. It doesnt matter what protestor X on hikoi Y says he or she wants, because only possible outcomes are relevent enough to warrant considersation.

Just a minute. I don't find sense in your last sentence. There is any number of possible outcomes for any given action.

So while I appreciate your decision to interpret my comments about the extent of your knowledge in the vein in which they were posted rather than choosing to consider it as an attack, I'm still not convinced that you really have thought about the extent of your knowledge on this particular issue (one which media reporting tends to be somewhat distortive of).

I'm not so much interested in the conclusion you come to, as I am the information with which you reason in order to reach your conclusion.

I haven't necessarily bothered to post everything that brings me to my conclusions. But no matter, I understand your point and fair enough.

I understand your view, but I'm not convinced that Brash presented his information honestly. Certainly it cant not be called divisive, because it did divide. I'm not convinced that the information he presented couldnt have been presented in a way that was less divisive, so I am left believing that he presented information in a manner that was more divisive than necessary. I dont take issue with the content of his speech, but rather with the fact that the way Brash presented the content, he made it harder for both sides of the debate to hear and be heard.

Fair enough. Brash was undoubtedly a little 'brash' in delivering his speech, but I suspect that it is mostly due to him having slack speech writers and advisors not necessarily due to him being all cunning and sneaky (frankly I don't think he's got that in him. If he did, he'd be in the debating chamber more and really making some major blows towards the government like a good opposition leader).

That National didnt mess up by undoing or not continuing policy set in place by labour doesnt strike me as substantiating the notion that National will fix the economy. Labour appears to have started something that National carried on, whatever cuts they may have continued didnt improve health or education and the economic policy they pursued was labour's. Nothing in that is indicitive of any particular reason for perceiving that National is better equiped (or even inclined) to fix health, education etc.

Ok. I was basically just trying to say (though again I failed in making myself clear) that people who think the current Labour-led government is great because the economy is doing so well really need to take a look back. But anyway your point is taken.

But we do 'help out' in the Pacific. I think it would be more helpful if you actually stated the outcome that you would prefer because, I cant really understand what you want if you say 'more'; I might perceive we do more than we do, or you might perceive that we do less than we do, I'd understand better what you were driving at if you explained in terms of what you wanted rather than explaining in terms of relative improvements to what we currently have.

In my estimation we do a lot, we provide peacekeepers in the Pacific and out, we provide emergency rescue services and provide emergency relief all right here in the Pacific, then on top of this we also pay all our UN fees up to date (which is more than can be said for many of the 'defence bigwigs') and help out in UN operations as required, and in addition we also supply support to allies. Not too crabby for a country that has less people than a lot of overseas cities...

Well frankly we need to boost our defence forces and boost our role in the pacific. Yes, I know we do stuff. But we can be doing more to fight terrorism for example. The Australians have set up a special anti-terrorism centre in Indonesia; they are setting up a counter-terrorism force within their military to be especially assigned to the pacific region. Let's do more with them, I am suggesting.

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:25

The media is very, very, very flawed. If all your information is from the media, you need to do some research. The foreshore and seabed claim hasn't even been heard yet and never will be, so we will never know if the Maori could ever have taken ownership of said areas.

Oh indeed. I don't doubt that the media is flawed, it can also be very biased.

Dont think they've got traction, and their chances of a successful coup are zilch.

Even an unsuccessful coup would be unwanted, as people would no doubt die and it'd be something this country has not seen in recent times.

Seriously, we New Zealanders don't care enough to actually enable him to get a strong enough backing.

I hope you're right. *shrug*

St Germain

28-10-2004, 09:46

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:49

I have. Their policies reflect right-wing ideology. Unless of course they have changed since the last time I checked (last year). I doubt that though...

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:51

This one quote I think sums it all up,
"We affirm the traditional family as the basic building block of a stable and healthy nation. The Marxist and liberal Left and its feminist outgrowth has become a tool in the hands of global capitalism, which seeks to destroy family bonds in order that women can be fully integrated into the labour market."

Sounds 'right' to me.

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 09:52

Let's cut the BS and work towards protecting New Zealand from right-wing extremists such as the National Front

The National Front is not Right-Wing. Visit their website and read through their policies.

http://nationalfront.org.nz/index.php

Welcome to the New Zealand National Front website!

You have taken the first step towards becoming a member of the leading organisation in New Zealand concerned with the preservation and advancement of unique New Zealand European culture.

ahahahahahah

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 09:54

There we go, I read one of their 'youth policies'

National Labour Service will be established for all youth for a period of 6 months, after having completed their secondary education; which will encourage a sense of solidarity and respect for productive labour among all sectors of society. A period of 6 months Military Service will follow.

FAIL.

Harlesburg

28-10-2004, 09:54

[QUOTE=Phaiakia]Yeah...

Ask away...

I'm gutted that Prendergast is back for another term. Damn apathy. Not that I can talk, the local election being the first time I've voted, just had to get her out.
QUOTE]

Yeah those altered Posters were funny
Stick It Kerry
Suck It Kerry
Sick With Kerry

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:54

Oh one point. Though they do appear to hold left-wing views when it comes to the economy, they are certainly hardline right-wingers when it comes to the social arena.

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 09:55

Oh one point. Though they do appear to hold left-wing views when it comes to the economy, they are certainly hardline right-wingers when it comes to the social arena.

left wing views eh.. (shhh but only if you're white)

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:56

... besides, I'll quote one National Front member attending a recent rally in Christchurch... "Yeah, I'm NAZI. And I'm fucking proud of it."

JRV

28-10-2004, 09:58

left wing views eh.. (shhh but only if you're white)

Too true...

"We stand for the cultivation of a national culture, distinctly New Zealand , but anchored in the ethics and traditions of Western civilisation; a counter-blast to the Hollywood and Madison Avenue derived global consumer “culture” that spews forth from the USA."

... and ...

"Ultimately we desire the re-constitution of the White Commonwealth of Nations, comprising Australia , Britain , Canada , and New Zealand based on shared kinship and heritage, as an alternative to the globalist schemes for herding “humanity” into a “New World Order”."

St Germain

28-10-2004, 10:03

"Take for instance, South Africa , where the Afrikaner folk struggled for centuries to maintain their identity and sovereignty against foreign capitalists. All the humbug about “human rights” and “equality” and the opposition to “apartheid” was simply to destroy the Afrikaner in order that a Black government could be established that would be easily controlled by the global corporations" (From the National Front Website)

:rolleyes: Marvellous isn't it?

Monkeypimp

28-10-2004, 10:06

"Take for instance, South Africa , where the Afrikaner folk struggled for centuries to maintain their identity and sovereignty against foreign capitalists. All the humbug about ?human rights? and ?equality? and the opposition to ?apartheid? was simply to destroy the Afrikaner in order that a Black government could be established that would be easily controlled by the global corporations"

:rolleyes: Marvellous isn't it?

err you mean democracy? Like where everyone can vote?

JRV

28-10-2004, 10:08

Germani_a

28-10-2004, 11:34

I will vote National as i can't stand Helen Clark and Labour's policies/lies
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

JRV

29-10-2004, 01:12

Helen Clark looks like a witch.

Phaiakia

29-10-2004, 01:33

Helen Clark looks like a witch.

Omg, you're so racist, not all witches are ugly you know, they can be glamourous, witches are people too...

Phaiakia

29-10-2004, 01:36

"It is your destiny to love God, it is your destiny to cry 'enough is enough' as we march through the streets on parliament! It is your destiny to gove 10% of your income to the church so I can buy me a new harley-davison motorbike!"
- 'Brian Tamaki', Facelift http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvone_story_skin/431339%3fformat=html

What exactly is "enough is enough" supposed to mean anyway. Okay, I know what they're meaning by it. But lets read that again, enough is enough. Why yes, yes it is. Poos is poos, cheese is cheese...what kind of stupid catchphrase is that, I mean really. Stupid destiny church marchers...

JRV

29-10-2004, 03:27

What exactly is "enough is enough" supposed to mean anyway. Okay, I know what they're meaning by it. But lets read that again, enough is enough. Why yes, yes it is. Poos is poos, cheese is cheese...what kind of stupid catchphrase is that, I mean really. Stupid destiny church marchers...
Exactly right. It always annoys me when I see people walking round wearing their 'Enough is Enough' t-shirts.

I actually don't think it is original either. I watched a documentary on the economic reforms of the late '80s and '90s. In it they showed news footage of crowds protesting outside parliament against unemployment and interestingly they were crying 'enough is enough!'

Peopleandstuff

29-10-2004, 04:39

Just a minute. I don't find sense in your last sentence. There is any number of possible outcomes for any given action.
Philosophically sure, but in the real world we can look at what the facts are now, consider an 'outcome' and compare what facts would have to be different before such an 'outcome' could occur, and we can conclude that some things are so unlikely as to not warrant being considered as a possible outcome. At this particular time the outcome of anyone Maori or otherwise being able to own the whole of New Zealand (and thus being the 'landlord' of all New Zealanders) is not possible in the foreseeable future.

Snorklenork

29-10-2004, 07:25

So, the Eureka flag doesn't count? (Again, I don't believe how trivial I'm being! :D)
Hrm, well it depends how much you think that the Eureka flag has been used as the unofficial flag of Australia. I think it has barely been used in that sense.

Anyway, we're getting off track, the original claim was that we adopted a flag that looked a lot like one they already had, and the implication was we stole it. Now, I think the former is true, and while, yes, the Eureka flag predates the NZ maritime flag, the resemblence is minimal so it would be hard to claim they copied the Eureka flag. I don't know whether we stole theirs or not, but lets face it, we couldn't have been that worried about having a flag like theirs back then, and people must have noticed the resembelance.

That all being said, I do like Australia's flag better, I just don't think the red in the NZ flag works. I think if we do ever get rid of the Union Jack, we should just vertically centre the seven pointed star some more and leave it at that.

Oh yeah, I also think the Eureka flag is a good looking flag. It's just a shame it is a bit too identified with radicalism.

JRV

29-10-2004, 08:44

Philosophically sure, but in the real world we can look at what the facts are now, consider an 'outcome' and compare what facts would have to be different before such an 'outcome' could occur, and we can conclude that some things are so unlikely as to not warrant being considered as a possible outcome. At this particular time the outcome of anyone Maori or otherwise being able to own the whole of New Zealand (and thus being the 'landlord' of all New Zealanders) is not possible in the foreseeable future.

You can still have more than one likely (possible) outcome in any given situation. For example, it is possible that Bush will win the election on Tuesday and it is also just as possible that Kerry will win -- it is impossible to predict who the victor will be. Your point has been made.

Perhaps, my comment about the protestor in the hikoi was taken more seriously than I ever intended -- perhaps that has been intentional on your part, but whatever.

Peopleandstuff

30-10-2004, 04:54

Perhaps, my comment about the protestor in the hikoi was taken more seriously than I ever intended
Well it was hard for me to judge what exactly you meant by it. You could have just meant that 'this is what some people are saying and so really there's no point listening to them if they are going to be that unreasonable' or something similar. My concern was that you might have meant 'this is what people are saying and that's a worry because we dont want that to happen', in which case I wanted to point out that it's just not something that warrants concern.

So if you know that what the protestor said is just not going to happen at any point in the foreseeable furture, and that a lot of radical changes would have to take place before it could even be possible, much less plausable, then you can safely ignore my comments which were posted because there are enough New Zealanders who do think that what the protestor advocated could plausably happen under current New Zealand law that it is worthwhile pointing out that it just isnt so.

JRV

30-10-2004, 05:05

Well it was hard for me to judge what exactly you meant by it. You could have just meant that 'this is what some people are saying and so really there's no point listening to them if they are going to be that unreasonable' or something similar. My concern was that you might have meant 'this is what people are saying and that's a worry because we dont want that to happen', in which case I wanted to point out that it's just not something that warrants concern.

So if you know that what the protestor said is just not going to happen at any point in the foreseeable furture, and that a lot of radical changes would have to take place before it could even be possible, much less plausable, then you can safely ignore my comments which were posted because there are enough New Zealanders who do think that what the protestor advocated could plausably happen under current New Zealand law that it is worthwhile pointing out that it just isnt so.

I see. No I never actually thought it plausable that a bunch of Maori would be able to gain control of New Zealand. Though we do have the National Armed Intervention Force to worry about, which has declared war on the government -- lol.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=2098657

JRV

30-10-2004, 05:10

They've gone for the BNZ too... http://www.sharechat.co.nz/features/nbr/article.php/c66fcd78

"Mr Verry, a conspiracy theorist who blames BNZ for many of New Zealand's problems, claimed BNZ owed him and his business associates $8.3 million after his import company, Khaya Holdings, failed and the family was forced to sell its 1600ha family farm."

Phaiakia

01-11-2004, 10:00

Peopleandstuff

01-11-2004, 10:12

To be honest I dont have faith in the New Zealand Police.

Xanadoool

01-11-2004, 12:49

I've actually got a few friends who work as cops, and if they resopnded immediately to every call for help, you'd never see a cop. The number of times they get called to domestics to find out it was an over-reaction out numbers the times when they're actually needed. More cops would be great, but then we would have people saying "Where are they then?" unless half the population are cops, there will never be enough of them, so many of my friends break the law every day, I break it at least weekly.

The solution really stands with people looking out for each other... every time someone goes to drive home drunk from a party I'm at, I seem to be the only one who questions them about it. How many of your friends break the law, how many times have YOU broken the law... If we kept each other in line more, the cops would have more time to go and give lifts home to women in distress, instead of sending a taxi... Oh... and aren't taxi drivers suppose to know the area they work in? There's a HUGE difference between the west and east coasts of a country! :(

Phaiakia

02-11-2004, 00:14

To be honest I dont have faith in the New Zealand Police.

Well, I had faith in and respect for the police when I was young and stupid. But through studying law and volunteering in a community law centre, I lost it.

What I find interesting about the recent attention is that the people that suffered, that the Police failed to help, are white and I'd hazard a guess to also say middle class. The very people that Police the world over are criticised for only being there to help and to look out for.

He Far Strelso

02-11-2004, 01:30

So has everyone lost faith in the police and dialing 111 yet?

They're getting such a hard time in the media at the moment, granted with the Iraena Asher incident they really did deserve it. But I think they did the right thing with the most recent one. Sure it sucks that the wife had to sit by outside while her husband got beaten up but endangering neighbours isn't necessarily such a good idea either.

But do you live in a rural area?

I do. The last time any of us called 111 was on a New Years Eve when a visitor got stoned out of his mind and started threatening people with a knife.
There was immediate danger to life involved - the call centre operator was in the *North Island* (we live in the deep south), didnt know where we were, which local district to call, or was of any use whatsoever. The next day, the local cop called in (they're sole charge stations here, 3 scattered over 300k) and said, very firmly, Next time, ring *me* - dont bother with 111. And unofficially complimented us on the way the situation was handled (4 neighbours jumped the visitor, armed with duvets, packed him into the trailer of a quad bike, and stranded him five miles down the beach. It was very late next morning when one of us saw him trying to hitch rides out to the main road. and he looked fairly sick. Good job.)

Without neighbours being prepared to assist one another in emergency situations, life in the wopwops becomes problematic...

JRV

02-11-2004, 07:35

So has everyone lost faith in the police and dialing 111 yet?

They're getting such a hard time in the media at the moment, granted with the Iraena Asher incident they really did deserve it. But I think they did the right thing with the most recent one. Sure it sucks that the wife had to sit by outside while her husband got beaten up but endangering neighbours isn't necessarily such a good idea either.

Well, I had faith in and respect for the police when I was young and stupid. But through studying law and volunteering in a community law centre, I lost it.

What I find interesting about the recent attention is that the people that suffered, that the Police failed to help, are white and I'd hazard a guess to also say middle class. The very people that Police the world over are criticised for only being there to help and to look out for.

I have lost any faith I had in the police, in light of the Irena Asher case and so forth. Though I have long suspected that the New Zealand police are understaffed, underfunded and to incompetent.

I am kind of divided on the most recent one. On one hand, they had to keep the neighbours from rushing in and potentially making matters worse, but on the other hand when you live rurally (like I do) you are isolated from police and other emergency services and when the 111 operators don't even know the area...

Xanadoool

02-11-2004, 11:50

I was talking to a farm worker the other day, and his suggestion seems to sum up the problem they are facing... He said that if he were in a similar circumstance, he would 'Not bother with the cops, shoot the bugger, and get rid of the body.'

Disturbing for sure, but it would be some what of a deterant, if crims started 'disappearing'. :)

Phaiakia

02-11-2004, 22:28

I am kind of divided on the most recent one. On one hand, they had to keep the neighbours from rushing in and potentially making matters worse, but on the other hand when you live rurally (like I do) you are isolated from police and other emergency services and when the 111 operators don't even know the area...

Yeah, well that's how I feel about the neighbours. But you and He Far Strelso do have a point about the rural living thing... I guess it comes down to having to use your local guy and forgetting about 111....and relying on each other to help out. But I have a feeling that they'd be copping the flak if the neighbours had rushed in and they'd gotten hurt too. The police will always be blamed when they can't save everyone I guess.

JRV

10-12-2004, 12:51

Well, the Civil Unions Bill has passed. I for one am pleased. I must say, I was surprised to learn of Dick Hubbard’s opposition… I thought he was centre-left.

Consul Augustus

10-12-2004, 13:15

new zealand got politics? cool

Cameragod

10-12-2004, 13:39

I hate all NZ politicians. They are petty minded losers will sacrifice everything they believe in to stay in power. Look at my local MP Trevor Mallard. He was in the Lange government along with Clark when it did just about everything that Labor is against now, got voted out, so did he go get a real job? No he stayed in parliament in a jobs for the boys deal as a gofer. Then as soon as he could was given a safe seat. What is his job now? Minister of making people so angry they can?t think straight.

Demented Hamsters

10-12-2004, 14:51

Oh come on now, what of Michael Cullen? Nothing wrong with him. I would like to see him PM. Very intelligent, witty and erudite chap from what I've heard.
Of course Queen Helen would first have to abdicate, and I can't see her relinguishing the reins.

I haven't been keeping up with the local news, but has there been any further news about Iraena Asher? Have they found her body and/or assailant?

Playing Devils Advocate here, but I've been in a similar situation with a woman I know telling me all these horror stories of being drugged and beaten and being in hospital etc etc, only for me to find out later it was a load of cack. She tried it on a friend of hers - ringing her saying she was in hospital after being attacked, and when her mate drove thru town to the hospital, she saw her in a bar. Just pathetic attention-getting.
Next time she txted me saying she was in hospital, I txted her back saying she should ask for an enema while she was there. And yes it was yet another lie.
I'd wager that's what the cop thought when he got those calls. No doubt they get lots like that. And it'd be difficult not to become jaded about them. Unfortunately it wasn't attention-seeking this time but a genuine call for help.
Doesn't excuse the cop's behaviour, but at least you may have some empathy for him.

Nuadh Albainn

10-12-2004, 17:24

Just so people will stop bitching:

The flag was proclaimed by the monarch in 1904 after a design competition (for which the rules implied that a British ensign flag was required). This flag was mainly intended for naval use. Throughout the first fifty years of the Australian colony, the Union Flag was widely used, as was the "Red Ensign" (the same design with a red background) - as the unofficial national flag. On 14th April 1954 the "Blue Ensign" flag became the official Australian flag, though it was not until well into the 1960's that the national flag usurped the Union Flag completely in public consciousness. The blue ensign design was adopted over the red ensign design due to the fact that red was the symbol of communism and the rise of anti-communist feelings in Australia at the time.

The flag of New Zealand was introduced in 1869 and adopted as the national flag in 1902. It consists of a dark blue field with the Union Flag, in the top left hand corner, and four red stars with white borders to the right.

In History we got taught that the flag was made by the same person - so who really gives a hoot who had it first?

Phaiakia

11-12-2004, 06:25

Well, the Civil Unions Bill has passed. I for one am pleased. I must say, I was surprised to learn of Dick Hubbard’s opposition… I thought he was centre-left.

OMG OMG, it's so horrible, New Zealand is going down the drain, it's social engineering, it's disgusting, we have no family values, their kids will be gay too, GAY!!! I mean, that's just morally abhorrent.

:rolleyes:

It's fantastic!!! Did you catch the news with the guy on his knees crying "Jesus", man that guy was hilarious. Fantastic to stick to that Tamaki too :D I really really don't like that guy.

Oh and Ahmed Zaoui got freed on bail too!!!!

Oh come on now, what of Michael Cullen? Nothing wrong with him. I would like to see him PM. Very intelligent, witty and erudite chap from what I've heard.
Of course Queen Helen would first have to abdicate, and I can't see her relinguishing the reins.

Why would he want to PM when he is the Finance Minister? He's the one with all the power.

Oh and btw, Nuadh Albainn, people stopped bitching long ago...and I don't think anyone really does care...

JRV

11-12-2004, 09:12

It's fantastic!!! Did you catch the news with the guy on his knees crying "Jesus", man that guy was hilarious. Fantastic to stick to that Tamaki too I really really don't like that guy.

lol! That was great. "Jesus! Jesus, no!"

Oh and Ahmed Zaoui got freed on bail too!!!!

The look on the faces of those goverment lawyers was also priceless.

Oh come on now, what of Michael Cullen? Nothing wrong with him. I would like to see him PM. Very intelligent, witty and erudite chap from what I've heard.

"People think of me as nerdish. But I'm a very practical nerd." - Cullen

Phaiakia

11-12-2004, 09:55

lol! That was great. "Jesus! Jesus, no!"

He had spittle and stuff too... :D

Thank God for giving us such amusing fanatics to poke fun at. He must have a sense of humour to imbue his followers with such characteristics.

JRV

11-12-2004, 12:11

He had spittle and stuff too...

Thank God for giving us such amusing fanatics to poke fun at. He must have a sense of humour to imbue his followers with such characteristics.

Amen brother!

JRV

25-01-2005, 07:20

Well. What do you make of Brash's 'State of the Nation' speech, Orewa II?

Peopleandstuff

25-01-2005, 07:23

Eh? He made it already? I have not heard it...

JRV

25-01-2005, 09:44

Yeah. He wants to cut 'welfare abuse'.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/470502%3fformat=html

Monkeypimp

25-01-2005, 10:50

Peopleandstuff

25-01-2005, 10:56

Is this the political equivalent of an 'acid flashback' or what? Beneficiary bashing, wow like that hasnt been done to death by the National party before.

Yawn....

Cobra 2

25-01-2005, 13:00

RE: Ahmed Zaoui

One of the problems the Government was facing when dealing with his case was that if they were soft on him and let him in with no opposition, It would pretty much be sending a clear message to those we do not want here (ie Muslim Extremists) that we are a safe haven for them.

Although I am a political science student I am unfortunatly not interested enough in domestic politics to pay much attention to what is really going on. However I am fully supporting Helen Clark at the moment and think she is doing a fine job running our great Nation.

Someone mentioned that they did not agree with National's "right-wing" policies. Truth be told, National is barely right-wing. If the right-wing is what you fear mate I suggest keeping your eyes on the Christian and A.C.T. MPs. You will have to forgive me I didnt really pay much attention in my lectures but do we still have a Christian values party or have they merged with another party?

I believe NZ will continue to have friction between Maori and New Zealanders of European decent (Anyone who has called me pakeha has in turn been called a ******, I dont agree with the term) until we put our differences and the past aside and look into the future. I have had a good laugh at these Ads for the Te wanaga o Aotearoa university (spelling?), I had not realised before this that it was actually a challenge to be a Maori.

Well thats just my rant.

The South Island

25-01-2005, 13:52

The worst thing about New Zealand society is that people of the baby-boomer era were raised in an era of "Empire" and British supremacy.

Until the late 1970's/early 1980's there was almost no acknowledgement of the role that Maori had played in early colonial New Zealand, and many of them had been left to rot in the cultural wasteland that was working class suburbia.

As much as I would agree that people need to be treated equally under one law, the government has to make compensations for errors it signed off in the past (one I found quite horrifying was the "Farms for Veterans scheme" run after WW2, in which many European NZers were granted cheap loans/leasehold, and Maori were begrudged of this right.)

As one person stated, the rise of the new youth raised under a forcibly multicultural society (against the majority will) will further contribute to the development of New Zealand as a mulitcultural paradise, as radical positions are exterminated.

In my experience, Maori do need "preferential treatment" - but this would be mainly to produce a new generation of tolerant and proud New Zealand leaders (for role-models) that Maori deserve, not the corrupt Maori elite who live off the taxpayer, or the young Maori urbanite that radicalise toward racial hatred because they miss out on the money that the fatcats suck up.

Independent Homesteads

25-01-2005, 14:22

whatmakes moari so bad (and polyniesians) is that they are left behind by people who read ie Pakeha

can't maoris read then?

I don't know anything at all about New Zealand.

Jeruselem

25-01-2005, 14:32

Stop moaning about NZ politics. Australia's got Johnny Howard running around with the US deputy sheriff badge making people real happy. At least you don't have people trying to blow up your embassy in Iraq (probably because NZ didn't have one in the first place).

Wherramaharasinghastan

25-01-2005, 14:37

hear, hear!
I'm almost at the stage where i think i'll move to NZ, just to see what it's like to have a real government, not the Government of the United States of America- Australian Chapter.

Then i'll come back, because i'd rather watch Kiwi's get rorted at Rugby from home soil :p

Monkeypimp

25-01-2005, 14:47

can't maoris read then?

I don't know anything at all about New Zealand.

err they have lower literacy rates, yes, but the large majority can read...

JRV

25-01-2005, 22:27

Getting tougher on welfare abusers isn't a bad idea, but spacifically picking out solo mothers is. Attacking the numbers on welfare is basically attacking the unemployment rate anyway, which isn't going to get him very far.

Yes. I was quite disappointed by his singling out of solo mothers. However I predict that we will see National rise again in the polls - just like last year. He strikes a chord in middle New Zealand everytime.

You will have to forgive me I didnt really pay much attention in my lectures but do we still have a Christian values party or have they merged with another party?

Currently we have two Christian parties. The newly formed Destiny New Zealand Party, and the old Christian Heritage (CHNZ). CHNZ is supposed to be the highest rating party with no seats in parliament. Christian parties in NZ don’t really have much going for them, they never actually have. I think CHNZ has had one MP, but that was only because a Nat defected to them prior to the ’99 election (and lost his electorate as a result).
Destiny is a branch off of Brain Tamaki’s Destiny Church. Need I say more?

Peter Dunne’s United Future (UF) Party doesn’t really qualify as a Christian party IMO, though it bases itself around ‘Christian values’. UF seems to be for the most part quite moderate – it opposed Civil Unions and Prostitution Reform without going to the extremes that some certain others did. Dunne quickly shoots down his MP's who start talking like Christian fundamentalists. He's really trying hard to distance themselves from that sort.

I have had a good laugh at these Ads for the Te wanaga o Aotearoa university (spelling?), I had not realised before this that it was actually a challenge to be a Maori.

When I first saw those I was shocked.

Just everybody vote for the Pull Yourself Together Party. Imagine Garry McCcormak, Tim Shadbolt, and Kim Hill running the country.

Graphite Deodorant

25-01-2005, 22:39

I'm gutted that Prendergast is back for another term. Damn apathy. Not that I can talk, the local election being the first time I've voted, just had to get her out.
Ekkk, I hate her :headbang: :headbang:
I'm from Wellington, too young to vote. But seriously, Prendergast.. Terrible

JRV

26-01-2005, 08:39

Bump.

Harlesburg

26-01-2005, 08:47

Yeah Prendergast

Stick with Kerry
Stiuck with Kerry
Stick with Kerry
Stiuck wIth Kerry

JRV

26-01-2005, 08:51

I didn't know her first name was Kerry. I've only ever known her by her surname.

Harlesburg

26-01-2005, 09:29

I didn't know her first name was Kerry. I've only ever known her by her surname.
Yeah.
Did you see the Cricket i could tell Shane Warne was going to impersonate Hughes.
We need like 2 more Battalions and 2 Frigates preferably Anzac Class.

JRV

26-01-2005, 10:25

Yeah. We raised some good money!

JRV

27-01-2005, 09:20

Bump.

Unaha-Closp

27-01-2005, 12:52

Yeah Prendergast

Stick with Kerry
Stiuck with Kerry
Stick with Kerry
Stiuck wIth Kerry

She has got you a whole lot of funding for a beautification project on central Wellington roads so the next twenty years waiting for transmission gully won't seem so long.

JRV

28-01-2005, 07:13

Anybody hear about the PM’s flight to Hokitika? Stupid airforce.

Harlesburg

31-01-2005, 11:51

She has got you a whole lot of funding for a beautification project on central Wellington roads so the next twenty years waiting for transmission gully won't seem so long.
NAh the inner city bypass is only good at cutting 45 secs off the time at what cost 45 Mill?
It dosent solve anything

The Yanks (WWII)offered to build TG and the Wainui Tunnel but no bloody Labour Govt said No
Labour :mp5:

Harlesburg

31-01-2005, 11:55

Anybody hear about the PM’s flight to Hokitika? Stupid airforce.
Oh it was completly safe and id be more sad about the planes than her death.
I see our Glourious Leader wants to do away with HouseWives-Boo who will cook my food HE HE :p

JRV

01-02-2005, 03:24

Oh it was completly safe and id be more sad about the planes than her death.
I see our Glourious Leader wants to do away with HouseWives-Boo who will cook my food HE HE :p

lol! Yes, nothing wrong with women getting married and staying home.

Helen Clark = Feminist

Harlesburg

01-02-2005, 09:01

lol! Yes, nothing wrong with women getting married and staying home.

Helen Clark = Feminist
I mean shit saying that they dont work WTF? little thing called cooking making babies and shit damn we dont all have hispanic slaves at our place..............

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 10:56

Cook your own fucking eggs.

Mutant Dogs 3

01-02-2005, 11:00

Cook your own fucking eggs.

Weren't you IP Banned at one point??

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 11:05

Weren't you IP Banned at one point??

nope, ISP banned.

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 11:06

Cook your own fucking eggs.
All very good and well for you to say, but what about my bacon, that spits, when it's hot....'burnies' hurt....I surely cannot be expected to cook my own bacon at the risk of 'burnies'? :eek:

_Taiwan

01-02-2005, 11:07

After leaning towards National for most of the year, my vote is a toss-up between National and United Future.

Don't vote Labour! A vote for Labour is an indirect vote for NZ First, and it seems that racism here is somehow directly proportional to the amount of TV time Winston gets.

(I'm not saying it's his fault, I actually quite like him and agree with some of his policies. It's just that his presence on TV somehow causes people to change)

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 11:10

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 11:15

After leaning towards National for most of the year, my vote is a toss-up between National and United Future.

Don't vote Labour! A vote for Labour is an indirect vote for NZ First, and it seems that racism here is somehow directly proportional to the amount of TV time Winston gets.
A vote for labour is not a vote of (indirect or otherwise) for NZ First..., did you fail to notice the racial dissent centred on Mr Brash approximately 1 year ago....where were you during the 'Orewa 2004' fallout?

Really a vote for Labour is a vote for NZ First..... :confused:

_Taiwan

01-02-2005, 11:16

If Labour leads by a significant margin a few days beforehand, United Future will be better coalition partners than NZ First or the Greens due to their relatively conservative social policies.

Otherwise it's National.

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 11:17

A vote for labour is not a vote of (indirect or otherwise) for NZ First..., did you fail to notice the racial dissent centred on Mr Brash approximately 1 year ago....where were you during the 'Orewa 2004' fallout?

Really a vote for Labour is a vote for NZ First..... :confused:

Hopefully labour will win, and the greens will get off their high horse for long enough so that labour can lean in their direction.

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 11:20

_Taiwan

01-02-2005, 11:23

A vote for labour is not a vote of (indirect or otherwise) for NZ First..., did you fail to notice the racial dissent centred on Mr Brash approximately 1 year ago....where were you during the 'Orewa 2004' fallout?

Really a vote for Labour is a vote for NZ First..... :confused:

Labour's enactment of tougher immigration laws requiring English tests for Asians and not for Englishmen was due to Winston Peter's attacks.

Brash's speech wasn't racist. How can 'one law for all' be racist?

_Taiwan

01-02-2005, 11:25

Labour do not necessarily need a coalition partner to form a government.

They still will (I'm guessing). National will probably make some gains this election. Labour will loose some Maori seats, Progressive will go down to one seat, forcing Helen to rely on Winston Peters, the Greens, or United.

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 11:34

They still will (I'm guessing). National will probably make some gains this election. Labour will loose some Maori seats, Progressive will go down to one seat, forcing Helen to rely on Winston Peters, the Greens, or United.
Why would Helen be 'forced to rely' on anyone? What exactly do you mean by rely?

_Taiwan

01-02-2005, 11:37

For support in voting measure through parliament.

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 11:48

For support in voting measure through parliament.
There are many options for gaining such support, and in fact 'passing measures' isnt a necessity any way.

I dont see that 'occasional cooperation' is 'relying on' in the context of the discussion so far, or at least certainly not in any sense that equates to 'indirectly voting' for some other party as a result of voting for Labour.

Gitis

01-02-2005, 12:07

Right heres my rant

1) Get over brian dickhead because he is allowed his oppinions just like anyone else, the fact that his protest ended up in nothing but bad publicity and failed misseribly shows that our choosen dictators are not that stupid.

2) the innercity bypass is some thinking ahead which i think has been lost in new zealand. (anyone thats not from wellington, new zealand can skip ahead you probibly wont care) i know it takes away some historic buildings and removes some great places like thistle hall, good cheap venue but the fact is that it can happen now or in 50 - 100 years when it is needed it will cost 400 times as much and there will be too many people living there to do it so nothing will happen... and then what do we have? do you want to be auckland? note: i have a friend thats digging holes for faulten hogan (so what if i cant spell) and hippies keep filling in his holes... keep up the good work, the fact that people are still willing to attack the system means that its working. Democracy in any form will NEVER be stable.

3) The national front are idiots but leave them be... i imagine blaming race is a great way to vent feelings of failure by placing blame. Being racist might actually keep these people sane.

4) i still have faith in New Zealand Police... the people that seem to be most pissed off are people that get in trouble a lot. plz people havent you learnt to disasosiate your self with a crime scene?

5) the stability brought on by labours policies are awesome. I belive the government is set up for happyness and stability (or atleast should be) High employment rates and a good standard of living assure these things... the problem is when people start getting well off there views drift towards the right... and then we get in trouble again... and the left takes hold of the country... but then the cycle repeats.

This rant is getting too long... im going to call it quits

Sheriff Watson - Minister of Public Knowlege; Gitis

Kaz Mordan

01-02-2005, 12:25

Damm thats a lot of posts about a small country in the south pacific...

Anyways ... Avid National Supporter here .. used to be Act .. but they lost Prebble and I like Brash Better.
NZ politics ... hmmm ... Well if Labour wasn't pushing the insane amounts of reverse racism and Huge quantities of Political Correctness crap they'd be .. average...
I'm sick and tired of PC'ness ...and I'm sick and tired of Labour pushing this country down the drain.
We were inline to get a Factory from Intel(yes the computer chip manufacturer), but Labour refused to give them a 10 year tax break. Congrtz on that you morons ... DO you even think they'll make a profit for 10 years ? maybe in the last one .. but surely for the HUGE amount of employment it would create you can give them that. Idiots ...

Basically NZ is one of the few countries where If your Maori/Pacific Island .. you got it easy. Not only do abour 40% of them sit on Social welfare for more than one generation at the time, but not a SINGLE maori in this country is of pure Maori blood .. and thats the bloody problem ... The pure Decent Maori of this country Get on with life and don't waste their time and Mine trying to reclaim land and money for things they lost to the British over 150 years ago, however all the 1/2 casts and 1/4 bloods spend their entire lives doing nothing but that. Get off the Grass you Bloody Dole Bludgers!

Going through University here, if you try for a restricted entry course, there is a quota for Maori ... What I want to know is ... if they are SOOOO stupid that they can't get into their courses ... like medicine by themselves .. what right do they have to treat people in the real world ????
Come on .. surely You Maori out there don't want to be though of as 2nd rate stupid losers who only got a degree cause you made it in on the quota ? FFS have some pride in yourselves do the damm work and get in like everyone else.

Anyways Labour also fudges the employment stats, they say we have about 6-7% unemployment, what they don't tell you is that if your unemployed and NOT looking for work your not unemployed ... WTF ?? anyways our real unemployment rate is about 10-11% and getting worse cause of Labour.
Also the government size increased by 30% this year .. thats another 30% of people being unproductive .. doing nothing but filling out forms and paperwork which is useless and makes no money for the country.

This country has exports of .. farm products .. and thats about it ... Everyone is borrowing for property .. which doesn't make money economically .. its just a HUGE land grab. People need to stop being paid to do paperwork and get some more international commerce in here and get people being productive and makeing something worthwhile for export.

I noticed someone said we had a high standard of Living .. well where the hell do you live ? The Average income for New Zealand is about $36,000 per year ... thats bugger all .. and if you look back 20 -30 -40 years ago you will notice that Living costs have increased by a factor of about 4 and wages have only doubled .. that means we're living on 1/2 of what we should to have the same standard of living as we did comparativly 30 years ago .. so our standard of living is decreasing.

This government is not set up for stability this government is set up to cause a recession ... look at the total unproductiveness and the HUGE amount of borrowing NZ is doing .. 90Billion dollars in Private overseas Borrowing ... Dude .. we keep doing this and the countries fucked!

Also our unemployment is VERY high for a country of our size, It should be about 2-4% at most ... but its nearly 10-11% which is bloody 160,000 people, about 40% of whom are Maori of Pacific Island, and of those 40% 70% have been on the dole for generations, These are the stats you have to search for on the stats website ... www.stats.govt.co.nz .. I think ... Its just bloody stupid ... and Labour is causing it.
Then you get people saying .. well they were good in the past .. sure .. some of them were good Govts. but then the rest wern't ... and national had to spend its term fixing the mess the last one made. Nows the time for National to make the country better .. not a god damm social welfare state.

We must also lower taxes to encourage people and businesses to bring money into the country, the continual flow out is really really bad ... 39% income tax +12.5GST = 51.% tax on every dollar you earn ... damm thats heading to communism! Personal tax should be 20.5% leave GST for a total of 33% and Company Tax should be no Higher than 14% .. encourage business to set up here ... its a good thing, and remember people Socialism and communism have been proved time and time again not to work, however Capitalism is flourishing all over the world... Vote National ... Because they're smarter!

k done for now .. have a nice day.

I will be Voting for Don Brash in the upcoming elections as as far as I'm concerned he's the Lesser of Two Evils, Unlike that Butt Ugly, rug muncher, with no class whatsoever Helen Clark *shudder*.

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 12:39

Because unemployment is absolutely raging in New Zealand right now, right?

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 12:47

Damm thats a lot of posts about a small country in the south pacific...

Anyways ... Avid National Supporter here .. used to be Act .. but they lost Prebble and I like Brash Better.
NZ politics ... hmmm ... Well if Labour wasn't pushing the insane amounts of reverse racism and Huge quantities of Political Correctness crap they'd be .. average...
I'm sick and tired of PC'ness ...and I'm sick and tired of Labour pushing this country down the drain.
We were inline to get a Factory from Intel(yes the computer chip manufacturer), but Labour refused to give them a 10 year tax break. Congrtz on that you morons ... DO you even think they'll make a profit for 10 years ? maybe in the last one .. but surely for the HUGE amount of employment it would create you can give them that. Idiots ...
I dont accept that Labour are pushing us down any drain any more quickly that we would be going down if they were not in government. Wow we missed out on a factory...

Basically NZ is one of the few countries where If your Maori/Pacific Island .. you got it easy.
I dont perceive that Nz is a country where if you are maori of PI you 'got it easy'...

Not only do abour 40% of them sit on Social welfare for more than one generation at the time,
Er, hang on, subsisting on a benefit is having it easy....?

but not a SINGLE maori in this country is of pure Maori blood .. and thats the bloody problem ... The pure Decent Maori of this country Get on with life and don't waste their time and Mine trying to reclaim land and money for things they lost to the British over 150 years ago, however all the 1/2 casts and 1/4 bloods spend their entire lives doing nothing but that. Get off the Grass you Bloody Dole Bludgers!
I'd actually say a more obvious problem is any argument that says 'there are no X, X's currently do Y'...may I ask how these nonexistent people are getting on with their lives, is existing not a necessary condition for getting on with a life?

Going through University here, if you try for a restricted entry course, there is a quota for Maori ...
So, there are quotas for many groups.

What I want to know is ... if they are SOOOO stupid that they can't get into their courses ... like medicine by themselves .. what right do they have to treat people in the real world ????
They can get into university by themselves, or at least I've not seen any accompanied by their parents, on campus, either during semester or at enrollment/application time...

Come on .. surely You Maori out there don't want to be though of as 2nd rate stupid losers who only got a degree cause you made it in on the quota ?
I'm not aware of a single university quota that allows someone to get in, who is not elligable, ergo if regardless of quota systems, only elligable candidates get places, it is not true that anyone gets a place only because they made it through on a quota.

FFS have some pride in yourselves do the damm work and get in like everyone else.
Actually that's what a lot of them are doing...

Anyways Labour also fudges the employment stats, they say we have about 6-7% unemployment, what they don't tell you is that if your unemployed and NOT looking for work your not unemployed ... WTF ??
Aha, it's a huge secret that statistics gathered from an agency where people register themselves as looking for work, dont include non-registered people (ie people the agency the statistics come from, have no record of)....there we all were thinking that they used a crystal ball to figure out how many non-registered 'unemployed people' exist at any one time...evidently just who should be included, those who are too young, ill, old, to work, those who are financially well off and choose not to work? Just how relevent to unemployment statistics are non-job seekers?

anyways our real unemployment rate is about 10-11% and getting worse cause of Labour.
You will have to explain just what the heck you mean by 'real unemployed rate', who is that supposed to include/exclude...?

Also the government size increased by 30% this year .. thats another 30% of people being unproductive .. doing nothing but filling out forms and paperwork which is useless and makes no money for the country.
Source?

This country has exports of .. farm products .. and thats about it ...
Source please?

Everyone is borrowing for property .. which doesn't make money economically .. its just a HUGE land grab.
A trend that has existed for decades, including throughout the terms of non-labour governments...

People need to stop being paid to do paperwork and get some more international commerce in here and get people being productive and makeing something worthwhile for export.
Unless you can prove a cause effect relationship between labour in government and increased paper work, with labour in government being shown to be a sufficient condition for what you alledge and alternative governments being shown not to be a sufficient condition for what you alledge, the allegation is without worth.

I will be Voting for Don Brash in the upcoming elections as as far as I'm concerned he's the Lesser of Two Evils, Unlike that Butt Ugly, rug muncher, with no class whatsoever Helen Clark *shudder*.
Right because the important thing about a nation's leader, is their physical appearence, their ability to play 'snob games', and most crucially their sexuality....er, just how much time were planning to spend in your P.M.'s bedroom, that their sexual preferences are of such interest to you?

Interesting Slums

01-02-2005, 13:10

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 13:18

I agree with a lot of what peopleandstuff said, although I do think that maori's do have a higher "live on the dole because you cant be bothered working" rate, but most of that is cultural difference as it takes a while to become fully integrated when another people take you over.
I think this is an oversimplification...

One problem we do have though is that labour has moved people off the dole and onto sickness benefit and other benefits to reduce the unemployment rate.
This is very believable because clark, Hobbs, Cullen et al are always hanging out at the local Winz office making decisions about who goes on which benefits...
Frankly any discussion about the rise that doesnt first substantiate that some of the likely alternative causes are not the cause, doesnt give sufficient cause to believe that the reason for the rise is as suggested by Mr Brash and co...

Although saying that our economy is in excellent shape, although it has been growning fairly consistantly since muldoon got kicked out nomatter who was in government.
I think I will vote for the nats in this election cos I dont like alot of what clark does, i.e. not being able to admit when she is wrong (corngate is a good example) and also her "do as i say or i will kick your ass" political tone with her party.
You are suggesting this as a 'Helen-trait' as opposed to a 'politician-trait'?

Interesting Slums

01-02-2005, 13:24

I think this is an oversimplification...

Im tired and couldnt be bothered going into more detail

You are suggesting this as a 'Helen-trait' as opposed to a 'politician-trait'?
Im saying helen is significantly worse at it than the majority of other polititions are

Peopleandstuff

01-02-2005, 13:29

Im saying helen is significantly worse at it than the majority of other polititions are
I dont find any reason to agree with this assesment, particularly in the absence of any supporting argument for it.
There has for instance been at least one female PM of NZ who was considerably worse in this regard....

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 13:31

I dont find any reason to agree with this assesment, particularly in the absence of any supporting argument for it.
There has for instance been at least one female PM of NZ who was considerably worse in this regard....

Sink the ship! Sink the ship!!

oh wait, we did.

Interesting Slums

01-02-2005, 13:36

Sorry, i skipped over this pretty quick, wat party do you two support
(meaning peopleandstuff and monkeypimp)

Abu Ghuraib

01-02-2005, 13:40

kiwi sux??
yup they sux

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 13:42

Sorry, i skipped over this pretty quick, wat party do you two support
(meaning peopleandstuff and monkeypimp)

I don't really support any one party. I'll probably vote for the greens though, because I like having their voice in there. If its looking really close, I might vote labour. Whichever labour candidate they put up to lose in my electorate (its a foregone conclusion) will probably get my vote because they always finish second and if some freaky thing happens, they'll be the most likely to win it.

Interesting Slums

01-02-2005, 13:44

kiwi sux??
yup they sux

Yeah, real intelligent post

Interesting Slums

01-02-2005, 13:48

I don't really support any one party. I'll probably vote for the greens though, because I like having their voice in there. If its looking really close, I might vote labour. Whichever labour candidate they put up to lose in my electorate (its a foregone conclusion) will probably get my vote because they always finish second and if some freaky thing happens, they'll be the most likely to win it.

What electorate are you from??
I live in the whops in the south island and its been national ever since it was first started i think, labour mayve won once or twice

Monkeypimp

01-02-2005, 13:50

What electorate are you from??
I live in the whops in the south island and its been national ever since it was first started i think, labour mayve won once or twice

Peter Dunne wins my electorate by about 15000 votes every time.

JRV

02-02-2005, 01:12

I dont accept that Labour are pushing us down any drain any more quickly that we would be going down if they were not in government. Wow we missed out on a factory...

Continue to delude yourself of the facts then.

Er, hang on, subsisting on a benefit is having it easy....?

Regardless of whether it is an easy lifestyle or not, why should the taxpayer support these people who could work if they wanted to? We should be encouraging the unemployed into the workforce, rather than encouraging them to sit on the benefit for the remainder of their lives.

Actually that's what a lot of them are doing...

40% of the unemployed in this country are classed as ‘Maori’ or Polynesian … how is that not significant?

Right because the important thing about a nation's leader, is their physical appearence, their ability to play 'snob games', and most crucially their sexuality....er, just how much time were planning to spend in your P.M.'s bedroom, that their sexual preferences are of such interest to you?

Where did he mention sexuality? Helen Clark seems to be hetrosexual anyway, the same as Don Brash. Not that it matters, but Brash is the one who left his first wife for another woman...

I personally don’t care about the sexuality of our leaders either, what they look like, or what they do with their spare time. Don Brash prunes kiwi fruit; Helen Clark goes to the opera… whatever, it’s irrelevant to the running of the country.

_Taiwan

02-02-2005, 02:01

Subsisting on a benefit should be hard and unbearable. If living on the dole was easy, then why work when you get paid not to?

Jayastan

02-02-2005, 02:11

JRV

02-02-2005, 02:39

Weird that 15 pages of posts are on new zealand. I know where it is at least, lol.

Always has sorta reminded me of newfoundland, some little island out of the way that most people seem not to take notice. :p

lol. Yeah, well NZ isn’t that small (land wise about the size of Japan). Population and land wise, I'd say we are the largest island nation in the pacific.

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 04:55

Sorry, i skipped over this pretty quick, wat party do you two support
(meaning peopleandstuff and monkeypimp)
I dont vote on 'party' but rather on what I percieve will be best in the circumstances. I dont recall who I voted for last time...

Continue to delude yourself of the facts then.
You do realise that this peevish 'semi flame' doesnt distract people from noticing that you have failed to provide any form of argument in support of this fact that you infer is so obvious one would have to be delluded not to notice it? If it's that obvious, you'll have no trouble formulating an argument that demonstrates this....and yet....

Regardless of whether it is an easy lifestyle or not, why should the taxpayer support these people who could work if they wanted to? We should be encouraging the unemployed into the workforce, rather than encouraging them to sit on the benefit for the remainder of their lives.
Relevence? I have made no comment on this issue, I have stated only that I dont percieve subsisting on a benefit is an easy life. Whether or not, and if so, who, is to blame for the situation if it exists as described, I have made no comment on.

40% of the unemployed in this country are classed as ‘Maori’ or Polynesian … how is that not significant?
I did not say it wasnt significant. Would you care to elaborate on what you imagine the connection is between this alledged statistic, and my comments?

Where did he mention sexuality?
"rug muncher"
^crass slang for 'lesbian'...

Helen Clark seems to be hetrosexual anyway, the same as Don Brash. Not that it matters, but Brash is the one who left his first wife for another woman...
I really dont care if Mr Brash has late night orgies with consenting transvestite nuns... :eek:

I personally don’t care about the sexuality of our leaders either, what they look like, or what they do with their spare time. Don Brash prunes kiwi fruit; Helen Clark goes to the opera… whatever, it’s irrelevant to the running of the country.
It surely is, which is why I pointed out to the poster how silly the remarks were. If nothing else, making such remarks tends to discredit the other content in the post, by creating an impression (whether correct or not) that the poster is juvenile and shallow.

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 04:59

Subsisting on a benefit should be hard and unbearable. If living on the dole was easy, then why work when you get paid not to?
Why work when you've already got a fortune big enough to support your family for generations? How about to feel useful and fufilled? How about because even if living on the dole were such that one could afford all one needed, there are still all the things in life one wants. How about so your children can look up to mummy and daddy, so your family can be proud of you, so you can be proud of you? How about because you are on many levels 'shut out' if you dont earn more than subsistence level, and are socially stigmatised for not having an earning potential? How about because it is leads to a better quality of life, both financiall/materially, and emotionally/spiritually...?

_Taiwan

02-02-2005, 06:38

Why work when you've already got a fortune big enough to support your family for generations? How about to feel useful and fufilled? How about because even if living on the dole were such that one could afford all one needed, there are still all the things in life one wants. How about so your children can look up to mummy and daddy, so your family can be proud of you, so you can be proud of you? How about because you are on many levels 'shut out' if you dont earn more than subsistence level, and are socially stigmatised for not having an earning potential? How about because it is leads to a better quality of life, both financiall/materially, and emotionally/spiritually...?

Some people simply don't care about all those things. Laziness is stronger than pride, especially if their friends and community don't care about it either. Given a choice between a fairly comfortable life on the dole and working your ass off for $80-90 difference, many will choose the dole simply because they can.

(I work part-time on minimum wage and earn some $100 a week before tax. The student unemployment benefit is $110 per fornight, or $55 a week before tax)

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 07:04

Some people simply don't care about all those things.
Some people dont care about laws against theft, murder and/or rape, we dont assume immediately that all or most people are like thise, and act accordingly. In fact the rules against such conduct being premised as being enforcable indicates that we dont see the fact that people do such things, as meaning that most people will do such things.

Laziness is stronger than pride,
This is only as true as 'pride is stronger than laziness'. Another words it's as useful as saying nothing.

especially if their friends and community don't care about it either.
The fact that a person's enviroment is a strong influence on them is significant, but it doesnt prove how many people are subject to negative enviroments, and to what extent they are effected by this, is what regard, nor who is responsible for addressing this, to what extent, and how. It's commonly known that an enviroment effects it's constituent parts, it tells us nothing about what the actual occurence of particular effects are, and how when they are negative we might productively address this.

Given a choice between a fairly comfortable life on the dole and working your ass off for $80-90 difference, many will choose the dole simply because they can.
However what choice would they make given a choice between an uncomfortable life on the dole, because life on the dole is for the most uncomfortable... as it happens no one who is working full time should find that working earns them only 80.00-90.00 dollars more than the dole. No one who works full time shouldnt be able to provide a comfortable standard of living in which all needs and a porportion of their wants are acheivable.

(I work part-time on minimum wage and earn some $100 a week before tax. The student unemployment benefit is $110 per fornight, or $55 a week before tax)
Working part time is not the same as working full time. How much you earn part time isnt particularly relevent. It more relevent to the question of how we should treat low income earners, the underemployed, but not particularly relevent to how we should treat unemployed workers whose only income is a government benefit.

JRV

02-02-2005, 08:33

EDIT: Relevence? I have made no comment on this issue, I have stated only that I dont percieve subsisting on a benefit is an easy life. Whether or not, and if so, who, is to blame for the situation if it exists as described, I have made no comment on.

K&M initially said: “Not only do about 40% of them sit on the social welfare benefit for more than one generation at a time…”
You responded: “Hang on, subsisting on the benefit is easy…?”

The question is, of what relevance was your reply to the original post? He never said anything about how easy/hard it was living on the benefit. So, please…

I did not say it wasnt significant. Would you care to elaborate on what you imagine the connection is between this alledged statistic, and my comments?

K&M said: “FFS have some pride in yourselves do the damm work and get in like everyone else.”
You responded: “Actually that's what a lot of them are doing...”

I simply pointed out that whilst that is what many are doing, many more of them are not. The connection seems existent to me.

"rug muncher"
^crass slang for 'lesbian'...

Oh! I have never heard that term before. Helen Clark isn’t a lesbian anyway. That’s just propaganda pumped out by National in the ‘80s. I’m a Nat supporter myself, but disgusted to think that some of our MP’s can be that shallow and spiteful.

Investigate is also a wonderful source for that sort of conservative BS in New Zealand.

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 08:50

K&M initially said: “Not only do about 40% of them sit on the social welfare benefit for more than one generation at a time…”
You responded: “Hang on, subsisting on the benefit is easy…?”

The question is, of what relevance was your reply to the original post? He never said anything about how easy/hard it was living on the benefit. So, please…
JVC, are you seriously asking me what relevence whether or not living on a benefit is easy is to the argument
'Basically NZ is one of the few countries where If your Maori/Pacific Island .. you got it easy. Not only do abour 40% of them sit on Social welfare for more than one generation at the time,... "? :confused:

K&M said: “FFS have some pride in yourselves do the damm work and get in like everyone else.”
You responded: “Actually that's what a lot of them are doing...”

I simply pointed out that whilst that is what many are doing, many more of them are not. The connection seems existent to me.
Hang on 40% is many more than the remainder....may I ask where you learned such unconventional maths?

Oh! I have never heard that term before.
Not enough South Park eh? ;)

Helen Clark isn’t a lesbian anyway. That’s just propaganda pumped out by National in the ‘80s. I’m a Nat supporter myself, but disgusted to think that some of our MP’s can be that shallow and spiteful.
I dont much care either way, I simply felt that the silliness of inserting comments about a person's sexuality into a conversation about their qualities as a national leader, should not pass uncommented on.

Rovhaugane

02-02-2005, 08:58

Vote Greens so we can have free Marijuana.

_Taiwan

02-02-2005, 09:24

Some people dont care about laws against theft, murder and/or rape, we dont assume immediately that all or most people are like thise, and act accordingly. In fact the rules against such conduct being premised as being enforcable indicates that we dont see the fact that people do such things, as meaning that most people will do such things.

Benefit freeloading isn't a criminal act like the others listed above, it's just an abuse of the state's good intentions. To the freeloader it's victimless.

It still doesn't change the fact that the unemployment benefit should be for temporary unemployment and thus be right at the bare minimum to support a person.

Rovhaugane

02-02-2005, 10:00

Benefit freeloading isn't a criminal act like the others listed above, it's just an abuse of the state's good intentions. To the freeloader it's victimless.

It still doesn't change the fact that the unemployment benefit should be for temporary unemployment and thus be right at the bare minimum to support a person.

Have you tryed living on the Dole. Im sure if you were stuck without work living on the bareminimum you wouldnt be saying that would you.

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 10:06

Benefit freeloading isn't a criminal act like the others listed above, it's just an abuse of the state's good intentions. To the freeloader it's victimless.
Irrelevent to the anology.

It still doesn't change the fact that the unemployment benefit should be for temporary unemployment and thus be right at the bare minimum to support a person.
I'm mystified as to why you imagine that an anology such as that you are referring to, tells us anything at all about whether or not the unemployment benefit should be for temporary unemployment and thus be right at the bare minimum to support a person, or why you even believe that anything I have said is contrary to the statement you are now making.

Rovhaugane

02-02-2005, 10:14

Irrelevent to the anology.

I'm mystified as to why you imagine that an anology such as that you are referring to, tells us anything at all about whether or not the unemployment benefit should be for temporary unemployment and thus be right at the bare minimum to support a person, or why you even believe that anything I have said is contrary to the statement you are now making.

I think there are other reasons for wishing such a thing..... Some ones name can tell you alot about that person.

Kiwipeso

02-02-2005, 10:26

if i remember it smelt like sulphur. But i was only about 3 at the time so i dont remember much else. I feel like i ought to go there agian, just cause its the only country that i know of that i dont need a visa to visit.

That would be rotorua, the thermal wonderland. It's really nice there, especially the hotpools. you should try polynesian spas, the best pools in nz.

Kiwipeso

02-02-2005, 10:42

Subsisting on a benefit should be hard and unbearable. If living on the dole was easy, then why work when you get paid not to?

Living on the dole is so easy, you just need to be living somewhere cheap.
The only reason I got off the dole is because I got tired of dealing with the retards at winz, so I went to Vic uni.

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 11:16

Living on the dole is so easy, you just need to be living somewhere cheap.
The only reason I got off the dole is because I got tired of dealing with the retards at winz, so I went to Vic uni.
At best, the premise
'living on the dole is easy'
is only as true as the premise
'living on the dole is hard'.
I suggest the latter is in fact more true than the earlier.

Harlesburg

02-02-2005, 11:45

MCgillacuddy?

JRV

02-02-2005, 22:17

Hang on 40% is many more than the remainder....may I ask where you learned such unconventional maths?

I never stated that 40% was more than the remaining 60%. If it was implied then that was a mistake in the wording of my post, but I never actually stated that 40% was more than 60% and yet you told me that was irrelevant.

You are right in stating that most Maori are working or studying, I just suggested that there were still a lot who weren't and should be.

JVC, are you seriously asking me what relevence whether or not living on a benefit is easy is to the argument
'Basically NZ is one of the few countries where If your Maori/Pacific Island .. you got it easy. Not only do abour 40% of them sit on Social welfare for more than one generation at the time,... "?

First of all, it’s JRV. Secondly, you didn’t bother to quote the rest of that paragraph in your original reply to K&M. Thirdly, I still maintain that what I said is relevant to the TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING and you really have yet to prove otherwise. I just made a generalized statement that whether it is easy or not (and it was as much a reply to the topic itself as it was to you) doesn’t matter to me.

Jayastan

02-02-2005, 22:53

lol. Yeah, well NZ isn’t that small (land wise about the size of Japan). Population and land wise, I'd say we are the largest island nation in the pacific.

hmmm i would say newfoundland would be bigger actually...

Peopleandstuff

02-02-2005, 22:59

I never stated that 40% was more than the remaining 60%. If it was implied then that was a mistake in the wording of my post, but I never actually stated that 40% was more than 60% and yet you told me that was irrelevant.
Actually your comment was
I simply pointed out that whilst that is what many are doing, many more of them are not. The connection seems existent to me.
If 40% of 2 combined groups constituting a statistic means that the statistic represents 'many many more' of that group than are not represented, what does that say about the fact that non-members of the group make up the larger 60%.

I stated simply that many of the group referred to are getting on with it. Can you explain exactly what part of this assertion you disagree with, without contradicting your comments, as follows;

You are right in stating that most Maori are working or studying, I just suggested that there were still a lot who weren't and should be.

First of all, it’s JRV.
Pointing out correct letter order isnt, so far as I know, a reliable cure for dyslexia, which is unsurprising since there is no gaurentee that the order I think the letters appear in, actually is the order they appear in...

Secondly, you didn’t bother to quote the rest of that paragraph in your original reply to K&M.
Why would I? I quoted what was relevent to the point, however if you can see anything that materially effects my argument, which wasnt included, it's strange that you didnt just quote it, as I did when I perceived you had left out materially relevent context. I invite you to do so.

Thirdly, I still maintain that what I said is relevant to the TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING and you really have yet to prove otherwise.
Actually I have no interest or need in doing so. Nor have I ever stated that your comments were not relevent to the topic we are discussing. I made comments, you appeared to reply to them, I challenged the relevence of your replies to the arguments I was making. The onus is on you to prove that your challenge is robust, the onus on me is only to defend my own argument/s, there is no onus on me to invent a link between your comments and mine, just so I can then refute that link.

I just made a generalized statement that whether it is easy or not (and it was as much a reply to the topic itself as it was to you) doesn’t matter to me.
Hang on, were you replying to me or not? My assertion regarding relevence, was that your comments were not relevent to any point I was making (ie they did not materially effect the right or wrongness of any point I was making). Now you either disagree with this, in which case, I invite you to posit your argument in support of your opinion, or in fact you do agree that your comments were not materially relevent to any of my arguments, in which case, I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with... :confused:

NationStates Jolt Archive

New Zealand politics