A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
--What a sorry bunch, and clearly deluded about our history.
Crash McBash
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote: >https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori itWhy do you think this is racist, Crash?
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assistThis thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnce again you show just how bad is your lack of comprehension skills. Did I say lack? Silly me because the reality is you have absolutely zero comprehesions skills Rich. Especially when it comes to the truth about the left wing politics you so heartily
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
being called racist.
It was a comparative, you dimwit. I could with perhaps moreThis thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >>promote reducing the top tax rate.
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyObviously you do not comprehend English. They are racist.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
I have a great life. You are lost in the morrasse of political rhetoric. The thread is not about National.This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit. I could with perhaps more
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >being called racist.
As Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a National-led government.
I could with perhaps more
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!--
Crash McBash
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Yes agreed. Labour and particularly the Greens for instance.
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income >>> >>tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well >>whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring >>tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >> >being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You demonstrate your shallow understanding again - it is not Labour or
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:Yes agreed. Labour and particularly the Greens for instance.
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> >>>wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.Why do you think this is racist, Crash?https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations. >>>> >>>
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >>>> >being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a >>>> National-led government.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >>>> >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>>> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
tax.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well >>>whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring >>>tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >>country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and >>start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more >>honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 20:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat a stupid thing to post - showing your inability to comprehend English.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You demonstrate your shallow understanding again - it is not Labour or
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:Yes agreed. Labour and particularly the Greens for instance.
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> >>>wrote:
As Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is >>>>> no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do notIt is obviously racist, Just read the words.Why do you think this is racist, Crash?https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>>> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations. >>>>> >>>
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >>>>> >being called racist.
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a >>>>> National-led government.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with >>>>> >>income
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>>> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >>>>> >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>>>> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >>>>> >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
tax.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot >>>>> >the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until >>>>well
whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring >>>>tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all >>>>bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >>>country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and >>>start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more >>>honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
The Green Party that claim racism in those asking for recognition of
Te Reo Maori.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >> >> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >> >> >being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >> >> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >> >> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is >> >> no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4fWhy do you think this is racist, Crash?
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations. >> >> >>>
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a >> >> National-led government.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >> >> >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >> >> >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot >> >> >the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.What harm? What recognition?
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is >> >> >> no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4fWhy do you think this is racist, Crash?
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations. >> >> >> >>>
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a >> >> >> National-led government.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >> >> >> >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to >> >> >> >>>promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot >> >> >> >the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally understand quite a few Maori words for example.
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
.What harm? What recognition?
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >> >> country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and >> >
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly; >> >Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about? >> >
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more >> >> honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by >> >> some other parties. . .
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
Labour government is doing the complete opposite!Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and disgustin
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
.What harm? What recognition?
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >> >> >> country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and >> >> >
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly; >> >> >Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about? >> >> >
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more >> >> >> honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by >> >> >> some other parties. . .
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John BowesYou really are a nasty sneaky little Marxist. It is not the words that have changed but the interpretatiuon and that is clearly what John was referring to. The interpretation has been deliberately skewed with you conivance and support.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example >>> >> '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there >>> >> >> >>is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours >>> >> >> >> >>>>Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned
foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for >>> >> >> >> >them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not >>> >> >> >> understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part >>> >> >> >>of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do >>> >> >> >> >>with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may >>> >> >> >> >>>assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an
alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than >>> >> >> >> >>>that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National >>> >> >> >> >>>to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to >>> >> >> >> >promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty
"shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed >>> >> >> >until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the
warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all
bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language >>> >> >until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much >>> >> as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles >>> >> and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the >>> >Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before theSo what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you
ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it >>was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only
ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your >>feral and disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty ofNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to
treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government
hates doing!
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by >>the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist >>masters in government tell us!
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after >considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you >>should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, youI was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >>> >> >> country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset >>> >> >>and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from >>> >the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly; >>> >> >Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about? >>> >> >
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least
more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by >>> >> >> some other parties. . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:You really are a nasty sneaky little Marxist. It is not the words that have >changed but the interpretatiuon and that is clearly what John was referring to.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example >>>> >> '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >>>> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much >>>> >> as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles >>>> >> and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >>>> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned
foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for
them
being called racist.
is
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not >>>> >> >> >> understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part >>>> >> >> >>of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do >>>> >> >> >> >>with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may
assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an
alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than >>>> >> >> >> >>>that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National
to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to >>>> >> >> >> >promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty >>>> >> >> >> >"shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed >>>> >> >> >until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the
warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all
bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language
until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the >>>> >Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before theSo what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you
ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it >>>was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only
ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your >>>feral and disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
The interpretation has been deliberately skewed with you conivance and support.
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of >>>> >Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed toNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government
hates doing!
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by
the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist >>>masters in government tell us!
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >>interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after >>considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you >>>should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, youI was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset >>>> >> >>and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from
the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least >>>> >> >>more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by >>>> >> >> some other parties. . .
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example >> >> '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not >> >> >> >> understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to >> >> >> >> >promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much >> >> as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles >> >> and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Labour government is doing the complete opposite!Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and disgustin
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:21:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I am flattered by your high opinion of my ability to influence such
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:You really are a nasty sneaky little Marxist. It is not the words that have >changed but the interpretatiuon and that is clearly what John was referring to.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of >>that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has >>changed it.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote: >>>> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new >>>> >> >> purposes - that is common to all languages.
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours
Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned
foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for
them
being called racist.
is
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may
assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an >>>> >> >> >> >>>alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than
that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National
to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
with income tax.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
of a
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty >>>> >> >> >> >"shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed
until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the
warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all
bullshit.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language
until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >>>> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >>>> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be. >>>> >
Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the >>>> >Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like youSo what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even >>>> over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English >>>> has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally >>>> understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it
was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only
ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your
feral and disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed >>the words of the Treaty.
The interpretation has been deliberately skewed with you conivance and support.
matters, Tony, but I can assure you that I have not been involved in
the interpretation of the concepts of the Treaty. The reality is that academic work many years ago resulted in the better understanding of
actions taken in the name of the Treaty, and the reality that many
wrongs were made by mis-using Treaty provisions. The establishment of
the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 led to an agreed interpretation of legal meaning of the Treaty as it was understood all those years ago. It
dealt with claims on that basis structures to deal with claims started
many years ago, and have been supported by both Labour and National governments ever since, assisted by academic research into actual
history in each area, and also research into the , leading to a common understanding supported by successive Treaty Ministers, from Doug
Graham in 1993, Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, Michael Cullen, Chris Finlayson (for 9 years!) and now Andrew Little (5 years so far).
On the contrary, much work over many years has identified that wrong interpretations of the original Treaty led to many further injustices;
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of >>>> >Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed toNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government
hates doing!
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by
the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist >>>masters in government tell us!
we are now much clearer about what it originally meant and both major parties have worked to use that interpretation in recent settlements
and discussions; as far as I am aware Finlayson was instrumental in
using the term 'co-governance for example, although that has been implemented in different forms for different settlements as is
expected with the results of negotiation with different groups. In
some cases, co-governance has been seen as similar to the provisions
pushed by the ACT party for the establishment of Charter Schools.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >>interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after >>considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been >>accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key / >>English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you >>>should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, youI was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset
and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from
the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least >>>> >> >>more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:21:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyThank goodness for that otherwise it would be in pidgin English.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:You really are a nasty sneaky little Marxist. It is not the words that have >>changed but the interpretatiuon and that is clearly what John was referring >>to.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of >>>that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has >>>changed it.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>>> >> wrote:That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the >>>>> >Maori elite Rich!
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example >>>>> >> '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >>>>> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much >>>>> >> as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles >>>>> >> and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >>>>> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be. >>>>> >
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new >>>>> >> >> purposes - that is common to all languages.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
As Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, >>>>> >> >> >>thereIt is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned
foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification >>>>> >> >> >> >for
them
being called racist.
is
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not >>>>> >> >> >> understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being >>>>> >> >> >>part
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do >>>>> >> >> >> >>with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and >>>>> >> >> >> >>>may
assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an
alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than >>>>> >> >> >> >>>that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for
National
to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
of a
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to >>>>> >> >> >> >promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty >>>>> >> >> >> >"shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed >>>>> >> >> >until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of
nationhood to the
warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. >>>>> >> >> >This is all
bullshit.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori
language
until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the >>>>> >Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles >>>>> >like youSo what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even >>>>> over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally >>>>> understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it >>>>was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty >>>>only
ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. >>>>Your
feral and disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed >>>the words of the Treaty.
The interpretation has been deliberately skewed with you conivance and >>support.
I am flattered by your high opinion of my ability to influence such
matters, Tony, but I can assure you that I have not been involved in
the interpretation of the concepts of the Treaty.
The reality is thatWhat absolute nonesen. More lies.
academic work many years ago resulted in the better understanding of
actions taken in the name of the Treaty, and the reality that many
wrongs were made by mis-using Treaty provisions. The establishment of
the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 led to an agreed interpretation of legal >meaning of the Treaty as it was understood all those years ago. It
dealt with claims on that basis structures to deal with claims started
many years ago, and have been supported by both Labour and National >governments ever since, assisted by academic research into actual
history in each area, and also research into the , leading to a common >understanding supported by successive Treaty Ministers, from Doug
Graham in 1993, Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, Michael Cullen, Chris
Finlayson (for 9 years!) and now Andrew Little (5 years so far).
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of >>>>> >Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever >>>>> >agreed toNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour >>>>> >government
hates doing!
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed >>>>by
the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist >>>>masters in government tell us!
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >>>interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after >>>considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you >>>>should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, >>>>youI was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for >>>>> >> >>our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset >>>>> >> >>and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie >>>>> >from
the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening
quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking >>>>> >> >about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least >>>>> >> >>more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made >>>>> >> >>by
some other parties. . .
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example >> >> >> '"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not >> >> >> >> >> understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to >> >> >> >> >> >promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much >> >> >> as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles >> >> >> and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >> >> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called translation boreZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until now. changed it
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake your blindfaith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. TheJust because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesbore ZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until now. changed
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new >> >> >> >> purposes - that is common to all languages.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >> >> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be. >> >> >
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!You may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the original Treaty is of course in Maori not in English; if as you say
you are able to read and understand it you must have considerable
knowledge of Maori and Maori traditions of the time.
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called translation
From https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief :
"The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the
word ‘sovereignty’ was translated as ‘kawanatanga’ (governance). Some
Maori believed they were giving up government over their lands but
retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all their ‘properties’, but the
Maori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which may be intangible). Maori understanding was at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations given
at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document.
Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of
debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the
terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested – by marching
on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the
Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand.
It is common now to refer to the intention, spirit or principles of
the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is not considered part of New
Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in
Acts of Parliament. The exclusive right to determine the meaning of
the Treaty rests with the Waitangi Tribunal, a commission of inquiry
created in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty by the
Crown. More than 2000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a number of major settlements have been reached."
In effect it is the Maori version, translated into modern English as necessary, that is used by the Tribunal, and that rests on the
principles of governance by both parties.
See also https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-close/two-parties-twoblind faith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake your
Yes I have seen the Treaty at the National Library, as well as the
facsimile at Te Papa.
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even >> >> over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally >> >> understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
The work to reach agreement on a common understanding of the Treaty
probably started during the time of Doug Graham, continued with
Michael Cullen, and completed with Chris Finlayson - all before the
Ardern / Hipkins governments.
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. TheJust because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!The use of Aotearoa in official communications was agreed long before
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
Te Pati Maori was formed - see for example: https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/national-anthems/god-defend-new-zealandaotearoa
It is quite common for the first verse of the National Anthem to be
sung - first in Maori then in English.
As for when it was decided to publish both Maori and English versions
for official use - with the exception of a correction to the spelling
of one word, it dates back to 1940 when God Defend New Zealand was
first published as the National Hymn in 1940 see the bottom of that
page.
Changing the official name of the country is a different issue, but
the Word Aotearoa was included on our Passports for the first time
when John Key was Prime Minister.
Do you have a problem with that, John?
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:03:16?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:bore ZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until now. changed
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new >> >> >> >> >> purposes - that is common to all languages.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >> >> >> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be. >> >> >> >
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!
original Treaty is of course in Maori not in English; if as you say
you are able to read and understand it you must have considerable
knowledge of Maori and Maori traditions of the time.
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called translation
From https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief :
"The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English
version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the
word sovereignty was translated as kawanatanga (governance). Some
Maori believed they were giving up government over their lands but
retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version
guaranteed undisturbed possession of all their properties, but the
Maori version guaranteed tino rangatiratanga (full authority) over
taonga (treasures, which may be intangible). Maori understanding was
at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the
Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations given
at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document.
The Maori version doesn't bear any resemblance to the English version Rich. You supporting this bullshit just shows you've never bothered to research the subject!
Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of
debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the
terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested by marching
on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the
Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand.
There is only one thing in the original Treaty! Equality for all. No special treatment for those of certain ethnicities! You are pushing the iwi and feral activist agenda here Rich! but no surprises considering they're Marxist like you!
Trying reading, and thinking a bit about where your views are
It is common now to refer to the intention, spirit or principles of
the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is not considered part of New
Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in
Acts of Parliament. The exclusive right to determine the meaning of
the Treaty rests with the Waitangi Tribunal, a commission of inquiry
created in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty by the
Crown. More than 2000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a
number of major settlements have been reached."
The only intention and principle of the treaty is equality for all! No anti democratic co-governace no special treatment for any race!
blind faith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!
In effect it is the Maori version, translated into modern English as
necessary, that is used by the Tribunal, and that rests on the
principles of governance by both parties.
Pure bullshit!
See also
https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-close/two-parties-two
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake your
Yes I have seen the Treaty at the National Library, as well as the
facsimile at Te Papa.
Yet you still push your bullshit? You just lie again Rich in a desperate attewpt to push the left wing agenda!
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even >> >> >> over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally >> >> >> understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
Which government was that, John Bowes?The work to reach agreement on a common understanding of the Treaty
probably started during the time of Doug Graham, continued with
Michael Cullen, and completed with Chris Finlayson - all before the
Ardern / Hipkins governments.
It all started with a Labour government who screwed the original meaning of the treaty Rich.
Now stop being a pos and come clean. Hard for you I know. But try putting the two treaties side by side then see your lies die! They are totally different. Whoever supposedly translated it was as deceptive and dodgy as you Rich!worship! I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though I know you'll as usual fail to comprehend! National could have done better! However having said that, your Labour government is like you Rich a feral pos!
The use of Aotearoa in official communications was agreed long beforeThat you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. TheJust because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
Te Pati Maori was formed - see for example:
https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/national-anthems/god-defend-new-zealandaotearoa
It's NEVER been agreed! It's because of a dumbass journalist back around the 1890's. Doesn't surpise me you ignore this considering how bereft of knowledge on the treaty you're provong yourself to be Rich!
It is quite common for the first verse of the National Anthem to be
sung - first in Maori then in English.
So what?
As for when it was decided to publish both Maori and English versions
for official use - with the exception of a correction to the spelling
of one word, it dates back to 1940 when God Defend New Zealand was
first published as the National Hymn in 1940 see the bottom of that
page.
Changing the official name of the country is a different issue, but
the Word Aotearoa was included on our Passports for the first time
when John Key was Prime Minister.
Do you have a problem with that, John?
Yes I do! Rich you're comprehensionless imbecile as usual! You lie about my reasons for supporting National even though I've made it clear to those with comprehension skills that I only support National because they're better than the feral pricks you
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 10:21:06 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:21:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I am flattered by your high opinion of my ability to influence such
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John BowesYou really are a nasty sneaky little Marxist. It is not the words that have >> >changed but the interpretatiuon and that is clearly what John was referring to.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >>>> >> wrote:That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours
Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned
foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for
them
being called racist.
is
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may
assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an
alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than
that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National
to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
with income tax.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
of a
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty >> >>>> >> >> >> >"shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed
until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the
warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all
bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language
until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori >> >>>> >> have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last >> >>>> >> 100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be. >> >>>> >
Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
changed it.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the >> >>>> >Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like youSo what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even >> >>>> over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it
was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only
ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your
feral and disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
The interpretation has been deliberately skewed with you conivance and support.
matters, Tony, but I can assure you that I have not been involved in
the interpretation of the concepts of the Treaty. The reality is that
academic work many years ago resulted in the better understanding of
actions taken in the name of the Treaty, and the reality that many
wrongs were made by mis-using Treaty provisions. The establishment of
the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 led to an agreed interpretation of legal
meaning of the Treaty as it was understood all those years ago. It
dealt with claims on that basis structures to deal with claims started
many years ago, and have been supported by both Labour and National
governments ever since, assisted by academic research into actual
history in each area, and also research into the , leading to a common
understanding supported by successive Treaty Ministers, from Doug
Graham in 1993, Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, Michael Cullen, Chris
Finlayson (for 9 years!) and now Andrew Little (5 years so far).
As usual Rich shows he is nothing but a pos! There has only ever been one treaty. Any interpretations are just utter crap. Just like so many of your posts!
and ditch the stupidity of co-governance!On the contrary, much work over many years has identified that wrong
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of >> >>>> >Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed toNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government
hates doing!
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by
the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist >> >>>masters in government tell us!
interpretations of the original Treaty led to many further injustices;
we are now much clearer about what it originally meant and both major
parties have worked to use that interpretation in recent settlements
and discussions; as far as I am aware Finlayson was instrumental in
using the term 'co-governance for example, although that has been
implemented in different forms for different settlements as is
expected with the results of negotiation with different groups. In
some cases, co-governance has been seen as similar to the provisions
pushed by the ACT party for the establishment of Charter Schools.
Funny that the Waitangi Tribunal was created by a Labour government. Probably explains why the onr the tribunal has pushed bears no relationship to the original treaty! Time the tribunal was shut down and we got on with being one nation under the law
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The
interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you >> >>>should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, youI was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!
event it was written many years before your favourite political party
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset
and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from
the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least >> >>>> >> >>more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesbore ZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until now. changed
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:03:16?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John BowesCongratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of >> >> that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!
original Treaty is of course in Maori not in English; if as you say
you are able to read and understand it you must have considerable
knowledge of Maori and Maori traditions of the time.
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called translation
From https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief :
"The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English
version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the
word ‘sovereignty’ was translated as ‘kawanatanga’ (governance). Some
Maori believed they were giving up government over their lands but
retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version
guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all their ‘properties’, but the
Maori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over >> ‘taonga’ (treasures, which may be intangible). Maori understanding was
at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the
Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations given
at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document.
The Maori version doesn't bear any resemblance to the English version Rich. You supporting this bullshit just shows you've never bothered to research the subject!Actually it looks very similar; but there were key differences in understanding for some words, and that has taken quite a while to sort
out - thanks to the good work first from academics, then by the
Waitangi Trubunal and successive Ministers under both National and
Labour.
Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of
debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the
terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested – by marching >> on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the
Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand.
There is only one thing in the original Treaty! Equality for all. No special treatment for those of certain ethnicities! You are pushing the iwi and feral activist agenda here Rich! but no surprises considering they're Marxist like you!From above: ". . .but the Maori version guaranteed ‘tino
rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which may
be intangible). Water is one of those treasures, which is why one
government (I think Finlayson under National, but it may have been
earlier) negotiated the co-governance arrangements for water in the
central North Island that have worked very well.
It is common now to refer to the intention, spirit or principles of
the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is not considered part of New
Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in
Acts of Parliament. The exclusive right to determine the meaning of
the Treaty rests with the Waitangi Tribunal, a commission of inquiry
created in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty by the
Crown. More than 2000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a
number of major settlements have been reached."
The only intention and principle of the treaty is equality for all! No anti democratic co-governace no special treatment for any race!Trying reading, and thinking a bit about where your views are
inconsistent with the reality described above.
blind faith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!
In effect it is the Maori version, translated into modern English as
necessary, that is used by the Tribunal, and that rests on the
principles of governance by both parties.
Pure bullshit!
See also
https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-close/two-parties-two
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake your
Don't be a comprehensionless fucking imbecile Rich. Only a pos cretin like you would come up with a stupid distraction like that to back up your lies!Yes I have seen the Treaty at the National Library, as well as the
facsimile at Te Papa.
Yet you still push your bullshit? You just lie again Rich in a desperate attewpt to push the left wing agenda!What makes you think Doug Graham or Chris Finlayson had a left agenda?
They worked hard to come to agreements that suited their (National Party-led) government as well as the Maori who had legitimate
grievances to be settled.
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English >> >> >> has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
The work to reach agreement on a common understanding of the Treaty
probably started during the time of Doug Graham, continued with
Michael Cullen, and completed with Chris Finlayson - all before the
Ardern / Hipkins governments.
It all started with a Labour government who screwed the original meaning of the treaty Rich.Which government was that, John Bowes?
worship! I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though I know you'll as usual fail to comprehend! National could have done better! However having said that, your Labour government is like you Rich a feral pos!Now stop being a pos and come clean. Hard for you I know. But try putting the two treaties side by side then see your lies die! They are totally different. Whoever supposedly translated it was as deceptive and dodgy as you Rich!
The use of Aotearoa in official communications was agreed long beforeThat you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed >> >> the words of the Treaty.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >> >> interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law afterJust because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words >> >> of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party >> >
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
Te Pati Maori was formed - see for example:
https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/national-anthems/god-defend-new-zealandaotearoa
It's NEVER been agreed! It's because of a dumbass journalist back around the 1890's. Doesn't surpise me you ignore this considering how bereft of knowledge on the treaty you're provong yourself to be Rich!
It is quite common for the first verse of the National Anthem to be
sung - first in Maori then in English.
So what?
As for when it was decided to publish both Maori and English versions
for official use - with the exception of a correction to the spelling
of one word, it dates back to 1940 when God Defend New Zealand was
first published as the National Hymn in 1940 see the bottom of that
page.
Changing the official name of the country is a different issue, but
the Word Aotearoa was included on our Passports for the first time
when John Key was Prime Minister.
Do you have a problem with that, John?
Yes I do! Rich you're comprehensionless imbecile as usual! You lie about my reasons for supporting National even though I've made it clear to those with comprehension skills that I only support National because they're better than the feral pricks you
So what is your problem with having the word Aotearoa on our
passports?
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 5:10:12?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:translation bore ZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:03:16?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John BowesCongratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of >> >> >> that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!
original Treaty is of course in Maori not in English; if as you say
you are able to read and understand it you must have considerable
knowledge of Maori and Maori traditions of the time.
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called
blind faith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!Actually it looks very similar; but there were key differences inFrom https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief :
"The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English
version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the
word sovereignty was translated as kawanatanga (governance). Some
Maori believed they were giving up government over their lands but
retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version
guaranteed undisturbed possession of all their properties, but the
Maori version guaranteed tino rangatiratanga (full authority) over
taonga (treasures, which may be intangible). Maori understanding was
at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the
Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations given
at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document.
The Maori version doesn't bear any resemblance to the English version Rich. You supporting this bullshit just shows you've never bothered to research the subject!
understanding for some words, and that has taken quite a while to sort
out - thanks to the good work first from academics, then by the
Waitangi Trubunal and successive Ministers under both National and
Labour.
Utter crap! The Maori version bears no resemblance to the English version Rich. Your constant lying about it won't change that fact! No good work from anyone! Just another rort from Labour desperate to get votes!
From above: ". . .but the Maori version guaranteed tino
Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of
debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the
terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested by marching
on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the
Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand.
There is only one thing in the original Treaty! Equality for all. No special treatment for those of certain ethnicities! You are pushing the iwi and feral activist agenda here Rich! but no surprises considering they're Marxist like you!
rangatiratanga (full authority) over taonga (treasures, which may
be intangible). Water is one of those treasures, which is why one
government (I think Finlayson under National, but it may have been
earlier) negotiated the co-governance arrangements for water in the
central North Island that have worked very well.
As I keep telling you. The Maori version is like most of your posts here Rich. GARBAGE!
Please stop pushing your totally discredited lies about what Finlayson did!
Trying reading, and thinking a bit about where your views are
It is common now to refer to the intention, spirit or principles of
the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is not considered part of New
Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in
Acts of Parliament. The exclusive right to determine the meaning of
the Treaty rests with the Waitangi Tribunal, a commission of inquiry
created in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty by the
Crown. More than 2000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a
number of major settlements have been reached."
The only intention and principle of the treaty is equality for all! No anti democratic co-governace no special treatment for any race!
inconsistent with the reality described above.
I have Rich. It's bloody obvious all your capable of is pushing the lefts bullshit agenda!
In effect it is the Maori version, translated into modern English as
necessary, that is used by the Tribunal, and that rests on the
principles of governance by both parties.
Pure bullshit!
See also
https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-close/two-parties-two
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake your
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!Don't be a comprehensionless fucking imbecile Rich. Only a pos cretin like you would come up with a stupid distraction like that to back up your lies!What makes you think Doug Graham or Chris Finlayson had a left agenda?Yes I have seen the Treaty at the National Library, as well as the
facsimile at Te Papa.
Yet you still push your bullshit? You just lie again Rich in a desperate attewpt to push the left wing agenda!
They worked hard to come to agreements that suited their (National
Party-led) government as well as the Maori who had legitimate
grievances to be settled.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have
changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English >> >> >> >> has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
you worship! I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though I know you'll as usual fail to comprehend! National could have done better! However having said that, your Labour government is like you Rich a feral pos!Which government was that, John Bowes?The work to reach agreement on a common understanding of the Treaty
probably started during the time of Doug Graham, continued with
Michael Cullen, and completed with Chris Finlayson - all before the
Ardern / Hipkins governments.
It all started with a Labour government who screwed the original meaning of the treaty Rich.
The one that was in power in 1975 you ignorant Marxist bastard!
Now stop being a pos and come clean. Hard for you I know. But try putting the two treaties side by side then see your lies die! They are totally different. Whoever supposedly translated it was as deceptive and dodgy as you Rich!
The use of Aotearoa in official communications was agreed long beforeThat you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed >> >> >> the words of the Treaty.
Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. The >> >> >> interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law afterJust because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates doing!Nobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the
major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words >> >> >> of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key /
English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any
event it was written many years before your favourite political party >> >> >
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
Te Pati Maori was formed - see for example:
https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/national-anthems/god-defend-new-zealandaotearoa
It's NEVER been agreed! It's because of a dumbass journalist back around the 1890's. Doesn't surpise me you ignore this considering how bereft of knowledge on the treaty you're provong yourself to be Rich!
It is quite common for the first verse of the National Anthem to be
sung - first in Maori then in English.
So what?
As for when it was decided to publish both Maori and English versions
for official use - with the exception of a correction to the spelling
of one word, it dates back to 1940 when God Defend New Zealand was
first published as the National Hymn in 1940 see the bottom of that
page.
Changing the official name of the country is a different issue, but
the Word Aotearoa was included on our Passports for the first time
when John Key was Prime Minister.
Do you have a problem with that, John?
Yes I do! Rich you're comprehensionless imbecile as usual! You lie about my reasons for supporting National even though I've made it clear to those with comprehension skills that I only support National because they're better than the feral pricks
Do you have any basis for that belief?So what is your problem with having the word Aotearoa on our
passports?
It's the Maori word for the North Island NOT New Zealand!
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 22:28:53 -0700 (PDT), John Bowestranslation bore ZERO resemblance to the original treaty which was signed by the chiefs! Now you keep banging on a bout contracts in this ng and have posited that the Treaty is a contract. However once a contract/treaty is signed nobody has ever, until
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 5:10:12?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:03:16?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:28:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT), John BowesYou may wish to be modest about it, but the substantive version of the >> >> original Treaty is of course in Maori not in English; if as you say
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:55:46?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Congratulations on that, and for your fluency in the Maori language of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:41:50?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Nobody is rewriting the Treaty - what makes you think that.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So? It has been used for a long time even so - longer than for example
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
wrote:
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it
is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of aThis thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist
them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but
it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
No that is incorrect. The word Aotearoa did not exist in Maori language until it was invented post the arrival of Europeans.
'"Internet" or ''usenet'' or many other new words in English. Maori
have changed over the period since the Treaty was signed just as much
as the descendents of the settlers have changed from their lifestyles
and views and language. If you think nothing has changed in the last
100 years you are more of an idiot that you normally appear to be.
That doesn't excuse the rewriting of the Treaty to fit the agenda of the Maori elite Rich!
Because I have read the original treaty from 1840!
that period. That you can read something does not mean anyone has >> >> >> changed it.
Do stop being a fucking imbecile! No congratulations needed you moronic, mendacious Marxist!
you are able to read and understand it you must have considerable
knowledge of Maori and Maori traditions of the time.
Once again I'll explain something you refuse to accept as fact despite the fact it is one. Only denied by comprehensionless and stupid imbeciles like you! The Treaty of Waitangi was translated by somebody imbecilic as you! The so called
your blind faith in your glorious Marxist Labour/Green/Maori partys!Actually it looks very similar; but there were key differences inFrom https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief : >> >> "The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English >> >> version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the >> >> word ‘sovereignty’ was translated as ‘kawanatanga’ (governance). SomeThe Maori version doesn't bear any resemblance to the English version Rich. You supporting this bullshit just shows you've never bothered to research the subject!
Maori believed they were giving up government over their lands but
retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version >> >> guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all their ‘properties’, but the
Maori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over
‘taonga’ (treasures, which may be intangible). Maori understanding was
at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the >> >> Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations given >> >> at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document. >> >
understanding for some words, and that has taken quite a while to sort
out - thanks to the good work first from academics, then by the
Waitangi Trubunal and successive Ministers under both National and
Labour.
Utter crap! The Maori version bears no resemblance to the English version Rich. Your constant lying about it won't change that fact! No good work from anyone! Just another rort from Labour desperate to get votes!
From above: ". . .but the Maori version guaranteed ‘tinoThere is only one thing in the original Treaty! Equality for all. No special treatment for those of certain ethnicities! You are pushing the iwi and feral activist agenda here Rich! but no surprises considering they're Marxist like you!
Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of >> >> debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the
terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested – by marching
on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the
Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand. >> >
rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which may
be intangible). Water is one of those treasures, which is why one
government (I think Finlayson under National, but it may have been
earlier) negotiated the co-governance arrangements for water in the
central North Island that have worked very well.
As I keep telling you. The Maori version is like most of your posts here Rich. GARBAGE!
Please stop pushing your totally discredited lies about what Finlayson did!
Trying reading, and thinking a bit about where your views are
It is common now to refer to the intention, spirit or principles of
the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is not considered part of New
Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in >> >> Acts of Parliament. The exclusive right to determine the meaning of
the Treaty rests with the Waitangi Tribunal, a commission of inquiry >> >> created in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty by the >> >> Crown. More than 2000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a >> >> number of major settlements have been reached."
The only intention and principle of the treaty is equality for all! No anti democratic co-governace no special treatment for any race!
inconsistent with the reality described above.
I have Rich. It's bloody obvious all your capable of is pushing the lefts bullshit agenda!
In effect it is the Maori version, translated into modern English as >> >> necessary, that is used by the Tribunal, and that rests on the
principles of governance by both parties.
Pure bullshit!
See also
https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-close/two-parties-two
Now if you manage to get your bloated body off your couch and slither down to the National library in Wellington you can see the treaty. Though I doubt someone like you stupidly following left wing bullshit will do that because it might shake
disgustin Labour government is doing the complete opposite!Don't be a comprehensionless fucking imbecile Rich. Only a pos cretin like you would come up with a stupid distraction like that to back up your lies!What makes you think Doug Graham or Chris Finlayson had a left agenda?Yes I have seen the Treaty at the National Library, as well as the
facsimile at Te Papa.
Yet you still push your bullshit? You just lie again Rich in a desperate attewpt to push the left wing agenda!
They worked hard to come to agreements that suited their (National
Party-led) government as well as the Maori who had legitimate
grievances to be settled.
Aotearoa wasn't used till Tahitians sailed with europeans before the Treaty was signed Rich. Another inconvenient fact that feral imbeciles like you ignore. The only idiot around here Rich is you!So what? Languages do change; and the Maori language has changed even
over our lifetimes - the various names for where Maori live have >> >> >> >> changed from tribal locations to a name for the whole area. English
has changed at the same time in many ways - New Zealanders generally
understand quite a few Maori words for example.
The Maori language as we know it now has very little resemblance to what it was Rich. It doesn't matter how much it or English has changed the Treaty only ever guaranteed everyone would be given the same rights in New Zealand. Your feral and
doing!Which government was that, John Bowes?The work to reach agreement on a common understanding of the Treaty
probably started during the time of Doug Graham, continued with
Michael Cullen, and completed with Chris Finlayson - all before the
Ardern / Hipkins governments.
It all started with a Labour government who screwed the original meaning of the treaty Rich.
The one that was in power in 1975 you ignorant Marxist bastard!
Now stop being a pos and come clean. Hard for you I know. But try putting the two treaties side by side then see your lies die! They are totally different. Whoever supposedly translated it was as deceptive and dodgy as you Rich!
That you hold some strange views does not mean that anyone has changed
the words of the Treaty.
Just because things have changed is no reason to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The original and true one is the best for NZ and only ever agreed to treat everyone the same. Something your feral and despicable Labour government hates
you worship! I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though I know you'll as usual fail to comprehend! National could have done better! However having said that, your Labour government is like you Rich a feral pos!The use of Aotearoa in official communications was agreed long before >> >> Te Pati Maori was formed - see for example:Nobody has changed the words of the Treaty signed by both parties. TheNobody is trying to change the wording of the Treaty
LIAR! How many times do we have to explain what the original treaty signed by the chiefs doesn't bear a vague resemblance to what you and your Marxist masters in government tell us!
interpretation of that Treaty has been done by a court of law after >> >> >> considerable discussion - the interpretation of law is one of the >> >> >> major functions of our Courts, John. But no-one has changed the words
of the Treaty, and the rights granted under the Treaty have been
accepted by a number of previous governments, including the Key / >> >> >> English governments.
Oh yes they have you nasty little feral toad! Have you ever seen the treaty in it's full glory? Because that will prove your just another lying Marxist desperate to destroy our democracy and freedom for your Marxist ileals!
I suggested some time ago that if you wanted to see the true Treaty you should go and look at it in the National Library. But guess typical of you, you can't bear to go near anything that bears the name National!I was not aware that the word National appeared in it, but in any >> >> >> event it was written many years before your favourite political party
Do stop being an utter pos Rich. That's not even sarcasm! Since when has National ever been my favourite political party? Because you lie as usual in a desperate sttempt to avoid the truth of my statement!
. . .
.What harm? What recognition?
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our
country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
Plenty of harm, starting with branding and recognition.
A waste of money and time to support what is in fact just another lie from the serial and hypocritical Maori party!
https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/national-anthems/god-defend-new-zealandaotearoa
It's NEVER been agreed! It's because of a dumbass journalist back around the 1890's. Doesn't surpise me you ignore this considering how bereft of knowledge on the treaty you're provong yourself to be Rich!
It is quite common for the first verse of the National Anthem to be
sung - first in Maori then in English.
So what?
As for when it was decided to publish both Maori and English versions >> >> for official use - with the exception of a correction to the spelling >> >> of one word, it dates back to 1940 when God Defend New Zealand was
first published as the National Hymn in 1940 see the bottom of that
page.
Changing the official name of the country is a different issue, but
the Word Aotearoa was included on our Passports for the first time
when John Key was Prime Minister.
Do you have a problem with that, John?
Yes I do! Rich you're comprehensionless imbecile as usual! You lie about my reasons for supporting National even though I've made it clear to those with comprehension skills that I only support National because they're better than the feral pricks
So what is your problem with having the word Aotearoa on our
passports?
It's the Maori word for the North Island NOT New Zealand!Do you have any basis for that belief?
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
Not upset or slinging nasty names. What on earth are you talking about?
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at least more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>wrote:It is obviously racist, Just read the words.
https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations.
Why do you think this is racist, Crash?
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them
being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with income tax.
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative
name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
National-led government.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and
start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more
honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I hadn't seen that but I have not been watching any soccer (boring game).
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:40:19 UTC+12, Crash wrote:It is only invented to the extent that a word was used for new
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:05:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 04:28:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs Tony said Rich, it is obvious. If you cannot work it out, there is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:43:23 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> >>>wrote:
It is obviously racist, Just read the words.Why do you think this is racist, Crash?https://petition-client-prod.azurewebsites.net/1a6c6a17-48bd-4517-82a2-43618ed57e4f
A clearly and openly racist party - but because this favours Maori it >>>> >>>>is OK. They have moved on from their good-intentioned foundations. >>>> >>>
I did. I note that you are not able to give any justification for them >>>> >being called racist.
no point in engaging with you on this because you clearly do not
understand the context in which my statement was made.
Last time I looked, the Maori Party had ruled out ever being part of a >>>> National-led government.
This thread has nothing to do with National and nothing to do with
It is surely not an unexpected policy of Te Pati Maori, and may assist >>>> >>>them in getting votes. Aotearoa is regularly used as an alternative >>>> >>>name for the country, but I see no reason to go further than that, but >>>> >>>it is no sillier for that party to promote it than for National to
promote reducing the top tax rate.
income tax.
It was a comparative, you dimwit.
I could with perhaps more--
justification have said that it is no sillier for that party to
promote it than for anyone to give any credence to the empty "shoot
the messenger" silly posts of Tony to nz.general.
Get a life, Tony!
Crash McBash
Aotearoa is an invented, post colonisation word. It never existed until well >>>whitey came along and introduced the concept of nationhood to the warring >>>tribes. There was no nation so there was no national name. This is all bullshit.
purposes - that is common to all languages.
Now a group want to have it used as one of the official names for our >>country. Little harm in that, but debatable benefit. Why get upset and >>start slinging nasty names around? I cannot see it happening quickly;
the political party pushing it may get some votes; it is at lease more >>honest than some of the empty and unsupported promises being made by
some other parties. . .
Aotearoa name was invented my a British book writer back in the mid
1800s as a mythical name for the country in his book. Yep it
appears that the Maori Party, Green ,Labor and the media are trying to
change the countries name by stealth thru the back door. Looks like
the woke Fifa World Cup organizers are try to change the NZ and
Australian flags as well by the back door in flying the so called
maori and Abo flags with equal status to the official flags and fly
them together.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:40:26 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,607 |