Certainly not. I’ll try one last time in short sentences. There were huge treaty breaches. Two main options. Undo all breaches, taking us back to the ownership situation of 1840. OR both sides recognise that this is not practical. Both sides then sit down and agree on what practical redress looks like. This happens at the Waitangi Tribunal. Once both sides agree, life goes on.

If you insist on a pedantic interpretation, then of course the treaty will never be honoured. But you’re the only one doing this. Maori certainly aren’t.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# Valis Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am

jh, this is about the fifth time you’ve posted essentially the same question in the last few weeks. We’ve taken some time in answering you, but you refuse to consider that honouring the Treaty doesn’t have to mean going back in time 170 years. Sorry, but I for one am getting bored. Maybe you should just read a few books.
…………..
You can’t change the terms just because honoring the treaty is unrealistic. The Treaty states that chiefs maintain their tino rangitiratnga and guarantee undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries. That is what the treaty says… you are suggesting new terms which suggests a different treaty.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Drove past a crop of billboards yesterday, including the Green one.

It looked good amongst the turgid competition. Gotta say…..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Great, we’re nice people and do actually care about the environment, but we’re also pro-greenwash and anti-environment, not to mention anti-children. Might want to think about your rhetoric there Mr D. Its perfect if you only want to pick a fight a la big bro perhaps, but not at all credible if you want a serious discussion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly:
OK, I’ll explain myself.

Anti-children:
Smacking law reduces discipline, increases misbehaviour in those children that don’t respond well to “time-out” style punishments, which in the end will be far worse for children than if they had had a quick smack when they were young.

Pro-greenwash but anti-environment:
Supported ETS, sounds environmental but does nothing for the environment and costs us money we could use to actually help the environment.

Reasonable summary of the Green’s policies in my opinion. Well-meaning but impractical.

I come over here for the discussion however, because although the Green policies are often flawed the Greens and the posters here often have a real concern for the environment and people, and it is interesting to discuss differing perspectives of how to get to the solution that we both tend to want. I also come over here for discussion on environmental issues because it is the most active NZ political environmental blog. And you seem a nice bunch of people on the whole, however much we disagree!

Furthermore I know the Green party do actually care about the environment, and MPs do seem to read this blog, and if I can in some small ways influence their thinking on environmental issues then it could be helpful, they are actually voting on these issues, hence my involvement in the ETS discussions here for example.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh, this is about the fifth time you’ve posted essentially the same question in the last few weeks. We’ve taken some time in answering you, but you refuse to consider that honouring the Treaty doesn’t have to mean going back in time 170 years. Sorry, but I for one am getting bored. Maybe you should just read a few books.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Isn’t the role of PR companies, advertising agencies and the language used in politics an issue: eg people opposed to the Bradford bill “want to beat children”.

Second point: What life for those children in the peoster under the Treaty as the greens
“confirm the original Maori version to be the correct one”
and that guarantees tino rangitiratanga and “undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries: which covers all the sea land , national parks, conservation estate in NZ.
During the Foreshore and seabed hikoi they hold up a sign saying “Honor The Treaty”……… or don’t they really mean it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Short and punchy eh?
How bout a billboard with a picture showing Sue Bradford fighting with the riot police?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thank you.

I will have a read…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP: “where is the Greens economic policy?”

Um,

http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/economic

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Mr Dennis, calling Mr Dennis!! Care to add to these comments you made on your blue blog of choice?
”
” I am as ardently against the Green party as yourself – in fact so ardently against them that I am the environmental spokesperson for an opposing party, the Family Party. I was poking some fun at them. Their policies are ridiculous, anti-children, pro-greenwash but anti-environment.”
Not very polite or diplomatic, Mr Dennis, given that so many green commentators here have taken the time to answer your many questions and charges and engage in debate with you. Come on over Mr Dennis and be truthful!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Good idea. Best leave it someone who will provide some substance.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

michaela – agreed! It will be easy then, to extinguish them by not responding. I’ll give it a go.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greenfly/valis

When you come up with some arguments, do let me know

>>michaela

Thanks Spock.

Meanwhile, where is the Greens economic policy? You know, the one that tells us how, exactly, we’ll be navigating our way through these dark waters in order to provide our children with a better future? Where is the substance?

Or are the posters just hot air, like the cute rabbits and the SUV? So cute!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly, also Toad & Frog, unless you’re using them as stalking horses, responding to the trolls is an excercise in futility.

I took a random selection of BB’s & BP’s comments from the last 4 weeks and ran them through a language analytic programme. There is a 0.97 probability that their comments are generated by an computer expert system. These programmes usually have a counting function so that their responses are in direct proportion to the number of replies that they get. By not responding to them the frequency of their comments will steadily decline asymptotically to about one per Frog post.

In short, you’ve been hoodwinked by a couple ofcomputers. You might even have been used as a test bed for computerised answering systems such as used by Telecom.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Very well put, though there are often times I’d give the accolade to big bro.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter – your irritating and endless barbs aren’t designed to stimulate discussion as some comments from ‘across the divide’ do. You show no signs at all of wanting to further debates or add valuable information to the mix – you are a spoiler – one who likes to draw attention to himself with brash and pointless interjections and put-downs. Nice work BluePeter – you’re a brick! Every forum has its pariah – you’re it!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>that the Greens have a positive reputation

Not round these parts they don’t.

>>and track record focused on the state of the Planet

Hilarious. I prefer to judge people by their accomplishments, not their rhetoric.

>>Why are you spending time on this blog?

It amuses me. Why do you spend time on this blog?

>>To troll for the Nats, of course.

I’m not a Nat. I doubt I’ll vote Nat. If I do, it will be a strategic vote to help keep the ruinous left off the steering wheel.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

To troll for the Nats, of course.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP

It seems that you are overlooking the fact that the Greens have a positive reputation (and track record) for being aware of / knowledgeable about / and focused on the state of the Planet.

Remind me … Why are you spending time on this blog? Why did you come here in the first place?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)