Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Help! HIllary's not winning! Change the rules!"
Yeah well, it's not unheard of in American politics. 2000 even.
-
What does happen with Florida and Michigan? At the moment they've had their delegates taken off them because of a dispute with the national party. Does that mean the total number of delegates is reduced, so the target is reduced?
There's been talk if it's close of legal disputes trying to bring them back in. Anyone know anything?
-
To whom and how would you calculate value?
Or how much <stereotype> a rich American </stereotype> would pay for it.
-
You know, it takes a lot for me to think that an argument/discussion that I've been involved with has become a waste of time, and not even any fun, but I think this thread has successfully reached it.
Props obviously.
-
I'd have preferred to see it go through the courts and wind up in something similar to the Ngati Porou deal, but Labour got spooked by the likes of the sky-is-falling editorial in the Herald, and by the traction National's "Iwi versus Kiwi" pitch was getting on the issue.
Yeah, it was clearly a case of politics trumping other considerations. I just think we should admit that, some people seem to think that Maori didn't get a bum deal. Presumably they'd argue the same thing about some of the land grabs of the second half of the 19th century as well.
-
Exactly. The position had to be clarified. Whether right or wrong in the status that was created by the act it allows easier acces to redress and as such it should be looked at as a vehicle for solution rather than a land grab.
I think what you've called 'clarification' was actually pretty clear to everyone when the issue came up. The problem was that all of a sudden a court had indicated that Maori could pursue, through legal action, ownership of the FS&SB. Now Maori are tied up having to pursue through negotiation something that it looked very much like they already owned, because white people suddenly learnt that the beach might not actually be theirs.
160 something years of taking stuff off Maori and then having them fight to get a little bit of it back didn't teach us anything as a country.
How does it violate article 3?
I think you'd say that given that we have courts to enforce laws, until it looks like Maori might have rights to things that Pakeha want to keep, at which point we change the laws to screw them over... pushes the equal legal rights bit.
-
As far as I can see the reason for the foreshore and seabed act was to clarify the status quo.
That's er... generous? I thought the reason for the Act was to remove from Maori the ability to pursue through court legal rights over the foreshore and seabed, because it was going to be a political shitstorm.
-
I'd like Democrats/Republicans/Americans as a whole to choose the person who is going to make the best President. Who can beat who is a job for strategists, I have friends who'd just like to turn up after the election and feel a little bit of pride in their chosen representative again (or for the younger ones... for the first time).
For me, if the answer to that is Clinton, then something's gone wrong between the question and the answer, but I don't get to vote!
-
Wake me up when Puerto Rico, Guam, Panama, Saipan, & Samoa have a primary.
From CNN:
While American Samoa participates in the Democratic and Republican nomination processes, it does not participate in the general election.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but were they attempting to control the mis use of their product, not the use of it, ie trying to stop people flicking the product everywhere and to everyone.
In this context, use clearly is a set including both legal and illegal. ie. I'm going to use this music player to play music.