Don’t undermine New Zealand

35 comments on “Don’t undermine New Zealand ”

• Comments are now closed

1. grumpy 1

   14 April 2010 at 1:04 pm

   I’m sure Brownlee doesn’t want to “undermine” New Zealand.

   We just need to ensure he doesn’t want to “overmine” it.

   A poor choice of words from the Greenies.
   • Bright Red 1.1

     14 April 2010 at 1:34 pm

     It’s a ‘pun’ or ‘play on words’, grumpy.

     See mining undermines New Zealand’s environment, and the green clean image that is central to our key tourism industry.
     • grumpy 1.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 2:39 pm

       Just shows the Left should avoid attempts at humour at all costs – it’s just not in their nature.

       You know what they say about puns………
       • the pinkpostman 1.1.1.1

         14 April 2010 at 2:48 pm

         What a load of codswallop Grumpy. Most of the Western Worlds great comedians are of the political Left. Many in thre UK are active paid up members of the UK.Labour Party. The besr known of course Ben Elton. of Balck Adder Fame . I would presume that at least 80% of the great Yiddis humourists support
         • the pinkpostman 1.1.1.1.1

           14 April 2010 at 2:52 pm

           The last sentence of the comment regarding humour ,should read.
           I would presume that 80% of Yiddish humour come from the Left.
           • grumpy 1.1.1.1.1.1

             14 April 2010 at 2:58 pm

             I agree with your comment about Ben Elton, but perhaps he is the exception that proves the rule?
             • felix …

               14 April 2010 at 3:06 pm

               Well I liked your “overmine” pun grumpy.
             • grumpy …

               14 April 2010 at 3:09 pm

               gee, thanks felix – I think………
             • grumpy …

               14 April 2010 at 3:16 pm

               I left an opportunity for the pinkpostman to come back – he could have said

               “……overmine dead body…….”
             • felix …

               14 April 2010 at 3:28 pm

               lolz!
             • Jewish Kiwi …

               16 April 2010 at 12:28 am

               Grumpy, I can see you made a blanket statement without thinking it through.

               Of the Pythons, Terry Jones and Micheal Palin are *very* left wing – Try reading Jones’ columns for the Observer newspaper. John Cleese is a Liberal – he and Rowan Atkinson both atteneded the same constituency party meetings of the Lib Dems.

               It isn’t just Elton and Atkinson, either – most all of the successful comedians to emerge from the UK during the 1980s bat from the left. Emma Thomson, Stephen Fry, all of the Young Ones – there isn’t enough space for a roll call.

               America? Try Larry David, creator of Seinfield and Curb your Enthusiasm. It was him and his wife’s money which funded the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. Then there is Sarah Silverman (google The Great Schlep), Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, John Stweart, etc etc

               In History? Uhhh… Charlie (dyed in the wool socialist) Chaplin, anybody?

               Good comedy takes aim at the high and mighty, which is a very endearing quality for those on the left.

               Grumpy, I put it to you to name some funny and successful right-wing comedy acts. I’ll give you the South Park guys (who I can laugh at).

               But please, name a few more, and I will stop telling everyone that rightwingers typically have no sense of humour.
           • Jewish Kiwi 1.1.1.1.1.2

             16 April 2010 at 12:33 am

             More than 80%, the pinkpostman

             Find me a jewish comedian and I’ll give you a socialist.
2. marty mars 2

   14 April 2010 at 1:05 pm

   Good stuff but it seems glaringly obvious that there is someone missing – tangata whenua

   It is self-defeating to not involve tangata whenua in fights to protect the land or water.

   For me i’d get rid of ‘new zealand’ and call it ‘our country’ on the poster – stronger emotional content.
   • grumpy 2.1

     14 April 2010 at 1:08 pm

     You mean like tangata whenua protected the Mokihinui?
     • marty mars 2.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 1:34 pm

       what have you or your people done to protect the mokihinui grumpy?

       I know plenty of tangata whenua still trying to save the mokihinui – it is not over yet and we don’t give up easy.
       • grumpy 2.1.1.1

         14 April 2010 at 2:28 pm

         Well….., we go back 5 generations on the Mokihinui, I have walked every inch of it’s catchments over 35 years.

         And in all that time I have only seen one member of the “tangata whenua”. As you should know the history of that area is in mining, timber and farming. There are no areas of “cultural significance” to tangata whenua (please tell me if I am wrong).

         It seems the Greenies support from tangata whenua only exists until the developer’s cheque book comes out so I don’t think you can count on them if their Mokihinui showing is representative. As far as the Mokihinui goes, it seems the Arahura iwi has done quite well. I bet half of them didn’t know where the river was until the time came to “negotiate” and I note that Meridian aren’t saying what the payment was actually for.
         • marty mars 2.1.1.1.1

           14 April 2010 at 3:02 pm

           I ask again – what have you or your people done to protect the mokihinui?

           The rest of what you say is nonsense – so what if you have only seen one maori in the area – are you seriously trying to imply that just because you have only seen one maori, then there has only been one maori up there.

           One thing i will say is that if you are working to save this river from the damn dam, then we are on the same side.
           • grumpy 2.1.1.1.1.1

             14 April 2010 at 3:08 pm

             Well marty mars, up until now the Mokihinui hasn’t needed to be protected, iwi are happy for the dam to go ahead so I don’t see your argument.

             and yes, I am saying that there has probably only been one maori up there. Before the farmers put a bullock track up the gorge it was pretty much impassable anyway.
         • Richard 2.1.1.1.2

           14 April 2010 at 4:00 pm

           And in all that time I have only seen one member of the “tangata whenua’

           Ah, but how many were secretly watching you, as you trampled around in your big white-man shoes?
           • grumpy 2.1.1.1.2.1

             14 April 2010 at 5:35 pm

             Perhaps I should explain more clearly.

             I have never seen one in the bush – only manning a whitebait stand.
3. grumpy 3

   14 April 2010 at 1:06 pm

   Or…. is it that they don’t want mining “under” the surface – just open cast??????
   • marty mars 3.1

     14 April 2010 at 1:39 pm

     The ones i talk to don’t want any mining at all.

     I don’t subscribe to these weak words

     “Get out there and tell this government that some parts of our country are too precious to mine.”
     • grumpy 3.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 3:03 pm

       I suppose that is why tangata whenua sought (and got) the sole rights to mine pounamu?

       Don’t see them as anti mining allies really.
       • marty mars 3.1.1.1

         14 April 2010 at 3:50 pm

         the pounamu belongs to tangata whenua – pretty simple really
         • grumpy 3.1.1.1.1

           14 April 2010 at 5:38 pm

           Okay…………., so if you own something you can do what you like with it?
           • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.1

             14 April 2010 at 6:30 pm

             luckily the protection and maintance of the pounamu is of highest importance which is why the moaners go on about the lack of stone released

             this protection is for the benefit of all people who live here, today and tomorrow

             perhaps actually a good example of why it can be worthwhile involving tangata whenua
4. Fisiani 4

   14 April 2010 at 2:08 pm

   “Get out there and tell this government that some parts of our country are too precious to mine.”

   Duh. The government already agrees with that. It simply thinks that some parts are not too precious to mine.
   It’s a bit like the story of the tramp who gets on a bus and sits next to an attractive woman. He looks at her and says “Would you sleep with if I gave you a dollar”?”
   She contemptuously tells him “Of course not!”
   He then asks, “Well actually I am a multi-millionaire. Would you sleep with me if I gave you a million dollars?”
   She looks him up and down and whispers “Ök Then”.
   He then asks “Would you sleep with me if I gave you ten dollars?”
   She indignantly replies. “What sort of woman do you think I am”
   He replies, “We’ve already established what sort of woman you are we’re now just haggling about the price.”

   The NZ envisaged by the Labour/Green fundies is the attractive woman. She already allows dozens and dozens of mines for profit. She can hardly claim to be a pristine untouched virgin.
   The government is merely haggling over access to an extra few erogenous zones and will reach a compromise that most practical common sense pragmatic people can accept.
   • mcflock 4.1

     14 April 2010 at 2:46 pm

     Actually (given that Labour didn’t rescedule protected land so it could be mined and national want to) – a more appropriate analogy is that NZ says okay to a an expensive dinner in exchange for a handjob, has a a few drinks on impulse in 2008 because he seemed so nice, and ends up being kidnapped and molested.
5. tc 5

   14 April 2010 at 2:24 pm

   This plays into their hands….they’ll retract the great barrier option (which never was an option) and say ‘see we listen and act upon the peoples will…’

   The nat’s love a protest as it’s a sign they’re being strong and decisive….bok tour anybody ?
   • mcflock 5.1

     15 April 2010 at 5:17 pm

     Yep.
     What insults me is that it is so fecking obvious.
     What saddens me is that a lot of people will fall for it.
6. prism 6

   16 April 2010 at 11:33 am

   Interesting grumpy that you judge Maori interest in the river by what you yourself have observed. Did you spend all your time there? Maybe Maori were keeping out of your way – they mightn’t like grumpy white guys. Maori used to be able to get along with life knowing that the land and waters they used from time to time would be there as always when they chose to visit them. The areas existed and nature affected them, and there were changes but nothing that prevented them from visiting and using when they pleased until colonists came along that is. Proof of constant use was demanded by pakeha authority or it was waste land and could be annexed.

   The mighty estate that tribes enjoyed, and sometimes fought over, has largely been allocated to ‘other interests’ and You apply pakeha consideration when you say that you haven’t seen Maori at the river and therefore they have relinquished interest. Iwi will have been under pressure from those in positions of authority on the West Coast to accede and don’t get much encouragement when they want to invest. See the way that the Grey mayor carried on over the rusty abandoned memorial gates when Maori interests tried to advance their supermarket project.
   • grumpy 6.1

     16 April 2010 at 6:40 pm

     The only Maori living anywhere the Mokihinui is a mate of mine and I’ll bet he didn’t get anything out of the deal – except his whitebaiting buggerred.

     The money has gone to build a new meeting house at Arahura – fucking miles away.

     Before the student loans came in, Prism, I worked my way through university meat hunting the Mokihinui and the Karamea area. I know the area and the people who live there, Ngai Tahu have sold them out, just as they did Canterbury rivers (where they are arguing over first access) and the aquiculture swindle off Banks Peninsula.

     Tangata whenua – rubbish! They just want a slice of the action and clip the ticket.
     • millsy 6.1.1

       23 April 2010 at 10:22 am

       Too true, Grumpy.

       I consider it interesting how the iwi elite seem to embrace what they call the pakeha concept of ownership when there is profit to be made.
7. iliveinauck 7

   16 April 2010 at 4:13 pm

   sign of things to come here?

   Villagers fuming after their common is handed to mine

   The hollowed-out hill and parts of the common have cracked as Ashton undertook blasting. In 2006 it was revealed water tanks in the village contained more than 20 times the recommended levels of lead.

   Almost two-thirds of the population have given up and left as mines began to wrap themselves around the little valley.

   asked why the department had handed the land to the mine, a spokesman for the Lands Minister, Tony Kelly, said it had been forced to intervene.

   http://www.smh.com.au/environment/villagers-fuming-after-their-common-is-handed-to-mine-20100415-shs4.html

Links to post

1. Craig Connelly: posted on 14 April 2010 at 9:48 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS