Ping ATB.

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:


Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".


Groggy, the dissembler...


Johnny 5 wouldn't like him.

Greg Procter wrote:

There are more than just the two options.
I've been buying goods from other countries for 45 years,

Have you bought Cuban cigars while living in Singapore.

Do you think the person buysing the damn cigars via New Zealand has
investigated the other methods, since he's been buying them for years.
Why do you think you have more knowledge of the issue than he does,
since your only research seemed to be limited to doing a google search
for Cuban cigar manufacturers. You provide NO information on prices or
even which companies accept retail orders from Singapore.

This would be like me calling up Aramco in Saudi Arabia and telling them
to send me a liter of oil.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.

You previously claimed it didn't. That was a lie.

t listing to put on
their web-site. It's not a legally binding document - it can't be
because it cannot possibly list all the rights we enjoy and that you
don't.


You haven't actually read the document, have you?
First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.

Now what about rights not listed:

Read the 9th Ammendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.
You'll notice I write "US Constitution" - that refers to one of the
"Founding Documents" of the United States and the United States form of
government.
It is, if I understand the situation correctly, something that US
citizens consider important to their rights etc.
The NZ Government constitution, on the other hand is a total irrelevance
to government and rights here in New Zealand.
Our 'Rights' are set out in the Magna Carta of 1215 and Law Precedence
since that date. In fact they are set out in reverse, the Law and
Precedence tells us what we _can't_ do and the Magna Carta tells our
Government what it _can't_ do.
That leaves everything else as our 'freedoms and rights'. You poor
yanks, on the other hand, have a very limited, defined set of "rights
and freedoms" which cannot be added to if situations change,

In another post, I pointed out the 9th Ammendment to the US
Constitution, which talks about "unenumerated rights".

Now back to a listing of Rights.
Can you explain the NZ Bill of Rights and how it doesn't contain a
listing of rights similar to the US Constitution?

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ts-guidelines/

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

There are more than just the two options.
I've been buying goods from other countries for 45 years,

Have you bought Cuban cigars while living in Singapore.

Of course not - I don't smoke.


Do you think the person buysing the damn cigars via New Zealand has
investigated the other methods, since he's been buying them for years.

Obviously not.

Why do you think you have more knowledge of the issue than he does,

Of course, I've been involved in importing for 44 years.

since your only research seemed to be limited to doing a google search
for Cuban cigar manufacturers. You provide NO information on prices or
even which companies accept retail orders from Singapore.

This would be like me calling up Aramco in Saudi Arabia and telling them
to send me a liter of oil.


You're not that stupid - please tell me you're not _that_ stupid!

So when did you last see a tanker load of cigars leaving Cuba?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.

You previously claimed it didn't. That was a lie.


No - try ignorance.
It's not exactly high profile, or any relevance.



t listing to put on
their web-site. It's not a legally binding document - it can't be
because it cannot possibly list all the rights we enjoy and that you
don't.


You haven't actually read the document, have you?

Have you any suggestions as to _which_ document you are refering to???


First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.


The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????


Now what about rights not listed:

Read the 9th Ammendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


Riiight!
sheesh

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.
You'll notice I write "US Constitution" - that refers to one of the
"Founding Documents" of the United States and the United States form of
government.
It is, if I understand the situation correctly, something that US
citizens consider important to their rights etc.
The NZ Government constitution, on the other hand is a total irrelevance
to government and rights here in New Zealand.
Our 'Rights' are set out in the Magna Carta of 1215 and Law Precedence
since that date. In fact they are set out in reverse, the Law and
Precedence tells us what we _can't_ do and the Magna Carta tells our
Government what it _can't_ do.
That leaves everything else as our 'freedoms and rights'. You poor
yanks, on the other hand, have a very limited, defined set of "rights
and freedoms" which cannot be added to if situations change,

In another post, I pointed out the 9th Ammendment to the US
Constitution, which talks about "unenumerated rights".

Now back to a listing of Rights.
Can you explain the NZ Bill of Rights and how it doesn't contain a
listing of rights similar to the US Constitution?

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ts-guidelines/

How could it possibly list all our rights???

You've quoted a page of _guidelines_, not a bill of rights.

Greg Procter wrote:


First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.



Now what about rights not listed:

Read the 9th Ammendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



Riiight!
sheesh

So, it's "right" even though it disagrees with your statement.


You claimed our constitution limited our rights to those listed.
As indicated above, just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it
iss not a right.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



If you were to stop ranting and think for a moment - well perhaps in
your case for a long time - you might be able to tell me what your
Constitution is intended for. Then we can consider the difference with
what the NZ constitution stands for.
I know it's tough, but try to bear with me on this one.

What difference does it make what the US Constitution stands for.

The issue is whether or not NZ had a constitution.
According to the NZ government, the answer is "yes".



The New Zealand Government has a constitution.
You'll notice I write "US Constitution" - that refers to one of the
"Founding Documents" of the United States and the United States form of
government.
It is, if I understand the situation correctly, something that US
citizens consider important to their rights etc.
The NZ Government constitution, on the other hand is a total irrelevance
to government and rights here in New Zealand.
Our 'Rights' are set out in the Magna Carta of 1215 and Law Precedence
since that date. In fact they are set out in reverse, the Law and
Precedence tells us what we _can't_ do and the Magna Carta tells our
Government what it _can't_ do.
That leaves everything else as our 'freedoms and rights'. You poor
yanks, on the other hand, have a very limited, defined set of "rights
and freedoms" which cannot be added to if situations change,

In another post, I pointed out the 9th Ammendment to the US
Constitution, which talks about "unenumerated rights".

Now back to a listing of Rights.
Can you explain the NZ Bill of Rights and how it doesn't contain a
listing of rights similar to the US Constitution?

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ts-guidelines/


How could it possibly list all our rights???

You've quoted a page of _guidelines_, not a bill of rights.

Are you an idiot?
I pointed ot the link explaining the NZ Bill of Rights.
Do I actually need to post the link to the actual Bill of Rights for you
to admit there is one that list rights in NZ?

http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc/worddocs/BI...%20version.doc

So, there it is, a document listing the rights, after you claimed NZ was
better than the US, because our constitution limited our rights, which
as indicated clearly in the 9th Ammendment to the US Constitution, does
not. Additionally, NZ has it's own Bill of Rights that list these
rights, and you claimed there was no such list of rights similar to the
US constitution's list.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


First, note, the first 10 Ammendments were not rights given after the
constitution, but rights that were already in effect.



The New Zealand constitution has 10 amendements????

No, I am referring to the US Constitutiions's first 10 ammendments, know
as the Bill of Rights.


Hmmm, we're apparently talking about a New Zealand Constitution, but you
bring in the "US Bill of Rights" unannounced.




Now what about rights not listed:

Read the 9th Ammendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



Riiight!
sheesh

So, it's "right" even though it disagrees with your statement.

You claimed our constitution limited our rights to those listed.
As indicated above, just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it
iss not a right.


That's nice - you have a Bill which supposedly lists your rights, but
doesn't.
(and you wonder why I think yanks are stupid)