+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists (/showthread.php?tid=15764)
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kaimana - 05-01-2015
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
If the property titles go bad in a restored Hawaii Kingdom, there goes the tax base.
There's no more sandalwood to exploit either.
Again I'm not exactly sure what would happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
Are there any parallels with Subic Bay? The Philippines wanted Subic back and they got it.
Hawaii has the highest standard of living of any Pacific locale. It might sound sweet getting the Kingdom back but history is
that Kingdoms work out great for the King and no so good for everyone else. Isn't that a reasonable description of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
The royalty sold off land and natural resources for fancy furniture and do-dads while the people kinda got shafted? Am I wrong?
Not really the history of the Philippine's sovereignty is much different than ours.
The UK, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Japan and Belgium all are doing fine with a constitutional monarchy. But even so, it's not like we couldn't do away with the monarchy through our own governmental means.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - beepbeep - 05-01-2015
You would have to see if Quentin would be content to be a figurehead [
]When will my housemate be ready for their ride? Ah now. Ok bbl.
Pam in CA
May is Lupus Awareness Month
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - PaulW - 05-01-2015
No monarchy in Switzerland, but anyway, good to hear it would be a constitutional monarchy.
That means the people have the power. But what if the majority of the people want to remain (or become) part of the US?
Wouldn't this all be a very pointless exercise, in the end?
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Wao nahele kane - 05-01-2015
"Again I'm not exactly sure what would happen."
But you support it anyhow. Is this akin by trait as to why there's a slew of former Hawaiian Nationals living in Vegas?
Why the hell anyone would want to crap shoot with the lives of all their family and friends is beyond my understanding.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kaimana - 05-01-2015
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
No monarchy in Switzerland, but anyway, good to hear it would be a constitutional monarchy.
That means the people have the power. But what if the majority of the people want to remain (or become) part of the US?
Wouldn't this all be a very pointless exercise, in the end?
No, because the right to choose is the one right that is universally accepted as an inalienable right.
The Sovereign Nation of Hawaii was the denied the right to choose what should be done with it's sovereignty. (This is of course if it is found that the annexation was illegal etc.)
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kaimana - 05-01-2015
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
"Again I'm not exactly sure what would happen."
But you support it anyhow. Is this akin by trait as to why there's a slew of former Hawaiian Nationals living in Vegas?
Why the hell anyone would want to crap shoot with the lives of all their family and friends is beyond my understanding.
Because somethings are worth risking everything for.
The problem is that your argument is one of fear mongering. Now I don't think you're purposely doing it but you are doing it. "Oh the outcome could be dangerous so we shouldn't explore it more no matter the legality or ethical rationale behind it.".
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - PaulW - 05-01-2015
"No, because the right to choose is the one right that is universally accepted as an inalienable right. "
And yet you want to take this right away from the vast majority of people living here.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kaimana - 05-01-2015
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"No, because the right to choose is the one right that is universally accepted as an inalienable right. "
And yet you want to take this right away from the vast majority of people living here.
That is an excellent point, but the Nation of Hawaii wouldn't be taking it away, the US would be at fault.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - SBH - 05-01-2015
As long as Hawaii is such an important location for our military being in the middle of the Pacific, there's no way the US is going to just walk away. If it did China or Russia would swoop in the next day which would become a major threat to the mainland (and Hawaii).
Hawaii would also lose its largest employers, the state and military. The third largest economic engine for Hawaii is tourism and that would be severely damaged from a drop in US mainland visitors. Who would own the resorts?
So we need a compromise. What would you suggest? We need to right a wrong and show more respect to the Hawaiian people than those US citizens did over 100 years ago. I personally love the Hawaiian people and want to see them happy living here in HAWAII without this resentment of losing their self-determination.
I'd like to hear more ideas about what we could do to solve this issue so everyone can live here in peace.
I'll toss out an idea and then run for cover!
The US should buy the entire island of Lanai from Larry Ellison and all his holdings there for one Billion dollars and give it to the Hawaiian Kingdom. That would give him a profit of hundreds of millions.
The US should also finish cleaning up Kahoolawe and also give that island to the Hawaiian Kingdom.
At least one billion dollars to be split with a one time payment to each of the decendants of the members of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1898.
How much are they spending on rail on Oahu? How much did the US spend on the Iraq war? How much is peace worth?
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Wao nahele kane - 05-01-2015
"Because somethings are worth risking everything for."
You know what? I'd fully agree with that if you were starving to death in a Nazi death camp watching your family and friends marched off to gas chambers but that's not really the case in the here and now, is it?
Are you or are you not afforded the right to vote for your representatives here and are those representative bequeathed the power to establish the law in this land? Were you not afforded the same when the Territory was established? Under the territory of Hawaii the nationals had the majority power and could have voted for independent Sovereignty at any time.