I'll be the FIRST to admit that I'm not fully aware of EVERYTHING "the Indigenous Voice to Parliament" entails - but I know, beyond doubt, I'm more 'clued up' than most on the matter.

If you gave me a list of 20 regular Ozpolitics posters - I'd have no trouble in isolating the 'NO' voters.

They'd be the ones with past form as Aboriginal bashers.
The right-wing deplorables.
The Albanese hate mongers.

I will not be following Dutton's directive of a 'NO' to an Indigenous advisory representation to our parliaments.

I will not be following Hanson's obsesive hatred of indigenous Australians - following through backing a 'NO' vote to an Indigenous Advisory Voice to our Federal Parliament.

I will not be falling into line with multi-millionaire Warren 'Uncle Tom' Mundine, in his quest to have no other indigenous Australians share his power base and influence on Australian governments.

Nor will I be taking a lead from Lidia 'mad as a cut snake' Thorpe on, well, ANYTHING



If I follow ANYONES lead, it will be the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart

https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf


As debate about the Voice continues, this pervasive myth about 'secret documents' continues to surface

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/fact-check-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-secret-documents-niaa/102485040




.

I’m pretty sure I know that we don’t care how you’ll be voting.

You can tear apart the Uluru Statement from the Heart in no time.


Quote:

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

Indigenous people lost the Settler War. Indigenous people now live by European laws. Indigenous people have been invited to live with non-indigenous Australians, since 1967. Don't like it? Go wander the forests, grasslands, and deserts of that 15% of Australia that indigenous people do own. But, go without the modern technology and conveniences that non-indigenous people have brought into your lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYY2QATELuI

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21^st, 2023 at 11:04pm:

You can tear apart the Uluru Statement from the Heart in no time. Quote: This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. Indigenous people lost the Settler War. Indigenous people now live by European laws. Indigenous people have been invited to live with non-indigenous Australians, since 1967. Don't like it? Go wander the forests, grasslands, and deserts of that 15% of Australia that indigenous people do own. But, go without the modern technology and conveniences that non-indigenous people have brought into your lives.

Then sovereignty can remain a spiritual notion....... no problem.... NEXT!!

We all have 'ties to the land' along exactly the same lines ... NEXT!!

It was ceded when the Black Australia Policy was defeated on the field of battle when the Aborigines sought to drive the White Men back into the sea with a campaign of terrorism and murder of innocents and failed dismally ..... NEXT!!

It was also ceded the moment they applied for and obtained any benefit from the modern government, at which point they had to state they were Australian citizens.  Sovereignty ceded.  NEXT!!

No sovereignty can exist alongside that of the sovereignty that governs the nation and gives those benefits... NEXT!!

There can be only one law in the land to bind them all ... a house divided against itself cannot stand, and the only avenue open to those who disagree is secession, surrender of all rights and benefits, and at the minimum banishment to their own self-contained Homeland; at the worst civil war in which they will be defeated again .... NEXT!!

I'll be voting NO.  I'm guessing this silly "voice" thing
will be a massive failure—just as ATSIC was before it.

The government abolished ATSIC in April 2004, saying
that "the experiment in elected representation for
Indigenous people has been a failure". 

Its replacement, the National Indigenous Council was
then established to develop "strategies which would
improve the delivery of services to Indigenous Australians",
but was also wound up as a failure in 2008, after only
four years.

So far I think you are closest to admitting you will vote yes. But you couldn't quite get there. Why is that? Are you still a closet racist?

What?   Who are you talking to?      :-?

Anyone a subscriber to "The Voice 2023 - Yes or No"? There has been some interesting interactions.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 21^st, 2023 at 9:29pm:

If I follow ANYONES lead, it will be the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf As debate about the Voice continues, this pervasive myth about 'secret documents' continues to surface https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/fact-check-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-secret-documents-niaa/102485040

You mean the Uluru Statement from Africa.


Out of Africa: Uluru statement from the heart
The current debate about the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament is impossible to separate from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is where everything began.

This document, drawn up in May 2017, outlines an agenda for change that has been endorsed by the Labor Party and was even presented to the Pope. It won last year’s Sydney Peace Prize and in some states it is being taught and discussed in schools.

But here’s rub: the most poetic part of this document, the section that refers to sovereignty as a spiritual notion, is not original and the real author was referring to Africans, not Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

It was copied from a 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that concerned the people of the Western Sahara.

The primary author of that passage was a gifted jurist from Zaire, Nicolas Bayona-Ba-Meya, whose submission to the court was picked up and incorporated in the ruling handed down by judge Fouad Ammoun, the court’s Lebanese vice-president.,

This link between the Uluru statement and the work of Bayona-Ba-Meya and Fouad Ammoun is outlined in a new book on the voice by Jesuit priest and lawyer Frank Brennan.

He points out the words from Ammoun’s judgment in the Western Sahara case found their way to Australia in 1992, when they were reproduced in the High Court’s Mabo ruling that overturned the doctrine of terra nullius – that Australia was an empty land owned by nobody.

From there, Brennan writes that an adapted version found its way into the Uluru statement. The similarity between Uluru and the passage in Ammoun’s judgment about the Western Sahara is uncanny.

Consider the third paragraph of the Uluru statement that concludes with the assertion that Indigenous sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished and coexists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

That paragraph starts by describing sovereignty as “a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty”.

This is the only section of the Uluru statement that uses archaic forms of language and, according to Brennan: “Not many 21st century Aboriginal Australians use terms like therefrom, thereto and thither.”

Now consider Ammoun’s original passage, which uses those archaic terms and which appeared twice in the Mabo judgment.

The Lebanese judge wrote that the submission of Bayona-Ba-Meya substitutes for terra nullius “a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the man who was born therefrom, remains attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with his ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty”.

With only superficial changes, the Uluru statement reproduces this entire passage, right down to the colon after the first three words, without attribution to either the High Court, Ammoun or, more importantly, Bayona-Ba-Meya, who conceived of sovereignty as a spiritual concept.

https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/out-of-africa-uluru-statement-from-the-heart/

I will not be voting against an Aboriginal voice in parliament. I will vote against giving parliament a free hand with the make up and powers of such a voice. See paragraph 3. How many Yes voters are even aware of paragraph 3?

Most democracies would laugh at such a proposition.

Australia is being warned 👇

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-new-zealand-maori-voice-to-parliament-and-what-...

👆 Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament.

This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race.

The parliament, being open for participation to all Australians, remains the best institution to represent all Australians.

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 12:51am:

What?   Who are you talking to?      :-?

Buzz. He sort of hinted he would be voting yes. But not a single member here, from what I have seen, has actually said they would be voting yes. They seem afraid to. It's like they are all closet no voters who are flagellating themselves for being racist.

Maybe y'all wanna check my monicker, Pilgrims..... it says "Proud NO Vote Bigot!"  Ya get ta love it or hate it - all on yer own time....... but whatever insults ya hurl at me are gonna come back ta bite ya...

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 12:51am: What?   Who are you talking to?      :-? Buzz. He sort of hinted he would be voting yes. But not a single member here, from what I have seen, has actually said they would be voting yes. They seem afraid to. It's like they are all closet no voters who are flagellating themselves for being racist.

It’s not a matter of being AFRAID to vote yes.

We’re not STUPID to vote yes.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 4:27pm: AusGeoff wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 12:51am: What?   Who are you talking to?      :-? Buzz. He sort of hinted he would be voting yes. But not a single member here, from what I have seen, has actually said they would be voting yes. They seem afraid to. It's like they are all closet no voters who are flagellating themselves for being racist. Many of us are not AFRAID to vote yes. We’re not STUPID to vote yes.

You don't have to be mad to vote YES, but it sure helps......

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 21^st, 2023 at 9:29pm:

I will not be falling into line with multi-millionaire Warren 'Uncle Tom' Mundine, in his quest to have no other indigenous Australians share his power base and influence on Australian governments. Nor will I be taking a lead from Lidia 'mad as a cut snake' Thorpe on, well, ANYTHING If I follow ANYONES lead, it will be the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf .

We know how woke poofters are going to vote no surprises there.

With the Uluru statement how do the natives know how long they have been here?

Did they need white mans Radio Carbon dating to measure Carbon 14 in the bones of Mungo man and Kow Swamp to give them an idea on this?

I will be voting NO Way GF FO with this racist bullshit.


Quote:

Jacinta Nampijinpa @JNampijinpa Today we’re a day closer to: - paying millions in reparations - rewriting our history - being Divided by race. Vote No Australia! https://twitter.com/JNampijinpa/status/1670629198527090688?cxt=HHwWgMDSmfOZoq8uAAAA

What Price this then, eh?

"Just like me, just like every Australian, you want to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Aussies.

That’s why it makes me furious when Albo and the ‘yes’ campaigners say the Voice will solve Indigenous disadvantage.

The truth is that the people who now want the divisive Voice are the same ones who have been in charge of helping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for decades.

And it doesn’t stop there: leading Voice architect Thomas Mayo, who literally wrote the book on the Voice, has been found out saying the Voice is about power and smashing institutions and reparations and compensation.

He says he wants to use the Constitution to “force them to listen” and to “punish politicians who ignore our advice”.

That’s the reality.

Meanwhile, Indigenous communities are suffering.

FACT: Taxpayers spend at least $100 million a day on direct support for Indigenous Australians every year.

That’s $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure every single year1.

That’s more than we spend on the NDIS ($35.5 billion), Medicare ($31.3 billion) or Defence ($38 billion).

It’s about the same as the Federal Government’s entire spend on schools and universities ($39.7 billion).

Not only does this eye watering amount include welfare payments direct to individuals, it includes the money splurged on government programs, grants, non-profits, and lobby groups – an entire professional activist industry that is meant to help Indigenous Australians.

And yet for decades despite almost no noticeable improvement in the lives of Indigenous Australians, here comes people like Thomas Mayo demanding more power and more money.

As far as the divisive Voice is concerned, it’s time for you and I to tell Albo enough is enough"

To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'.

That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:56pm:

To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago

Over the top emotional blackmail by an actor as the fundamental and sole argument for constitutional change.


Tellembugger'em.

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:56pm:

To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago

Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail?

By letting the racists and bigot win, that's how!

Frank wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Over the top emotional blackmail by an actor as the fundamental and sole argument for constitutional change. Tellembugger'em.

sole argument? :D :D :D

Seriously, get that refund.

Quote:

Misleading memes, social media commentary and statements made by some federal politicians have all claimed that the Voice to Parliament, should it be established, could overturn government decisions via the High Court But as FactLab's CrossCheck unit recently found, such claims have no legal basis and misrepresent a nuanced legal argument about the powers of the Voice in making representations to executive government. Among CrossCheck's findings were that despite online narratives to the contrary, the Voice — as it is currently proposed — could not make binding demands of the government, nor would it have the power to veto legislation. Those were the unanimous findings of the Constitutional Expert Group appointed by the government to provide advice on questions of constitutional law. A member of that group, Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), said: "The power and function of the Voice is to make representations. It cannot dictate, demand or veto." Independent of the experts appointed by the government, the Australian Law Council and other constitutional law academics have reached the same conclusion. As such, claims on social media that the Voice could use the High Court to force policy outcomes, alter the content of laws or change a government decision — to allow, for example, land grabs or forced reparations payments — have no legal basis.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-23/fact-check-nsw-birth-rate-not-vaccine-related/102511336


::)

Do you know how you will be voting John?

If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail.

Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no.

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:00pm:

If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no.

That's far too much logic and common sense for some people here Set.

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:00pm:

If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no.

👆 That pretty much sums up why so many will be doing the right thing by voting NO!

Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government because it’s so vague/lacks detail.

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:00pm:

If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no.

Exactly what has not been laid on the table.

(And keep your grubby GMod buttons out of my MRB.  If a Member starts a Thread there, leave it there.)

Aussie wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:06pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. Exactly what has not been laid on the table. (And keep your grubby GMod buttons out of my MRB.  If a Member starts a Thread there, leave it there.)

Piss off you Prancing Queen.

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:06pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. Exactly what has not been laid on the table. (And keep your grubby GMod buttons out of my MRB.  If a Member starts a Thread there, leave it there.) Piss off you Prancing Queen.

Would it be too much to ask both of you to comment on my last post in this topic? For what it’s worth I actually value your (plural) input. And yes I do look out for your (plural) posts.  ::)

👇 This is the post I’m referring to.


Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:43pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. 👆 That pretty much sums up why so many will be doing the right thing by voting NO! Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government because it’s so vague/lacks detail.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:37pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:06pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. Exactly what has not been laid on the table. (And keep your grubby GMod buttons out of my MRB.  If a Member starts a Thread there, leave it there.) Piss off you Prancing Queen. Would it be too much to ask both of you to comment on my last post in this topic? For what it’s worth I actually value your (plural) input. And yes I do look out for your (plural) posts.  ::)

Perhaps you could be more specific, the post I am replying to is your last post in this thread. Am I wrong?

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:39pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:37pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 9:06pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. Exactly what has not been laid on the table. (And keep your grubby GMod buttons out of my MRB.  If a Member starts a Thread there, leave it there.) Piss off you Prancing Queen. Would it be too much to ask both of you to comment on my last post in this topic? For what it’s worth I actually value your (plural) input. And yes I do look out for your (plural) posts.  ::) Perhaps you could be more specific, the post I am replying to is your last post in this thread. Am I wrong?

Sure. Here 👇


Quote:

Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government because it’s so vague/lacks detail.

I posted this earlier Setanta and Aussie 👇


https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-new-zealand-maori-voice-to-parliament-and-what-...

👆 Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament.

This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race.

The parliament, being open for participation to all Australians, remains the best institution to represent all Australians.

Two hundred and thirty five years of steadily clawing the equal rights of the average person out of the mud, only to see them dashed back in and smothered by the deluge of half-baked imbeciles who imagine they know all.... products of the MacDonalds franchise style of modern education where all come out the same....... with the exact same academic lobectomy removing both their intellectual capacity and their empathy and creating of them zombies that we see in movies, which themselves are the allegory for modern life .....

I figure that will lose most of you............ jeez - civil war declared openly and The Assassination of the Jesse James Gun Owners by the Coward John Howard has left the people defenceless... any dick with a spear or nulla-nulla could take over a household in a flash....

Such is The Madness into which we've been shoved by piss weak governments of all kinds..... and at all levels....

Of course this rot started much earlier....... around forty years ago........................... but it is now bearing the most hideous fruit.....

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:21pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail? By letting the racists and bigot win, that's how!

You're gonna need a bigger roast ...... that's just a statement of intent... what did Jack say this Evil would be and how would it have prevailed?  The Abos will be stuck with one man/one vote like everyone else?

SOBS.....  Jack, Jack - you KNOW I've never forgiven you for tossing me out of that cast caravan because you figured you were a big shot... I'm a nice guy, but it didn't have Jack Thompson on the door... it said Cast .... and I'd been there since all the shoots in Nu Zulland... a lot more than you.... jeez - that black Daimler you drove?  That was mine....

Quote:

Advocates question federal government's $194 million to address domestic violence in First Nations communities Fri 12 May 2023 In the past two years, Chay Brown has lost three of her friends to domestic violence. "Three friends of mine have been killed by their male partners and we have to be horribly honest, that's not an unusual experience," she said. Ms Rubuntja was actively speaking out about violence in central Australia, which saw her and the Tangentyere Women's Family Safety Group in 2018 travel to Canberra, where they held an emotional sit-down inside parliament house, urging federal politicians to take action on the extreme levels of violence towards Aboriginal women. However, in 2021, Ms Rubuntja's fate was met, and the silent abuse she was suffering became known to her family and friends when she was murdered by her partner, Malcolm Abbott. Last year, Four Corners revealed that the Northern Territory was Australia's homicide capital "In 2021, the Northern Territory had around seven times the rate of domestic and family violence-related homicides, seven times the national rate that is," Dr Brown said. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-12/federal-budget-funding-for-first-nations-women-domestic-violence/102332412

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:40am:

...This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race.

Yes.

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to:

    …(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race
       in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

127. In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or
of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives
shall not be counted.

So now—bizarrely, and divisively—some people want
to effectively add back into our Constitution similarly
racist terminology.

—Which is another reason I'll be voting NO.

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:21pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail? By letting the racists and bigot win, that's how!

Are not the racists part of the "yes" campaign? You know... the proposal to make race-based changes to the constitution. It comes off as obviously racist. Seems like the new apartheid for Australia.

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:00am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:40am: ...This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race. Yes. 51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:     …(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race        in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. 127. In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. So now—bizarrely, and divisively—some people want to effectively add back into our Constitution similarly racist terminology. —Which is another reason I'll be voting NO.

Which is why you would have to be ignorant, insane, dumb and stupid to even consider voting yes.

Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic.

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:56pm:

To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago

Absolute over emotive bs .... typical of an actor.

He should stick to his craft.

The whole "Yes" campaign is based on emotional blackmail with nonsense statements like that, throwing the racist card at everyone who disagrees with it.

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:22pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:07pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Over the top emotional blackmail by an actor as the fundamental and sole argument for constitutional change. Tellembugger'em. sole argument? :D :D :D Seriously, get that refund.

Do YOU have a good argument to support Yes, thickerooni?
Tell us.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 5:37am:

Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic.

I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:03am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself.

An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::)

Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one?

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:46pm:

Do you know how you will be voting John?

undecided but leaning towards the yes vote thanks to the stupidity on here. The more you racists come up with dumb arguments, the more inclined I am to vote yes.

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:46pm: Do you know how you will be voting John? undecided but leaning towards the yes vote thanks to the stupidity on here. The more you racists come up with dumb arguments, the more inclined I am to vote yes.

Do you know of anyone here who is prepared to say they have decided to vote yes?

Edit: other than Aussie. He is the first I know of.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 10:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:21pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail? By letting the racists and bigot win, that's how! You're gonna need a bigger roast .....

no i don't

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:26am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:46pm: Do you know how you will be voting John? undecided but leaning towards the yes vote thanks to the stupidity on here. The more you racists come up with dumb arguments, the more inclined I am to vote yes. Do you know of anyone here who is prepared to say they have decided to vote yes?

are you blind as well as dumb?

Setanta wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:00pm:

If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no.

you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:00am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:21pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 5:56pm: To Quote the great Jack Thompson, 'if the No vote wins, evil will have prevailed'. That was on 'ABC interviews Jack Thompson' a couple of weeks ago Well - you know - senility takes its course.... did he by any chance say how 'evil' would prevail? By letting the racists and bigot win, that's how! Are not the racists part of the "yes" campaign? You know... the proposal to make race-based changes to the constitution. It comes off as obviously racist. Seems like the new apartheid for Australia.

and water is purple

Quote:

and water is purple

John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock.

Gnads wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:13am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one?

I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:00am:

Gnads wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:13am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one? I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me.

Do you think it is racist Aussie?

Gnads wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:13am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one?

Aussie is of course talking utter shyte. There’s NO way someone in their right mind AND who has a degree in law would touch such a hot potato.

Aussie isn’t voting yes....he’s just bluffing.

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:27am:

Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with?

👆 Here’s a classic example of why ignorant nongs and mongs who never finished primary school and who have never worked an honest day in their life should not even be allowed to vote. The last drug fried brain cell in his head has no idea what’s going on. Absolutely no idea at all.

For Aussie 👇


https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-new-zealand-maori-voice-to-parliament-and-what-...

👆 Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament.

This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race.

The parliament, being open for participation to all Australians, remains the best institution to represent all Australians.

Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government.



Aussie seems too frightened to read and address the above. Perhaps it’s all too confronting and confusing for him???

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:20am:

For Aussie 👇 https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-new-zealand-maori-voice-to-parliament-and-what-... 👆 Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament. This is not only incompatible with Australia’s legal and political heritage, but inconsistent with Australia’s preference for a race-blind constitution. This was a point that was most clearly expressed at the 1967 referendum, where 91 per cent of Australian electors chose to remove from the Australian Constitution two divisive references to race. The parliament, being open for participation to all Australians, remains the best institution to represent all Australians. Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government. Aussie seems too frightened to read and address the above. Perhaps it’s all too confronting and confusing for him???

How many voters have read paragraph three, which gives parliament this power?

I am not impressed with the NO campaign so far. They need to pull their finger out.

Paragraph 3 of what?

Show us exactly what you’ve got so the rest of us can see (what you THINK you know).

Could you possibly be referring to this??? 👇

Chapter III provides for the creation of federal courts, including the High Court of Australia, which is the final court of appeal. The High Court can interpret the law and settle disputes about the Constitution.

If so then that absolutely and totally supports my earlier post which you so kindly highlighted:

Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government.

I’ve noticed you’ve gone all silent Issue Voter.

Oh well never mind. I guess I ought to thank you for helping me to illustrate and prove the obscure and therefore hazardous ramifications of such a Constitutional change.

Cheers

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:27am:

Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with?

The part were all the detail will be after the vote and not before.

Sir, I have the shirt that you need!
What colour is it?
I'll tell you after you buy it!
What material is it made of?
I'll tell you after you buy it!
What size is it?
I'll tell you after you buy it!
Is it short sleeved or long?
I'll tell you after you buy it!
How much will it cost?

Would you buy the shirt? It'd be unAustralian not to, the shirt seller is a local business.

Setanta? Aussie? Issuevoter?

Any last comments about why and how ambiguity is such a risk if we vote yes?

Also could we just ignore the Five Foot Five Frodo uneducated dumbarse nong  .... who has proven time and again that he has no idea about anything AND who jumps up and down like a clown 🤡 effectively derailing an otherwise decent discussion with vague sweeping brief denigrating statements which effectively serve to smear abuse?



Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:31am:

Paragraph 3 of what? Show us exactly what you’ve got so the rest of us can see (what you THINK you know). Could you possibly be referring to this??? 👇 Chapter III provides for the creation of federal courts, including the High Court of Australia, which is the final court of appeal. The High Court can interpret the law and settle disputes about the Constitution. If so then that absolutely and totally supports my earlier post which you so kindly highlighted: Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government. I’ve noticed you’ve gone all silent Issue Voter. Oh well never mind. I guess I ought to thank you for helping me to illustrate and prove the obscure and therefore hazardous ramifications of such a Constitutional change. Cheers

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:06am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:00am: Gnads wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:13am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one? I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me. Do you think it is racist Aussie?

I don't give a flying fuq if it is....all I am endorsing is Constitutional recognition in a tokenistic manner of the fact that we dispossessed the people who will get that recognition.

Apart from it being (if it is) racist Effendi, what is your problem with that tokenism?

This:


Quote:

Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament.

...is just garbage.  Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is.

It has no veto power, and never will have veto power.  How many times must you be told that?

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:06am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:00am: Gnads wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:13am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one? I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me. Do you think it is racist Aussie? I don't give a flying fuq if it is...

I’ll just leave it there.

Aussie is obviously not thinking straight this morning AND he is struggling with the other posts in this topic which have highlighted serious concerns about the yes vote. 

Cheers

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:06am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:00am: Gnads wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:13am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one? I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me. Do you think it is racist Aussie? I don't give a flying fuq if it is....all I am endorsing is Constitutional recognition in a tokenistic manner of the fact that we dispossessed the people who will get that recognition. Apart from it being (if it is) racist Effendi, what is your problem with that tokenism?

Thanks Aussie. This is interesting. The only person I know of willing to admit that they will be voting yes is also the only person who is willing to admit they do not care if it is racist.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:04pm:

This: Quote: Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament. ...is just garbage.  Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is. It has no veto power, and never will have veto power.  How many times must you be told that?

Ok so let me get this straight : You Aussie, a retired taxi cab driver will personally guarantee RIGHT NOW that the Voice and those behind its machinations will never have Veto power OR even function like it has Veto power on any level at any time? You feel you can firmly make that guarantee....yes?

Also...why are you struggling to address the other even more serious issues raised in my posts?

Setanta wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:27am: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with? The part were all the detail will be after the vote and not before. Sir, I have the shirt that you need! What colour is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! What material is it made of? I'll tell you after you buy it! What size is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! Is it short sleeved or long? I'll tell you after you buy it! How much will it cost? Would you buy the shirt? It'd be unAustralian not to, the shirt seller is a local business.

good way to avoid the answer choo choo ::)

John do you care whether it is racist?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:35am:

Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock.

and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too?

God you talk some crap

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:23pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap

John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments.

Setanta wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:27am: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with? The part were all the detail will be after the vote and not before. Sir, I have the shirt that you need! What colour is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! What material is it made of? I'll tell you after you buy it! What size is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! Is it short sleeved or long? I'll tell you after you buy it! How much will it cost? Would you buy the shirt? It'd be unAustralian not to, the shirt seller is a local business.

no, you are being asked of you want a shirt. It's that simple

The colour and cut of the shirt will be decided later.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:23pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments.

you were the idiot who said women were banned for sexist reasons, not me  :D :D

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:23pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments.

No education but lots of drug abuse go a long way to explain Frodo’s “strange” comments and delusions.  ::)

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:04pm: This: Quote: Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament. ...is just garbage.  Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is. It has no veto power, and never will have veto power.  How many times must you be told that? Ok so let me get this straight : You Aussie, a retired taxi cab driver will personally guarantee RIGHT NOW that the Voice and those behind its machinations will never have Veto power OR even function like it has Veto power on any level at any time? You feel you can firmly make that guarantee....yes? Also...why are you struggling to address the other even more serious issues raised in my posts?

Aussie???? These serious issues 👇


Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 11:31am:

Paragraph 3 of what? Show us exactly what you’ve got so the rest of us can see (what you THINK you know). Could you possibly be referring to this??? 👇 Chapter III provides for the creation of federal courts, including the High Court of Australia, which is the final court of appeal. The High Court can interpret the law and settle disputes about the Constitution. If so then that absolutely and totally supports my earlier post which you so kindly highlighted: Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government. I’ve noticed you’ve gone all silent Issue Voter. Oh well never mind. I guess I ought to thank you for helping me to illustrate and prove the obscure and therefore hazardous ramifications of such a Constitutional change. Cheers

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:23pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments. you were the idiot who said women were banned for sexist reasons, not me  :D :D

Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning?

Do you care whether the voice is racist?

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:22pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:27am: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with? The part were all the detail will be after the vote and not before. Sir, I have the shirt that you need! What colour is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! What material is it made of? I'll tell you after you buy it! What size is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! Is it short sleeved or long? I'll tell you after you buy it! How much will it cost? Would you buy the shirt? It'd be unAustralian not to, the shirt seller is a local business. good way to avoid the answer choo choo ::)

Pretty sure you're either blind or suck at understanding the written word but I did answer, there was no avoidance.

Setanta wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:22pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:27am: Setanta wrote on Jun 23rd, 2023 at 8:00pm: If you do not have the detail of what will happen with Constitutional change or even if you are unsure, it's your duty to vote no. The constitution is far too important to our democracy to just change on feel goods or emotional blackmail. Unless everything is laid on the table, no we'll decide that after it passes, my vote will be no. you have been told how it will happen. What part are you struggling with? The part were all the detail will be after the vote and not before. Sir, I have the shirt that you need! What colour is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! What material is it made of? I'll tell you after you buy it! What size is it? I'll tell you after you buy it! Is it short sleeved or long? I'll tell you after you buy it! How much will it cost? Would you buy the shirt? It'd be unAustralian not to, the shirt seller is a local business. good way to avoid the answer choo choo ::) Pretty sure you're either blind or suck at understanding the written word but I did answer, there was no avoidance.

sure there was. Unless you want to argue that you want the size of your shirt included in the referendum  :D :D

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:23pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments. you were the idiot who said women were banned for sexist reasons, not me  :D :D Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning? Do you care whether the voice is racist?

Do you think it's racist to apply one set of rules to white people and another to aborigines FD?

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:34pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:23pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:35am: Quote: and water is purple John also thinks it is not sexist to ban women from Mt Warning and Ayers Rock. and the men that are banned FD? Are they banned because they are feminine too? God you talk some crap John you appear to be under the delusion that only women can be victims of sexism. I can't think of any other explanation for your strange comments. you were the idiot who said women were banned for sexist reasons, not me  :D :D Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning? Do you care whether the voice is racist? Do you think it's racist to apply one set of rules to white people and another to aborigines FD?

Yes John. Do you?

Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning?

Do you care whether the voice is racist?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:45pm:

Yes John. Do you?

Really? So if this was the aborigines land before white man ever came, as was shown in the mabo decision, why do you not support their right to own their own land? Or to be compensated for that land they have lost?

you lie FD, you lie, and most of the time you're to stupid to even realise what you are saying.

Probably the reasoning being that the indigenous people did indeed lose their lands by the 1920s. And by the 1940s, the United Nations had declared that those people born in their respective countries are now citizens of their land. The Mabo decision has no bearing on people who already were born here since the 1940s.

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:48pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:45pm: Yes John. Do you? Really? So if this was the aborigines land before white man ever came, as was shown in the mabo decision, why do you not support their right to own their own land? Or to be compensated for that land they have lost? you lie FD, you lie, and most of the time you're to stupid to even realise what you are saying.

Aborigines have the same right as every other Australian citizen to own land. Regardless of race.

Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning?

Do you care whether the voice is racist?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 1:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:48pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:45pm: Yes John. Do you? Really? So if this was the aborigines land before white man ever came, as was shown in the mabo decision, why do you not support their right to own their own land? Or to be compensated for that land they have lost? you lie FD, you lie, and most of the time you're to stupid to even realise what you are saying. Aborigines have the same right as every other Australian citizen to own land. Regardless of race. Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning? Do you care whether the voice is racist?

They only have the right after it was stolen from them. What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 1:02pm:

Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning?

why don't you care about the men that are banned fd? are you sexist?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:04pm: This: Quote: Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament. ...is just garbage.  Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is. It has no veto power, and never will have veto power.  How many times must you be told that? Ok so let me get this straight : You Aussie, a retired taxi cab driver will personally guarantee RIGHT NOW that the Voice and those behind its machinations will never have Veto power OR even function like it has Veto power on any level at any time? You feel you can firmly make that guarantee....yes? Also...why are you struggling to address the other even more serious issues raised in my posts?

I can provide you with a zillion links just like this one, including one to the comments of a former High Court Judge.  However, you can Google just as well as I can.  Stop with the bullshit.  It takes your credibility nowhere.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:14pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:04pm: This: Quote: Essentially...the Voice has the potential to radically reshape Australia’s representative constitutional democracy. The Voice could operate like a third chamber of parliament and wield a veto power over the day-to-day functions of government and parliament. ...is just garbage.  Hysterical conservative bullshit scaremongering lies is what that is. It has no veto power, and never will have veto power.  How many times must you be told that? Ok so let me get this straight : You Aussie, a retired taxi cab driver will personally guarantee RIGHT NOW that the Voice and those behind its machinations will never have Veto power OR even function like it has Veto power on any level at any time? You feel you can firmly make that guarantee....yes? Also...why are you struggling to address the other even more serious issues raised in my posts? Aussie???? These serious issues 👇 Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:31am: Paragraph 3 of what? Show us exactly what you’ve got so the rest of us can see (what you THINK you know). Could you possibly be referring to this??? 👇 Chapter III provides for the creation of federal courts, including the High Court of Australia, which is the final court of appeal. The High Court can interpret the law and settle disputes about the Constitution. If so then that absolutely and totally supports my earlier post which you so kindly highlighted: Also there is the RISK that a future High Court could place an interpretation on the Voice which goes even beyond the current expectations of the Government. I’ve noticed you’ve gone all silent Issue Voter. Oh well never mind. I guess I ought to thank you for helping me to illustrate and prove the obscure and therefore hazardous ramifications of such a Constitutional change. Cheers

Fuq me, there are some stupid comments about this.  There is nothing in the Constitution which is beyond a risk that it will go to the High Court and be given an interpretation.  You say it as though, in some Eureka moment, you have just invented the wheel.  It is trite, banal, 101 crap.  Christ, even the Ruskies can go to the High Court and challenge legislation turfing them off some ACT land.

That is what the High Court is there for.

However, as to what it might find....there is NO WAY it will be able to go beyond the comments made during the second reading of the Act just passed.  That is what it MUST have regard to and is bound by.  That reading made very very clear just how extremely limited this Voice can be.  It is...for the last fuqqing time......tokenism.

FFS!

So....come on all you scaredy cats, while I'm in the mood....tell me what you are so afraid off.  Spit it out, but expect spit coming back.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 12:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:01pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:06am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 11:00am: Gnads wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:13am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself. An ex-lawyer who thinks alterations to the constitution based on race is a good idea? ::) Why is that? .... virtue signaling to some one? I'm still a Lawyer, and yes, I think providing this recognition to the those we dispossessed is a good idea.  What are you afraid of?  Tell me. Do you think it is racist Aussie? I don't give a flying fuq if it is....all I am endorsing is Constitutional recognition in a tokenistic manner of the fact that we dispossessed the people who will get that recognition. Apart from it being (if it is) racist Effendi, what is your problem with that tokenism? Thanks Aussie. This is interesting. The only person I know of willing to admit that they will be voting yes is also the only person who is willing to admit they do not care if it is racist.

If that's the case, you are leading a cocooned and a sheltered life Effendi.  Talking to fish as you free dive, or morons who want to clamber high rocks is not gonna be helpful, ya know.  Fish know SFA........maybe it IS the company you keep, eh?

Have you yet discovered what noise that salt water thing makes?

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 1:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 1:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:48pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 12:45pm: Yes John. Do you? Really? So if this was the aborigines land before white man ever came, as was shown in the mabo decision, why do you not support their right to own their own land? Or to be compensated for that land they have lost? you lie FD, you lie, and most of the time you're to stupid to even realise what you are saying. Aborigines have the same right as every other Australian citizen to own land. Regardless of race. Do you think it is sexist to ban women from Ayers Rock and Mt Warning? Do you care whether the voice is racist? They only have the right after it was stolen from them. What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd?

If your ancestors did it generations ago, I would not try to hold you accountable, on the basis of your racial identity. That is not the same thing as saying it is OK. That is saying we should not repeat it.


Quote:

If that's the case, you are leading a cocooned and a sheltered life Effendi.  Talking to fish as you free dive, or morons who want to clamber high rocks is not gonna be helpful, ya know.  Fish know SFA........maybe it IS the company you keep, eh?

I am surrounded by people who like to pretend they support it, but are afraid to actually take a stand.

How do they do that, Effendi?

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 3:19pm:

How do they do that, Effendi?

Ask John and Buzz. I think it involves surgical removal of the spine.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 3:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 3:19pm: How do they do that, Effendi? Ask John and Buzz. I think it involves surgical removal of the spine.

Two internet people....have you surrounded you?????

How about in real life.  Do you associate with normal life forms who have a view on this matter?  How have you informed yourself, Effendi?

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 3:29pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 3:21pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 3:19pm: How do they do that, Effendi? Ask John and Buzz. I think it involves surgical removal of the spine. Two internet people....have you surrounded you????? How about in real life.  Do you associate with normal life forms who have a view on this matter?  How have you informed yourself, Effendi?

They are not literally surrounding me Aussie.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 3:16pm:

If your ancestors did it generations ago, I would not try to hold you accountable, on the basis of your racial identity. That is not the same thing as saying it is OK. That is saying we should not repeat it.

Yet you support house ownership - for those who can afford to buy a house - when housing is a basic right in the modern world, a 'right' which  fewer and fewer can afford to "own"....

Oh...the joys of 'individual sovereignty'.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/can-t-keep-up-regions-grapple-with-homelessness-rise/ar-AA1cVsBE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ENTPSP&cvid=b789884f73de4dd79db4d4965164f303&ei=62

Quote:

when housing is a basic right

;D

You also think the CCP has a basic right to starve 50 million of it's own citizens to death.

Quote:

If your ancestors did it generations ago, I would not try to hold you accountable, on the basis of your racial identity. That is not the same thing as saying it is OK. That is saying we should not repeat it.

How gracious of you to be so forgiving with someone else's land.  :D :D
We're not talking about a person,  we're talking about a govt. And the government of Australia is culpable for its actions no matter how many generations go by. It was that same government that for many of those bygone generations refused to even recognise aborigines or their actions, let alone allow their rules to apply to the aborginals . It's time to pay , suck it up like a big boy and stop crying about it.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 3:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 3:19pm: How do they do that, Effendi? Ask John and Buzz. I think it involves surgical removal of the spine.

You'd have to have one before I could remove it for you

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 5:29pm:

Quote: when housing is a basic right ;D You also think the CCP has a basic right to starve 50 million of it's own citizens to death.

Pure irrational/delusional/fraudulent FD in full flight....

As a matter of fact I think everyone has a basic right to 'the common welfare' including housing.

Unlike your gruesome 'survival of the fittest' individual sovereignty ideology.

Frank wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:55am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 21st, 2023 at 9:29pm: If I follow ANYONES lead, it will be the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf As debate about the Voice continues, this pervasive myth about 'secret documents' continues to surface https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/fact-check-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-secret-documents-niaa/102485040 You mean the Uluru Statement from Africa.

Quote:

If you gave me a list of 20 regular Ozpolitics posters - I'd have no trouble in isolating the 'NO' voters. They'd be the ones with past form as Aboriginal bashers. The right-wing deplorables. The Dutton, Abbott and Hanson brand of hate mongers.

.

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 5:40pm:

We're not talking about a person,  we're talking about a govt.

Is that why you left out the rest of the quotes?


John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 1:15pm:

What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd?

So, not ONE of you frightened pussy cats have the balls to tell me what your problem is.

Telling.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 6:11pm:

So, not ONE of you frightened pussy cats have the balls to tell me what your problem is. Telling.

With the voice to parliament? Time to clean out the wax from your ears Aussie. We oppose it because it is racist, pointless, and dangerous.

We already know you don't care whether it is racist, and you seem to see the pointless bit as a positive. I would even go so far as to say it is your raison d'etre.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 6:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 6:11pm: So, not ONE of you frightened pussy cats have the balls to tell me what your problem is. Telling. With the voice to parliament? Time to clean out the wax from your ears Aussie. We oppose it because it is racist, pointless, and dangerous. We already know you don't care whether it is racist, and you seem to see the pointless bit as a positive. I would even go so far as to say it is your raison d'etre.

Let's get passed the racist and the pointless as being irrelevant.

Tell me all about the 'danger,' in graphic detail.  I want to hear exactly why you are cowering under your bed like a pussy scared of the Voice boogieman.  Do you think you'll be speared?

.

---

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:40pm: We're not talking about a person,  we're talking about a govt. Is that why you left out the rest of the quotes? John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 1:15pm: What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd?

Yes fd, I know what I said.  At some point you have to tie it back up to the discussion at hand. We weren't really discussing your house , you know that right? :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 8:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:40pm: We're not talking about a person,  we're talking about a govt. Is that why you left out the rest of the quotes? John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 1:15pm: What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd? Yes fd, I know what I said.  At some point you have to tie it back up to the discussion at hand. We weren't really discussing your house , you know that right? :D

We are discussing people. At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. Someone, who is a real living person, has to make a claim that based on shared racial identity, they can claim victimhood on behalf of long dead people, and use that to take something from a group with another racial identity, or receive special treatment based on their racial identify.

You are a racist John, no matter how you try to spin it.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 8:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 8:16pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:40pm: We're not talking about a person,  we're talking about a govt. Is that why you left out the rest of the quotes? John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 1:15pm: What if i stole your house then said you had a right to buy it back? Would that be ok fd? Yes fd, I know what I said.  At some point you have to tie it back up to the discussion at hand. We weren't really discussing your house , you know that right? :D We are discussing people. At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. Someone, who is a real living person, has to make a claim that based on shared racial identity, they can claim victimhood on behalf of long dead people, and use that to take something from a group with another racial identity, or receive special treatment based on their racial identify. You are a racist John, no matter how you try to spin it.

No fd, we were discussing your racism. You want one rule for white man, you want it enforced on aborigines,  but then you cry when the aborigines try to use white man's laws to their benefit.

You are the very epitome of a racist

Quote:

You want one rule for white man, you want it enforced on aborigines

So one rule for white man, but it applies equally to everyone?

;D

You are getting desperate John.


Quote:

but then you cry when the aborigines try to use white man's laws to their benefit

White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism.

You are a flake Effendi.  A scaredy cat flake.  Pissing yourself hiding under your own bed, paranoid, sobbing hysterically about a nothing....a tokenism.  You are scared the nasty awful terrifying black man might actually have something over you and take something from you.  A 'danger' you said.

You are trying to cloak your neurotic girlie man position with some claim about......boo hoo...racism.  Far cough.


Quote:

We are discussing people. At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. Someone, who is a real living person, has to make a claim that based on shared racial identity, they can claim victimhood on behalf of long dead people, and use that to take something from a group with another racial identity, or receive special treatment based on their racial identify.

(a)  What is being taken from you, Effendi?  Your balls?  Maybe you lost them to a fish a long time ago.  What noise did a eunuch make when they took his manhood Effendi?

(b)  'Special treatment.'  Well, I would not term it that way but I don't care if that is what you want to nail it down to.  Is that it?  You are bitching, cowering, shivering, shaking in your boots because the boong is getting 'special treatment?'

Rubbish.

You are yet to explain in the detail I asked what the 'danger' is Effendi.

Is that because you can't?

Do you want a cuddle?  Is that it?  Want to be reassured by Mummy that the big bad black boogieman is just a nothing in the night, and if you turn on the light, he goes away?

Aussie you already said you don't care whether it is racist. So why are you still prattling on about whether it is racist?


Quote:

try to use white man's laws to their benefit

It is everyone's law John. If you were not so blinded by your racism you would see that.

Quote:

White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism.

Fuq me!

Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation.

Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia?

Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance.

Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail.

Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about.

Quote:

a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence

Can you name one occupied land on earth that was not taken from a race?


Quote:

Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.

I already told you Aussie. Have you forgotten already? It is racist, pointless, and dangerous. It is the pointlessness of this debate that you find so attractive isn't it Aussie? You don't care whether the voice is racist, you can't remember the discussion you had two posts back, but you think aborigines are unique in their ability to claim some kind of historical victimhood based on their racial identity.

Do you actually think that Aborigines have some kind of racial purity that makes them more deserving of special racist treatment, or are you only making that argument because you were attracted to how pointless it is?

Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous."

I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless.  What I want to know is WHY you are telling me that it is 'dangerous.'

Come on, Effendi, Mummy is here. 

Come out from under that bed, put teddy down, toss the dummy, stop whimpering and sobbing about something you might lose, and tell Mummy what the 'dangerous' bit is in great detail so Mummy can scare the bad white man equivalent of the kurdaitcha boogie man away.

Details, Effendi. 

Tell Mummy about the 'danger' you are so terrified about.  Is it so awful, you cannot even put it into simple words so Mummy understands and can tend your fevered brow?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 8:49pm:

Aussie you already said you don't care whether it is racist. So why are you still prattling on about whether it is racist? Quote: try to use white man's laws to their benefit It is everyone's law John. If you were not so blinded by your racism you would see that.

It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation . Don't cry now if they use it to their advantage

The Voice is lost

The Yes vote is now in a minority all over and in 4 states - QLD, NSW, SA and WA have voted it down by the polls.

It must be a double win - a majority win in a majority of states

This thing is a dead duck

Nobody like Lefties and their crap


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmx8L6A1PhM

Quote:

It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation

It is everyone's law John, and everyone has an equal vote on it. Historical injustice is a feeble excuse for your racism.

Quote:

Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous." I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless.

Yes you do Aussie. It's the pointlessness that makes you want to support it. It's what you stand for.

Quote:

White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back

Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:28pm:

Quote: It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation It is everyone's law John, and everyone has an equal vote on it. Historical injustice is a feeble excuse for your racism.

It is now.  And you cry every time they use it to their advantage.  Not that you're racist  ehh fd.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:29pm:

Quote: Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous." I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless. Yes you do Aussie. It's the pointlessness that makes you want to support it. It's what you stand for.

Tell me about the dangerous bit, Effendi...or I'll claim victory again.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 8:55pm:

Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism. Fuq me! Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation. Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia? Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance. Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail. Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about.

Oh No, Aussie has gone Trans!
No mummy, don't be angry, don't hurt me, I'll be a good boy, you can touch me, I won't tell.

Setanta wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 8:55pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism. Fuq me! Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation. Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia? Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance. Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail. Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about. Oh No, Aussie has gone Trans! No mummy, don't be angry, don't hurt me, I'll be a good boy, you can touch me, I won't tell.

Aussie a trannie?

What does Alex Jones think about trannies in schools?

https://t.me/gchristensen/1603

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:32pm:

Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '.

What 'compensation' was ever paid to the losers?  They should be paying rent on all the good things they use so freely.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:42pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 8:55pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism. Fuq me! Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation. Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia? Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance. Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail. Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about. Oh No, Aussie has gone Trans! No mummy, don't be angry, don't hurt me, I'll be a good boy, you can touch me, I won't tell. Aussie a trannie? What does Alex Jones think about trannies in schools? https://t.me/gchristensen/1603

You can call him Mummy.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:42pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 8:55pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism. Fuq me! Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation. Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia? Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance. Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail. Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about. Oh No, Aussie has gone Trans! No mummy, don't be angry, don't hurt me, I'll be a good boy, you can touch me, I won't tell. Aussie a trannie? What does Alex Jones think about trannies in schools? https://t.me/gchristensen/1603

Aussie's gone tranny on us?  Jeez - who'd 've thumk that in a million years!

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '. What 'compensation' was ever paid to the losers?  They should be paying rent on all the good things they use so freely.

Actually throughout history it's the losers that pay compensation for losing a war... A couple off the top, Germany WW1, Punic wars.

Setanta wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:42pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 8:55pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back who were mistreated. Everyone has that in their history. White people are expected to move on. So should everyone else. Otherwise all you get is endless racism. Fuq me! Effendi....why don't you get the simple point that this is Australia, a land taken from a 'race' 60,000 plus years in existence.  They were dispossessed, raped, pillaged and slaughtered as is usual in any colonisation. Shall we just forget all that and rabbit on about what some WHITE man lost in Australia? Whatever the fuq that might have been, it pales into laughable insignificance. Tell us, Effendi...what is the 'danger' you are fearing if the boong gets this token Voice.  Spit it out, in detail. Tell Mummy what you are so terrified about. Oh No, Aussie has gone Trans! No mummy, don't be angry, don't hurt me, I'll be a good boy, you can touch me, I won't tell. Aussie a trannie? What does Alex Jones think about trannies in schools? https://t.me/gchristensen/1603 You can call him Mummy.

No thanks.    :-[

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '. What 'compensation' was ever paid to the losers?  They should be paying rent on all the good things they use so freely.

Jews had their arses kicked and they're still getting compensation from Germany. 

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 2:31pm:

So....come on all you scaredy cats, while I'm in the mood....tell me what you are so afraid off.  Spit it out, but expect spit coming back.

This "what are you afraid of" tack, employed about the Voice, trannies, gays etc, is a piss weak idiotic ruse by the likes of you, Arssie.

The Voice is stupid, racist and a deliberate lie: it will change nothing, like ATSIC and the land councils and Aboriginal ministries have changed nothing.
It would be as corrupt as ATSIC and the existing tribal, clannish bodies. It is a stupid lie that Aborigines could or would have a Voice, as if they were like North Korea or Cuba.
No. They are hundreds of tribes and clans, most of them with additional cultural, racial, tribal admixtures. 

The constitution is too important to sacrifice it to some corrupt, racist body. So never mind the "afraid" bollocks, Arsie, tell us what is the good of it.

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 10:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '. What 'compensation' was ever paid to the losers?  They should be paying rent on all the good things they use so freely. Jews had their arses kicked and they're still getting compensation from Germany.

That's because the Germans lost.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:03am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 5:37am: Has anyone at all stated anywhere on this forum that they will be voting yes? I wonder if Buzz intended his thread title to be ironic. I have and I will be.  I am not afraid of the boogeyman.  You suppressors can have it all to yourself.

Well, of course in a democracy that's your prerogative,
and I don't have any problems with your YES vote.

One of my concerns is that were a YES vote to succeed,
them we're effectively introducing inviolable wording
into our Constitution based solely on race.

It would forever divide us constitutionally into two
Australian races—one a group of people of common
ancestry, and another, an aggregated group of people
of disparate ancestries.  Or, if you like, a "them and
us" mindset, or an indigenous group and a non-
indigenous group.       Whatever... it's divisive.

Even the current debate FFS about the Voice has proved
to be divisive, and inflammatory and accusatory.

—What's that augur for the actual Voice in the unlikely
   event it becomes part of our Constitution?

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:29pm: Quote: Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous." I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless. Yes you do Aussie. It's the pointlessness that makes you want to support it. It's what you stand for. Tell me about the dangerous bit, Effendi...or I'll claim victory again.

That would be making pointless changes to the constitution.

Racist - check
Pointless - check
Dangerous - check
Aussie tick of approval - check


John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:32pm:

Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '.

How much compensation did the Irish get?


John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:28pm: Quote: It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation It is everyone's law John, and everyone has an equal vote on it. Historical injustice is a feeble excuse for your racism. It is now.  And you cry every time they use it to their advantage.  Not that you're racist  ehh fd.

It has always been a feeble excuse for your racism John. The law should not be used for one particular racial group's advantage. Because it is racist.

Respectful

---

John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 10:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: Quote: White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '. What 'compensation' was ever paid to the losers?  They should be paying rent on all the good things they use so freely. Jews had their arses kicked and they're still getting compensation from Germany.

This is yet again ANOTHER example why uneducated clueless nongs like Five Foot Five Frodo who never finished primary school should never be given access to the internet. Nutters like Frodo only exist to troll, abuse, spread lies and deceive whilst bludging off the taxpayer. That’s it. That sums up their pathetic existence.

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 10:35pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 2:31pm: So....come on all you scaredy cats, while I'm in the mood....tell me what you are so afraid off.  Spit it out, but expect spit coming back. This "what are you afraid of" tack, employed about the Voice, trannies, gays etc, is a piss weak idiotic ruse by the likes of you, Arssie. The Voice is stupid, racist and a deliberate lie: it will change nothing, like ATSIC and the land councils and Aboriginal ministries have changed nothing. It would be as corrupt as ATSIC and the existing tribal, clannish bodies. It is a stupid lie that Aborigines could or would have a Voice, as if they were like North Korea or Cuba. No. They are hundreds of tribes and clans, most of them with additional cultural, racial, tribal admixtures.  The constitution is too important to sacrifice it to some corrupt, racist body. So never mind the "afraid" bollocks, Arsie, tell us what is the good of it.

It is good that we provide recognition to those people we totally dispossessed, violently.

Tell me how it will change the taste of your breakfast in the morning.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 3:07am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:29pm: Quote: Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous." I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless. Yes you do Aussie. It's the pointlessness that makes you want to support it. It's what you stand for. Tell me about the dangerous bit, Effendi...or I'll claim victory again. That would be making pointless changes to the constitution. Racist - check Pointless - check Dangerous - check Aussie tick of approval - check John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: [quote]White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '.

How much compensation did the Irish get?


John Smith wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 9:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:28pm: Quote: It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation It is everyone's law John, and everyone has an equal vote on it. Historical injustice is a feeble excuse for your racism. It is now.  And you cry every time they use it to their advantage.  Not that you're racist  ehh fd.

It has always been a feeble excuse for your racism John. The law should not be used for one particular racial group's advantage. Because it is racist.[/quote]

You are still to tell us in great detail (or any in fact) how it is dangerous.

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 8:40am:

Frank wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 10:35pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 2:31pm: So....come on all you scaredy cats, while I'm in the mood....tell me what you are so afraid off.  Spit it out, but expect spit coming back. This "what are you afraid of" tack, employed about the Voice, trannies, gays etc, is a piss weak idiotic ruse by the likes of you, Arssie. The Voice is stupid, racist and a deliberate lie: it will change nothing, like ATSIC and the land councils and Aboriginal ministries have changed nothing. It would be as corrupt as ATSIC and the existing tribal, clannish bodies. It is a stupid lie that Aborigines could or would have a Voice, as if they were like North Korea or Cuba. No. They are hundreds of tribes and clans, most of them with additional cultural, racial, tribal admixtures.  The constitution is too important to sacrifice it to some corrupt, racist body. So never mind the "afraid" bollocks, Arsie, tell us what is the good of it. It is good that we provide recognition to those people we totally dispossessed, violently. Tell me how it will change the taste of your breakfast in the morning.

They are FAR MORE recognised than ANY other group. The list is practically endless.


Structures and organisations
Australian Government - National Indigenous representative bodies - National Congress - Land Councils -  Other
organisations


http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/Present_2_Structures.html

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 8:41am:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 3:07am: Aussie wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:29pm: Quote: Yiss yiss, yiss, Effendi....you have said "It is racist, pointless, and dangerous." I don't give a flying fuq if it is racist, or pointless. Yes you do Aussie. It's the pointlessness that makes you want to support it. It's what you stand for. Tell me about the dangerous bit, Effendi...or I'll claim victory again. That would be making pointless changes to the constitution. Racist - check Pointless - check Dangerous - check Aussie tick of approval - check John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:32pm: [quote]White people don't get special treatment based on their race just because they can point to other white people from generations back Who are you kidding? The only difference is that white man doesn't usually have to wait for generations for their 'compensation '. How much compensation did the Irish get? John Smith wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:33pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 9:28pm: [quote]It wasn't their law fd. It was forced upon them without even their consultation It is everyone's law John, and everyone has an equal vote on it. Historical injustice is a feeble excuse for your racism. It is now.  And you cry every time they use it to their advantage.  Not that you're racist  ehh fd.

It has always been a feeble excuse for your racism John. The law should not be used for one particular racial group's advantage. Because it is racist.[/quote]

You are still to tell us in great detail (or any in fact) how it is dangerous.
[/quote]

You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk.

I couldn't quite figure out from your previous posts.  Were you promoting the pointlessness of the referendum as an excuse for supporting it, or do you actually see it as an advantage?

Aussie! I’ve just finished reading back! Dear God WTF is wrong with you? Give it a rest with your meaningless mutterings masquerading as sincerity!

You’ve spent the better part of the freaking weekend ONLINE asking the same questions WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED ffs!

IF I continue to detect the same strain of next level dementia in you which Dumbarse Drunk incessantly exemplifies in ALL his online mutterings OR any symptom mimicking the drug fried syndrome Five Foot Five Frodo is afflicted with .... I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD you will dread the day YOU PMed me to invite me to join up/post over at PA.

This SERIOUS discussion is off limits to your pitiful agenda of attempting to import old tit for tat sessions with both Freediver and Setanta and don’t you dare sit there pretending that this isn’t just that!

And one other thing ... you’re sitting there trying to outsmart Freediver and/or Setanta and right now it’s your incessant brutal obstinate pride which prevents you from admitting that both Freediver AND Setanta individually AND collectively run rings around you!

Now .... the issues wrt to voting YES have been outlined. Several times. Now your sore arse WAS pwned. LET IT GO! You have lost this round! You won’t though. Instead you’re fast becoming the annoying Donald Trump of OzPol who just can’t let it go and just accept losing!


Edit : Apologies to all others but it’s like I’ve walked into some bizarre online Romper Room type topic ☹️😐

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 9:05am:

Aussie! I’ve just finished reading back! Dear God WTF is wrong with you? Give it a rest with your meaningless mutterings masquerading as sincerity! You’ve spent the better part of the freaking weekend ONLINE asking the same questions WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED ffs! IF I continue to detect the same strain of next level dementia in you which Dumbarse Drunk incessantly exemplifies in ALL his online mutterings OR any symptom mimicking the drug fried syndrome Five Foot Five Frodo is afflicted with .... I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD you will dread the day YOU PMed me to invite me to join up/post over at PA. This SERIOUS discussion is off limits to your pitiful agenda of attempting to import old tit for tat sessions with both Freediver and Setanta and don’t you dare sit there pretending that this isn’t just that! And one other thing ... you’re sitting there trying to outsmart Freediver and/or Setanta and right now it’s your incessant brutal obstinate pride which prevents you from admitting that both Freediver AND Setanta individually AND collectively run rings around you! Now .... the issues wrt to voting YES have been outlined. Several times. Now your sore arse WAS pwned. LET IT GO! You have lost this round! You won’t though. Instead you’re fast becoming the annoying Donald Trump of OzPol who just can’t let it go and just accept losing! Edit : Apologies to all others but it’s like I’ve walked into some bizarre online Romper Room type topic ☹️😐

Really?

Garbage.

Quote:

You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk.

You have been told the full story.  The Voice is merely advisory and has no power whatsoever.


Quote:

I couldn't quite figure out from your previous posts.  Were you promoting the pointlessness of the referendum as an excuse for supporting it, or do you actually see it as an advantage?

Its point is that it provides a token recognition etc.

Still, no details on this bullshit about danger.  Problem explaining your crap, Effendi?

Quote:

Its point is that it provides a token recognition etc.

So is the fact that it is merely a "token" an excuse for why you support it, or do you actually see that as a positive?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2023 at 6:28pm:

We oppose it because it is racist, pointless, and dangerous.

Yet your survival of the fittest classical Liberal "natural individual "rights" " delusion is infinitely more destructive in human affairs. Only law can define 'Rights".

You of course bang on about what Mao did in China 60 years ago, in a desperate attempt to avoid looking at what is happening in our own communities today, eg with a disgraceful increase in homelessness, in favour of the interests of private landlords.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 12:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 6:28pm: We oppose it because it is racist, pointless, and dangerous. Yet your survival of the fittest classical Liberal "natural individual "rights" " delusion is infinitely more destructive in human affairs. Only law can define 'Rights". You of course bang on about what Mao did in China 60 years ago, in a desperate attempt to avoid looking at what is happening in our own communities today, eg with a disgraceful increase in homelessness, in favour of the interests of private landlords.

The CCP starved to death roughly double Australia's current population. By then the folly of communism was already well understood, so they can't really blame ignorance.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 12:15pm:

Quote: Its point is that it provides a token recognition etc. So is the fact that it is merely a "token" an excuse for why you support it, or do you actually see that as a positive?

Yes Effendi, I see that as a positive.  So do the boongs who proposed it.

Will you ever tell us about the danger?

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 12:19pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 12:18pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2023 at 6:28pm: We oppose it because it is racist, pointless, and dangerous. Yet your survival of the fittest classical Liberal "natural individual "rights" " delusion is infinitely more destructive in human affairs. Only law can define 'Rights". You of course bang on about what Mao did in China 60 years ago, in a desperate attempt to avoid looking at what is happening in our own communities today, eg with a disgraceful increase in homelessness, in favour of the interests of private landlords. The CCP starved to death roughly double Australia's current population. By then the folly of communism was already well understood, so they can't really blame ignorance.

...proving the blind "individual rights" ideologue cannot debate logically.

Today we are NOT talking about Stalinist communism which Mao might have been following;  in today's free market China  Xi is the only leader in the world  who has reaffirmed the  necessity to achieve  "common prosperity".

While the wealthiest "free market" economy in the world is disgracing itself with the tents of the homeless in city streets.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiVnpSuvt3_AhW8S2wGHVcvAW4Qqa4BegQIEBAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2023%2F02%2F01%2Fmassive-stuyvesant-town-homeless-camp-cleared-next-to-rosemarys-restaurant%2F&usg=AOvVaw2HcyZQrNh36sdawRmXBtGn&opi=89978449

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 12:15pm: Quote: Its point is that it provides a token recognition etc. So is the fact that it is merely a "token" an excuse for why you support it, or do you actually see that as a positive? Yes Effendi, I see that as a positive.  So do the boongs who proposed it. Will you ever tell us about the danger?

I already did Aussie. Not sure why you couldn't see it.

Do you think it is silly to promote the pointlessness of a constitutional amendment as an advantage?


Quote:

Today we are NOT talking about Stalinist communism

We talk about it regularly. I find your efforts to defend the CCP's killing of 50 million people with their lies and incompetence rather alarming.

You call this one line exact details of this alleged non-existent danger?


Quote:

You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk.

I am not promoting pointlessness.  I am debunking the bullshit you and your mates like Jones, Boris and Frank are trying to scare people with.

It is tokenism, a nod, a gesture, a hand shake well over due.

But, you go cower under the bed and tremble with fear of the big bad black boogieman, Effendi.  You seem most comfortable there.

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 1:50pm:

You call this one line exact details of this alleged non-existent danger? Quote: You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk. I am not promoting pointlessness.  I am debunking the bullshit you and your mates like Jones, Boris and Frank are trying to scare people with. It is tokenism, a nod, a gesture, a hand shake well over due. But, you go cower under the bed and tremble with fear of the big bad black boogieman, Effendi.  You seem most comfortable there.

The Constitution is NOT a place for tokens, nods and gestures.



The arguments for Yes are like the argument for wheelchairs for fat, lazy-yet-arrogant blobs:
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1671491811196702721

Aboriginal lives  blighted by Aboriginal drunkenness, Aboriginal violence, Aboriginal child neglect, Aboriginal delinquency, Aboriginal obesity and I'll hug health due to bad Aborigibal diet and life choices will improve only when Abirigines change and improve their own lives. Nobody else can make them. A Voice certainly couldn't.

60,000 years of indigenous presence in Australia. In all that time, they have not built an advanced society, made a mass transportation system, cities, extensive medical knowledge, a means of storing food, structures, advanced musical compositions, etc.

Meanwhile, the Britons, with 12,000 years of human civilisation, have done all those advancements and more -- much of it in the last 300 years.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:

60,000 years of indigenous presence in Australia. In all that time, they have not built an advanced society, made a mass transportation system, cities, extensive medical knowledge, a means of storing food, structures, advanced musical compositions, etc. Meanwhile, the Britons, with 12,000 years of human civilisation, have done all those advancements and more -- much of it in the last 300 years.

FMD........they met the demands of their environment to the extent they chose or needed.

WTF do you expect the penguins in Antarctica to behave like the apes in Africa?

You would expect that indigenous Australians could have made something out of the continent, instead of living a Stone Age existence.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 4:14pm:

You would expect that indigenous Australians could have made something out of the continent, instead of living a Stone Age existence.

That's the problem.  "We" have been imposing OUR expectations on those we dispossessed violently.

Did it not occur to you that they were perfectly content with their way of living and had no need to seek change?

I might as well toss you into a Court Room and have an expectation that you will know the Law as I do.

That makes as much sense as your point.

That the frickin' thing. They were content to live a Stone Age existence. It would have taken an Ice Age for them to develop new technology to survive. And the last one Australia had ended before the first indigenous Australians arrived on the continent.

Quote:

"We" have been imposing OUR expectations on those we dispossessed violently.

It's called democracy Aussie. They have an equal say in it. Let us know when you come up with a better alternative.


Quote:

FMD........they met the demands of their environment to the extent they chose or needed.

Are you saying they chose to live the way they did rather than how societies overseas lived?

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 1:50pm:

You call this one line exact details of this alleged non-existent danger? Quote: You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk. I am not promoting pointlessness.  I am debunking the bullshit you and your mates like Jones, Boris and Frank are trying to scare people with. It is tokenism, a nod, a gesture, a hand shake well over due. But, you go cower under the bed and tremble with fear of the big bad black boogieman, Effendi.  You seem most comfortable there.

Perhaps you should say what it is you are trying to debunk.

Can you explain the difference between a token change to our constitution and a pointless change?

Democracy fd? You imposed your expectations on them long before they ever got a say in things

There is no risk,  that's why fd is struggling to explain the risks. He's hoping most are stupid enough to fall for his emotional scare campaign  :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:13pm:

Democracy fd? You imposed your expectations on them long before they ever got a say in things

How old do you think I am John?

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 5:13pm: Democracy fd? You imposed your expectations on them long before they ever got a say in things How old do you think I am John?

Ohh look, fd is trying to distract from his lack of a coherent and logical argument again.   :D :D

The you was plural dumbarse, as in all you bigots,  no on was talking about you specifically.

John Smith wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 5:14pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 5:13pm: Democracy fd? You imposed your expectations on them long before they ever got a say in things How old do you think I am John? Ohh look, fd is trying to distract from his lack of a coherent and logical argument again.   :D :D The you was plural dumbarse, as in all you bigots,  no on was talking about you specifically.

Are you suggesting we should stop expecting aborigines to not be racist, sexist douchebags, because people in the past had expectations of them?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 4:29pm:

That the frickin' thing. They were content to live a Stone Age existence. It would have taken an Ice Age for them to develop new technology to survive. And the last one Australia had ended before the first indigenous Australians arrived on the continent.

So what?  They felt no need so why do you reckon you have the right to impose your culture on them?

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:07pm:

Quote: "We" have been imposing OUR expectations on those we dispossessed violently. [quote]It's called democracy Aussie. They have an equal say in it. Let us know when you come up with a better alternative.

They do now, but they did not while we systematically destroyed them after dispossessing them


Quote:

FMD........they met the demands of their environment to the extent they chose or needed.

Quote:

Are you saying they chose to live the way they did rather than how societies overseas lived?

Yiss, yiss, yiss...Effendi. No doubt about you.  It only takes a few hours for you to understand simple words sometimes.

You asked Mr Smith how old he reckons you are.  Ima thinking mid 40s and maybe still sleeping with a teddy and dummy.

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:25pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 4:29pm: That the frickin' thing. They were content to live a Stone Age existence. It would have taken an Ice Age for them to develop new technology to survive. And the last one Australia had ended before the first indigenous Australians arrived on the continent. So what?  They felt no need so why do you reckon you have the right to impose your culture on them?

I am not imposing MY culture onto them. They are trying to impose THEIR culture on me. The only difference is that if every Australian started adopting indigenous Australian culture, you could imagine that a decade from now, our Asian neighbours might start thinking that the Stone Age Australians might need some modernisation and some liberation of the natural resources we still have at our disposal.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 1:50pm: You call this one line exact details of this alleged non-existent danger? Quote: You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk. I am not promoting pointlessness.  I am debunking the bullshit you and your mates like Jones, Boris and Frank are trying to scare people with. It is tokenism, a nod, a gesture, a hand shake well over due. But, you go cower under the bed and tremble with fear of the big bad black boogieman, Effendi.  You seem most comfortable there. Perhaps you should say what it is you are trying to debunk. Can you explain the difference between a token change to our constitution and a pointless change?

Sure, on the one hand, it is respectfully responding to a request, and on the other, it is pointless to 'us' but not to the boongs because it provides them with a Constitutional recognition.

Giving me a free ticket to jump out of an aeroplane with a parachute is pointless but there is still yet the token gift/giving, and that is not pointless.

Are you incapable of giving a token, a gesture, a handshake to the race our "democracy" fuqqed up, Effendi?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 5:25pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 4:29pm: That the frickin' thing. They were content to live a Stone Age existence. It would have taken an Ice Age for them to develop new technology to survive. And the last one Australia had ended before the first indigenous Australians arrived on the continent. So what?  They felt no need so why do you reckon you have the right to impose your culture on them? I am not imposing MY culture onto them. They are trying to impose THEIR culture on me. The only difference is that if every Australian started adopting indigenous Australian culture, you could imagine that a decade from now, our Asian neighbours might start thinking that the Stone Age Australians might need some modernisation and some liberation of the natural resources we still have at our disposal.

Rubbish.  They can impose ZERO......nada....nothing.......but they can have a say which the Government/Parliament/Executive are totally at liberty to ignore if they want to.

Simple as that.

Do you believe me?

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 5:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 5:09pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 25th, 2023 at 1:50pm: You call this one line exact details of this alleged non-existent danger? Quote: You won't have details until afterwards Aussie. That's the nature of risk. I am not promoting pointlessness.  I am debunking the bullshit you and your mates like Jones, Boris and Frank are trying to scare people with. It is tokenism, a nod, a gesture, a hand shake well over due. But, you go cower under the bed and tremble with fear of the big bad black boogieman, Effendi.  You seem most comfortable there. Perhaps you should say what it is you are trying to debunk. Can you explain the difference between a token change to our constitution and a pointless change? Sure, on the one hand, it is respectfully responding to a request, and on the other, it is pointless to 'us' but not to the boongs because it provides them with a Constitutional recognition. Giving me a free ticket to jump out of an aeroplane with a parachute is pointless but there is still yet the token gift/giving, and that is not pointless. Are you incapable of giving a token, a gesture, a handshake to the race our "democracy" fuqqed up, Effendi?

"It's the thought that counts" is hardly a compelling argument for altering the constitution.