Cop yer whack fer this!  Maybe we need  a Lamenting The Voice Day or something..... one more day off ... with pay ... that'll get your ulcers going first thing.....

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/warren-mundine-fires-up-on-the-voice-referendum-one-year-on/ar-AA1scTvj?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=2254065ceda14af083aa1d28124e6e04&ei=11#comments

Give us your thoughts on this argument......

https://i.imgflip.com/96ms6l.jpg

I thought the same as Blair Cottrell.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ChuDnICOdgI9

It is amusing how people get so obsessed with some topics.

Guess it happens to all of us to some extent. To most the voice was always a nothing burger.

To me it was a reasonably good idea that the government stuffed up in its planned implementation.

It failed because people who would normally have been supporters voted against it because the planned implementation was a joke.

The blank cheque thing of saying just vote for it and we will tell you what it actually is later. They shot it down themselves when many "yes" voters had to vote "no".

"It is amusing how people get so obsessed with some topics."

Indeed - you'd have thought the YES group would have given up obsessing about how to get around the will of the people and plotting day and night to get what they want.  I did say that Albo was as cunning as a rat - getting up there like a dedicated preacher and talking tough about The Voice while actually undermining it.  Also say that Albo is a cunning statesman in that he has put the Aboriginal questions to the fore and the people are now demanding results instead of more baby-food meals for them.

Here's some food for thought - though with some here it would require a whale if fish is brain food:-

https://itsoktobewhite.quora.com/Why-do-white-people-get-so-bent-out-of-shape-when-black-people-try-to-educate-them-about-racial-issues-they-face

Haven't had a single thought about the voice in the last 12 months, haven't heard anything about it either with the exception of the no voice crowing and whining at the same time.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2024 at 10:47pm:

I thought the same as Blair Cottrell. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ChuDnICOdgI9

QUOTE -

Such as when is it gunna be enough?
how much money do these people need?
how much blood do these people need?
how much sacrifice on our behalf is gunna be enough for them
for them to finally feel like they're satisfied? -
and the answer is it will never be enough
it's never gunna be enough -
if you support this Voice referendum thing -
that's not gunna be enough -
there's gunna be something after that
and then there's gunna be something after that -
as Joel explained they're gunna be pushing
and pushing and pushing as much as possible
so you have to say no from the beginning - yeah -
you have to say no to everything these people ask for
and everything they demand -
they have no right to demand anything.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 6:44am:

Haven't had a single thought about the voice in the last 12 months, haven't heard anything about it either with the exception of the no voice crowing and whining at the same time.

The NO voters had the right to 'crow' - the Yes crowd were jumping up and down long before the failure and then wept bitter tears over the loss of such a silly idea as Australian Apartheid.

Price of liberty = eternal vigilance.  Voice was followed upon failure by the Voice By Stealth, one bit at a time, pushed by Albocorp using the states as their stalking horses....

The answer is still NO - and you saw here from the very beginning after the collapse of the voice, that the YES whiner and cryers started personally attacking the NO posters for drawing attention to this treachery by government against its people.  The moment I mentioned Voice By Stealth from the State, one of them went at me like a rabid dog!!

Principles, Jim - we deal here not with principalities of men and of women - but with principalities of good and evil.  Do you say it is good for a government to deliberately over-ride the will of its people by using a run-around?  Just because Howard got away with it over gun laws when that issue was defeated at the voting box, doesn't mean the people's view and rights are fair game.. just because Carr got away with it by abusing 'domestic violence laws' to steal legally owned firearms from the community ... doesn't make it right.

Howard AND Carr etc were/are much more than whiny little rat weasels - they are the epitome of the Neo-Fascist In Reality that pervades modern politics in Australia, the kind of stone fish Heinrich Himmler type - superficially innocuous but devastating in their abuse of power unearned and not really inherent in their elected position.  There are many exactly like that here and now, men and women.

The YES mob are typical of all those who CHOOSE to adopt the most unpopular viewpoint and make it their own - their child-like adherence to 'teenage rebellion' for life in some cases - whether it be about the Failed Voice, or 'transgender ideology', or 'palestine' or anything else.... they essentially use air for brains.... as the children they are in reality they choose to support the unsupportable so as to give their miserable days a little verve and energy ....

And guess what.... all those ideologies are going down as we speak.... the rights of the people are paramount and must be obeyed by those paid to oversee their rights and their country and their and its overall prosperity.

Drain The Billabongs!!

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 14^th, 2024 at 10:43pm:

Cop yer whack fer this!  Maybe we need  a Lamenting The Voice Day or something..... one more day off ... with pay ... that'll get your ulcers going first thing..... https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/warren-mundine-fires-up-on-the-voice-referendum-one-year-on/ar-AA1scTvj?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=2254065ceda14af083aa1d28124e6e04&ei=11#comments Give us your thoughts on this argument...... https://i.imgflip.com/96ms6l.jpg

Mr. Synott just waffling the same old mantra - "misinformation & lies" - with a typical half smart smirk on his face when he's called on it.

He couldn't actually give one example of the misinformation or the lies.

That's because the actual Yes campaign for the Voice was full of "no" real information and lies.

Lies like "it's only a one page document". Meanwhile 30 odd pages later. ::)

That Aboriginal people have "no real Voice" to govt.....

yet there are hundreds if not thousands of Aboriginal bodies/associations & Land Councils that represent Aboriginal issues to govt.

With a peak body - the NIAA National Indigenous Australians Agency with Aboriginal CEO Jody Broun and a Minister for Indigenous Australians  Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy.

How many more do they need?

The Voice was divisive by race and all about power and reparations.

And every state Labor Govt has continued down the Truth,Treaty & Reparations path regardless of the resounding defeat of the referendum. Voice by stealth.

In QLD there are now 15 towns/cities with "Freehold Native Title" claims over them - a move which is actually contrary to the intent of the Mabo decision.


Quote:

Fifteen Queensland towns where Aboriginal corporations want state land to be handed over to them as freehold property have been revealed after the Miles Government initially refused to provide the list. The towns have been named after uproar over the proposed transfer of state land to First Nations corporations on K’gari (Fraser Island) and at Toobeah near Goondiwindi. Natural Resources Minister Scott Stewart has belatedly disclosed the towns involved following a question from former One Nation MP Steve Andrew in state parliament earlier this year. The 15 towns range from Mt Isa and Maryborough through to the tiny Cloncurry Shire township of Duchess which has just 53 people. The government initially refused to name the towns, citing the “privacy” of Aboriginal groups which have lodged expressions of interest to have the land transferred to them as “inalienable freehold”.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/fifteen-queensland-towns-where-aboriginal-groups-have-applied-for-freehold-land-transfers-revealed/news-story/1463a0f5086f9573c63bf803b5196e58

We've been through quite a bit, haven’t we?

It’s almost laughable that after nearly a year, some of the most vehement anti-Voice crusaders are still shedding tears over it, even after it was defeated, the very outcome they supposedly wanted. How tragic, to be so consumed by bitterness that even victory feels like a loss.

Time sure flies when you’re wallowing in hollow triumph, doesn’t it?

Editorial todays Courier Mail


Quote:

TRANSPARENCY IS A MUST ON NATIVE TITLE Why does it seem that governments never learn that secrecy does little more than encourage suspicion? It is a reality driven by the truth that when governments withhold information, people – reasonably –ask: “What are they up to?” The Miles government has for months now been doing all it can to keep Queenslanders in the dark about a raft of freehold land claims by Indigenous corporations and groups on state land in 15 large and small townships across the state. Its latest move is to inform us that it will not be releasing any further details about the expressions of interest from the various groups. The Courier-Mail had requested access to the documents under Right to Information laws. The fact that we had to use the RTI legal mechanism gives you an idea of how reluctant a government that proudly – but erroneously – bills itself as “open and transparent” has been to talk about the claims. Indeed, we only know the names of the townships – and that there are 15 of them – because of our persistent badgering and the answers to Questions on Notice that were asked by former One Nation MP Steve Andrew. And we really only know about the claims themselves because local communities heard about them. The transfers, made under the Aboriginal Land Act, have already caused uproar in communities, including Eurong and Happy Valley on K’gari (Fraser Island) and Toobeah new Goondiwindi. We thought our readers should know more. So we submitted our application for more information. The Department of Resources twice requested extensions of time. Finally, it told us that even though a total of 163 relevant documents had been uncovered, we would not be allowed to view any of them. The reason? We were advised that land transfer applications may contain culturally sensitive material about a person’s or a group’s connection to the land and that they could also name dead people, “which, if released, would breach the privacy of the deceased (and) may offend Aboriginal people in accordance with culture or custom”. The department’s RTI officer who wrote to us further noted that land transfer applications might also cause conflict among Indigenous people if they were made by individuals or groups who were viewed as having no connection to the land. We respect and understand the need for cultural sensitivity. And we recognise that these various land transfers are, on the face of it, quite within the law – made under the Aboriginal Land Act or Torres Strait Islander Land Act. But the government must also surely realise that this is a sensitive topic – and that one of the reasons these proposed land transfers are so upsetting for locals is the secrecy and absence of a clear explanation about what is going on. Private freehold property is unaffected, which means existing landholders should having nothing to fear. However, the government’s secrecy and lack of consultation have done nothing but create a fertile breeding ground for speculation about such questions as who will have access to newly transferred land and ongoing care and maintenance, as well as the impact on rates revenue. We are now just 11 days away from the state election and the government is in caretaker mode, which means – rightly – that no big decisions can be made until after the voters of Queensland make their own big decision. But high on the list for the new administration after the election must surely be a revisiting of the whole process of land rights claims – to address not only Indigenous cultural issues, but also the concerns of local communities. These are sensitive issues, but they are also important. A good start would be for a fair bit more openness and a fair bit less secrecy.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 9:39am:

We've been through quite a bit, haven’t we? It’s almost laughable that after nearly a year, some of the most vehement anti-Voice crusaders are still shedding tears over it, even after it was defeated, the very outcome they supposedly wanted. How tragic, to be so consumed by bitterness that even victory feels like a loss. Time sure flies when you’re wallowing in hollow triumph, doesn’t it?

You just don't seem to follow do you Sacka?

It wasn't a hollow triumph - why would you say the most soundly defeated referendum in our Constitutional history was a hollow triumph?

- unless you know that the pro-Yes lobby is having a win behind the scenes with state Labor Govts implementing their own Voice, Treaty, Truth & reparations agenda by stealth?

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 9:48am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 9:39am: We've been through quite a bit, haven’t we? It’s almost laughable that after nearly a year, some of the most vehement anti-Voice crusaders are still shedding tears over it, even after it was defeated, the very outcome they supposedly wanted. How tragic, to be so consumed by bitterness that even victory feels like a loss. Time sure flies when you’re wallowing in hollow triumph, doesn’t it? You just don't seem to follow do you Sacka? It wasn't a hollow triumph - why would you say the most soundly defeated referendum in our Constitutional history was a hollow triumph? - unless you know that the pro-Yes lobby is having a win behind the scenes with state Labor Govts implementing their own Voice, Treaty, Truth & reparations agenda by stealth?

It's the bleach they claim to be throwing in their own eyes to blind themselves to the truth - but their agenda is clear... just keep attacking and try to cover up the Voice By Stealth.  This is a deliberate ploy... a smoke screen to try to discourage open and clear thinking about what is going on behind the people's backs.

The YES whingers are the ones keeping it going... look at the endless 'news' stories about their weeping and wailing a year later.  This will become an annual event - another great day of mourning.

You're fooling nobody, Skanka.  Are they paying you for this?  Must be, with the time you spend on it.

Tick tock - it will all be over soon when the next round of elections come through...

Now then - what about our Mt Warning and Ayers Rock?  And a few other places... time for the Re-Opening Ceremonies!

Note that these are not 'Native Title' claims for shared use - these are blatant freehold claims - demands for developed and developable land without payment and to be passed over as fully titled ownership outright.

This is what happens when 'mission creep' is allowed through the door with even the initial granting of limited 'native title' - it just keeps changing little by little until every claim is suddenly for freehold.  And this is not just for a town block to build a home on, something nobody else is even considered for - it is for vast swathes of land - that one day will be the cause of Civil War.

Not One Person In Queensland Voted On This!!  It's all been done behind the people's backs by faceless bureaucrats changing the meaning of things like 'title' etc ... 'ownership'.... nobody else can just grab a chunk of prime land freehold without payment.... this is Australia 2024 - not the old days of Aboriginal Imperialism by the Spear...

You must put a stop to this form of government Fascism NOW - get rid of all the Gauleiters and Kommissars installed under the Old Jobs For The Mates  Club rules of appointed senior public service management (warned yez about that years ago - now the fruit is rotting on the tree - look at the farcical 'governor-general' - never did a thing worth anything in life but know some of the scum who handed her the fat job and cash for life)!  The best course for the next government is to quash all these instantly, sack those responsible without payment, and get back to the reality of governing for all.

One Law For All - All Laws For One - Or No Law At All!!

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 9:48am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 9:39am: We've been through quite a bit, haven’t we? It’s almost laughable that after nearly a year, some of the most vehement anti-Voice crusaders are still shedding tears over it, even after it was defeated, the very outcome they supposedly wanted. How tragic, to be so consumed by bitterness that even victory feels like a loss. Time sure flies when you’re wallowing in hollow triumph, doesn’t it? You just don't seem to follow do you Sacka? It wasn't a hollow triumph - why would you say the most soundly defeated referendum in our Constitutional history was a hollow triumph? - unless you know that the pro-Yes lobby is having a win behind the scenes with state Labor Govts implementing their own Voice, Treaty, Truth & reparations agenda by stealth?

Even if those things are happening, they are not "The Voice."

Just because you, and many like you, have decided to redefine what "The Voice" was, primarily so you can argue that anything benefiting Indigenous people after the referendum is undemocratic, doesn’t change its actual meaning, no matter how many times you repeat the lie. We’ve been over this again and again.

You choose to ignore the truth because it doesn’t align with your agenda.

The Voice was just one part of the Uluru Statement. If any of the other components that we didn’t vote on are being considered, that’s not “The Voice by stealth.”

That is the implementation of the other elements of the Uluru Statement.

These are separate issues.

At this point, I’m certain you’re not so ignorant as to misunderstand the difference. And that makes it worse, because it means you're deliberately lying after knowing better.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 2:44pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 9:48am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 9:39am: We've been through quite a bit, haven’t we? It’s almost laughable that after nearly a year, some of the most vehement anti-Voice crusaders are still shedding tears over it, even after it was defeated, the very outcome they supposedly wanted. How tragic, to be so consumed by bitterness that even victory feels like a loss. Time sure flies when you’re wallowing in hollow triumph, doesn’t it? You just don't seem to follow do you Sacka? It wasn't a hollow triumph - why would you say the most soundly defeated referendum in our Constitutional history was a hollow triumph? - unless you know that the pro-Yes lobby is having a win behind the scenes with state Labor Govts implementing their own Voice, Treaty, Truth & reparations agenda by stealth? Even if those things are happening, they are not "The Voice." Just because you, and many like you, have decided to redefine what "The Voice" was, primarily so you can argue that anything benefiting Indigenous people after the referendum is undemocratic, doesn’t change its actual meaning, no matter how many times you repeat the lie. We’ve been over this again and again. You choose to ignore the truth because it doesn’t align with your agenda. The Voice was just one part of the Uluru Statement. If any of the other components that we didn’t vote on are being considered, that’s not “The Voice by stealth.” That is the implementation of the other elements of the Uluru Statement. These are separate issues. At this point, I’m certain you’re not so ignorant as to misunderstand the difference. And that makes it worse, because it means you're deliberately lying after knowing better.

Stop right there ... you don't know what the Voice was .... those pushing didn't know exactly.

And the Uluru statement was & is all about (their) Truth, Treaty and Reparations.

And that's what is going on in every Labor State by stealth.

That you choose not to see it is your problem.

The mad rush on "Inalienable Freehold Native Title" claims that are being rushed through on the quiet by the QLD Labor Govt is proof that the whole exercise is about power and money(reparations/pay the rent).

Aboriginal bodies and people get enough already. $35 plus billion every year.

Gnads wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 6:19pm:

Stop right there ... you don't know what the Voice was .... those pushing didn't know exactly. And the Uluru statement was & is all about (their) Truth, Treaty and Reparations. And that's what is going on in every Labor State by stealth.

Ok, let me stop you there.

Labor's plan was to implement the comprehensive reforms outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which consists of several parts.

Voice: This was the first step - calling for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The idea was to give Indigenous peoples a direct role in advising the government on laws and policies that affect their communities.

Treaty (Makarrata Commission): The second step envisioned by the Uluru Statement is the establishment of a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of treaty-making between Indigenous peoples and the Australian government. The term Makarrata refers to a Yolngu word meaning "coming together after a struggle" and symbolises reconciliation and the settling of disputes. The goal of the treaty would be to formalise the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, acknowledging sovereignty and rights, while setting out obligations and future directions.

Truth-telling: The third element called for a national process of truth-telling about the history and treatment of Indigenous Australians, including the dispossession, violence, and marginalisation experienced since European colonisation. Truth-telling is seen as critical for national healing, promoting understanding, and fostering reconciliation.

The referendum addressed solely the issue of the Voice, as a vote was required due to the constitutional amendment it proposed. The other two elements of the Uluru Statement, treaty and truth-telling, were not part of the referendum and remain separate from the constitutional question.

Therefore, if any government continues to pursue those additional aspects, it cannot be characterised as being done "by stealth." These intentions were openly communicated from the outset. The rejection of constitutional change for the Voice has no bearing whatsoever on the pursuit of the remaining reforms.


Quote:

That you choose not to see it is your problem.

The real issue here is the disingenuous attempt by you, and others like you, to conflate every element of the Uluru Statement with "The Voice." Worse still, some go as far as labelling any effort to assist or even mention Indigenous Australians as "The Voice." This deliberate misrepresentation is precisely the problem.

Especially when some concede,


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jul 11^th, 2024 at 11:35pm:

The Voice is now the generic term for the coup attempt to install Aboriginal Supremacism.... everything evolves..... and everything is lumped under one title for convenience...

You are free to oppose measures that support Indigenous Australians, but what you cannot do is cloak that opposition under the false pretext that it’s all about "The Voice" or that it's somehow undemocratic because the No vote prevailed. That’s nothing more than cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, both on your part and among those who share your position.


Quote:

The mad rush on "Inalienable Freehold Native Title" claims that are being rushed through on the quiet by the QLD Labor Govt is proof that the whole exercise is about power and money(reparations/pay the rent). Aboriginal bodies and people get enough already. $35 plus billion every year.

Alright, let me pose a question to you, or to anyone bold enough to answer. Let's settle this once and for all.

If Albanese had never put the Voice referendum to the people, if we had never held the vote, would you now be supporting the very policies you’re complaining about as "The Voice by stealth"?

Would your objections vanish, or are you just using the referendum result as a convenient shield for your broader resistance to any genuine progress on Indigenous issues?

That's right - and since those all comprised part of the Uluru Statement which was the entire basis of the voice idea, all of those issues were voted on.

We understand politician chicanery, and how they speak with a forked tongue....  Australia voted on the entire set of issues included in the statement - not only on the voice proposal.  To say otherwise is to lie.

What consent of the people has been asked and give to the massive changes being forced through by Labor governments?  NONE!

You can choose to believe what you want - you have no right to continue to try to force your view on others after the people voted NO.

Let's go at it your way, just for fun:-

The first step was voted down.

There is no second step.

A government cannot make treaty with its own citizens.

If any government was honest about "Inalienable Freehold Native Title" claims" - it would put that concept to a vote of all the people, since it is clearly handing over a separate and unequal privilege that nobody else gets a look at = apartheid, and does not accord with the law of the land that requires purchase of property.

Two sets of laws for property acquisition = breach of common law for all equally and trouble for everyone and no solution at all.

If these are separate issues, and impact on rights of all equally - then they must be put to a vote of the people, not just pushed through over the people.

No politician or public servant since Hitler has had the right to simply impose on the people in this way.

The answer is NO!

Put it to a vote of the people before you steal their rights.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2024 at 10:47pm:

I thought the same as Blair Cottrell. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ChuDnICOdgI9

QUOTE -

Such as when is it gunna be enough?
how much money do these people need?
how much blood do these people need?
how much sacrifice on our behalf is gunna be enough for them
for them to finally feel like they're satisfied? -
and the answer is it will never be enough
it's never gunna be enough -
if you support this Voice referendum thing -
that's not gunna be enough -
there's gunna be something after that
and then there's gunna be something after that -
as Joel explained they're gunna be pushing
and pushing and pushing as much as possible
so you have to say no from the beginning - yeah -
you have to say no to everything these people ask for
and everything they demand -
they have no right to demand anything.

Easy then - equal dealing under the law requires that all have the right of 'Inalienable Freehold Title' to any piece of land their ancestors walked over.  anything else is apartheid - two sets of laws for two separate but equal groups.

Don't know how the Recent Imports are going to handle that though... and since the people had no say in this, it is clear tyranny and a direct assault on our unwritten constitution that demands equal treatment under law, and must therefore be treated as such and the culprits hanged.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 9:56pm:

That's right - and since those all comprised part of the Uluru Statement which was the entire basis of the voice idea, all of those issues were voted on.

That may be true in your distorted reality, but it's unequivocally and demonstrably false.

We voted on,


Quote:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

We did not vote on the other elements of the Uluru Statement during the referendum.


Quote:

We understand politician chicanery, and how they speak with a forked tongue....  Australia voted on the entire set of issues included in the statement - not only on the voice proposal.  To say otherwise is to lie.

I'm all too familiar with your 'la-la land' delusions surrounding your so-called 'Absoic park' or whatever fantasy you've concocted, along with the absurdity of your hand-drawn maps. Sometimes you just let crazy be crazy, but this, this is a step too far.

You're wilfully rejecting documented, verifiable reality in favour of fabricating something that aligns better with your own prejudices. The other aspects of the Uluru Statement didn't require constitutional amendment, and thus were never part of the referendum question.

We didn't vote on them during the referendum, we did that in the 2020 Election.


Quote:

What consent of the people has been asked and give to the massive changes being forced through by Labor governments?  NONE!

Labor made a clear election promise to advance the Uluru Statement, with the first element being a referendum to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the Constitution.

The Voice may have failed, but that was merely one component of the broader Uluru Statement. To fulfil their election pledge, they are obligated to pursue the remaining elements.

We elected them in 2020 with this as part of their platform. They may not have your consent, but they have a mandate from the people to honour that commitment.

That’s how democracy works.


Quote:

You can choose to believe what you want - you have no right to continue to try to force your view on others after the people voted NO.

Belief is irrelevant, facts remain facts. No one is forcing a constitutionally recognised Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It's not happening. You can cry all you want, but whether it's a year on from the vote, or ten, it still won’t happen, not without another vote.


Quote:

Let's go at it your way, just for fun:- The first step was voted down. There is no second step.

The first element was rejected. The rest can, and absolutely should, proceed.

This isn’t "The Voice by stealth", it’s Labor upholding an election promise.

Your willingness to be brainwashed by the usual suspects, treating every Indigenous issue as "The Voice," doesn’t rewrite reality.

And we know that's exactly what you're doing:


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jul 11^th, 2024 at 11:35pm:

The Voice is now the generic term for the coup attempt to install Aboriginal Supremacism.... everything evolves..... and everything is lumped under one title for convenience...

It just confirms you're a dishonest, gullible fool clinging to simplistic narratives instead of engaging with facts.

Something all too common with people like you.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 9:17pm:

If Albanese had never put the Voice referendum to the people, if we had never held the vote, would you now be supporting the very policies you’re complaining about as "The Voice by stealth"?

It seems you're too much of a coward to confront this question as well.

I do enjoy seeing crappler cry so much despite his getting his way and the voice losing


My only regret is that I don't get to see the extent of his tears if the voice was won. Just imagine how grand it could have been :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 8:57am:

I do enjoy seeing crappler cry so much despite his getting his way and the voice losing My only regret is that I don't get to see the extent of his tears if the voice was won. Just imagine how grand it could have been :D :D

I can't imagine it being much worse than now...  He's been complaining like he lost this whole time.

Which in a way, he did.

The Voice only mattered to him because it was a cover to spew his racist rhetoric under the guise of legitimate debate.

That ended the moment the vote was defeated.

Or at least, it should have ended there. Instead, he persists in extending his veneer of legitimacy by labelling any and all news related to Indigenous Australians as "the voice by stealth."

He has orchestrated multiple threads, alleging instances of "Lawfare" aimed at implementing this so-called "voice by stealth," all in a calculated effort to maintain the guise of engaging in "legitimate debate."

In reality, it is nothing more than a strategy to perpetuate his hateful rhetoric while attempting to evade accountability.

That's all that's been happening and why he hates me so much, because I won't allow it to go unchallenged.

He knows I’m right, and he’s fully aware that no one truly believes his fabrications. The chorus of individuals feigning agreement does so only because they seek the same protective cover he craves. To them, he’s nothing more than a useful idiot, serving their interests while deluding himself into thinking he has their genuine support.

If you examine just a few of the issues he’s been lamenting over, you’re forced to ask: what relevance do the following have to Lawfare or this so-called "Voice by stealth"?

• Increased tourism to Uluru
  
• The coroner concluding that an Indigenous death in custody was avoidable
  
• Recouping unspent funds budgeted for Indigenous legal defence
  
• The possibility of improved housing for Indigenous Australians, especially women and children fleeing violence

The answer is, nothing.

In reality, it's simply this,


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jul 11^th, 2024 at 11:35pm:

The Voice is now the generic term for the coup attempt to install Aboriginal Supremacism.... everything evolves..... and everything is lumped under one title for convenience...

To perpetuate the discussion by falsely attributing these examples to the idea of subverting democracy by going against the will of the people, he's trying to paint himself as the victim while at the same time hide under that banner of "legitimate debate" to continue to spew his racist rhetoric.

Ultimately, that is the essence of these tears.

"Waaaaaa I can't be racist anymore without being held to account for it, waaaaa!"

https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o7btO8WLQFyw2q0Qo/200w.gif

He wails even louder when you point out that this very foundation of his arguments renders any good-faith debate with him utterly impossible. His pathetic attempt to label this accurate assessment of his behaviour as "abusive" is laughable.

Oh, poor didums! He’s such a victim, isn’t he? We should all shower him with the sympathy and attention he desperately craves, ignoring the need for any critical examination of his claims and letting trivial matters like facts fall by the wayside.

Boohoo.

Now that, Poppets, is what is called 'a rant' and 'a rave' ... an informed public is the least likely to be betrayed by its politicians.... who can never be trusted.

Don't cry so much Skanka and Smith - the clock is ticking - the people will let you know come election time.... where's poor mothra?  Where's poor old Aussie defeated over Cambra and Brittany?

Carried off the field on stetchers?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 12:15pm:

Now that, Poppets, is what is called 'a rant' and 'a rave' ... an informed public is the least likely to be betrayed by its politicians.... who can never be trusted. Don't cry so much Skanka and Smith - the clock is ticking - the people will let you know come election time.... where's poor mothra?  Where's poor old Aussie defeated over Cambra and Brittany? Carried off the field on stetchers?

If you care so much about an informed public, why do you consistently lie about The Voice, Lawfare, the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

Should I start responding to you with the same dismissive contempt you show me whenever I attempt a good-faith discussion,where I actually present facts and back them up with real evidence? Why is it that the truth seems utterly poisonous to you?

And who are these poppets? Do you think you have an audience like Sir Baz?

Oh, you poor thing.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 12:15pm: Now that, Poppets, is what is called 'a rant' and 'a rave' ... an informed public is the least likely to be betrayed by its politicians.... who can never be trusted. Don't cry so much Skanka and Smith - the clock is ticking - the people will let you know come election time.... where's poor mothra?  Where's poor old Aussie defeated over Cambra and Brittany? Carried off the field on stetchers? If you care so much about an informed public, why do you consistently lie about The Voice, Lawfare, the Uluru Statement from the Heart? Should I start responding to you with the same dismissive contempt you show me whenever I attempt a good-faith discussion,where I actually present facts and back them up with real evidence? Why is it that the truth seems utterly poisonous to you? And who are these poppets? Do you think you have an audience like Sir Baz? Oh, you poor thing.

There is no lie ... it was all about power, (their)truth, treaty and reparations.

Wholly and solely. The actions of the state Labor Govts are proof of that.

Like them you don't seem to grasp - that NO means NO.

No special privileges or divisive deals done with minorities, including Aboriginals.

You guilt ridden self loathing lefty arseholes can go and get stuffed.

You're not progressive - you're regressive.

.

**corrects again**


ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 12:15pm: Now that, Poppets, is what is called 'a rant' and 'a rave' ... an informed public is the least likely to be betrayed by its politicians.... who can never be trusted. Don't cry so much Skanka and Smith - the clock is ticking - the people will let you know come election time.... where's poor mothra?  Where's poor old Aussie defeated over Cambra and Brittany? Carried off the field on stetchers?

Not so oddly - your vernacular sounds familiar.......   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Gnads wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 4:52pm:

There is no lie ... it was all about power, (their)truth, treaty and reparations. Wholly and solely. The actions of the state Labor Govts are proof of that. Like them you don't seem to grasp - that NO means NO. No special privileges or divisive deals done with minorities, including Aboriginals. You guilt ridden self loathing lefty arseholes can go and get stuffed. You're not progressive - you're regressive.

There is the truth. They are actually Fascists no matter what they claim to be their allegiance... 'left' or 'right'.  Fascist is as Fascist does!

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 4:58pm:

**corrects again** ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 4:21pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 12:15pm: Now that, Poppets, is what is called 'a rant' and 'a rave' ... an informed public is the least likely to be betrayed by its politicians.... who can never be trusted. Don't cry so much Skanka and Smith - the clock is ticking - the people will let you know come election time.... where's poor mothra?  Where's poor old Aussie defeated over Cambra and Brittany? Carried off the field on stetchers? Not so oddly - your vernacular sounds familiar.......   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Now you're just running scared.

What is it about the truth that has you fleeing every time I bring up real arguments? You can't handle the reality staring you in the face, and it shows.

Your pathetic weakness is on full display for everyone to witness.

Gnads wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 4:52pm:

There is no lie ... it was all about power, (their)truth, treaty and reparations. Wholly and solely. The actions of the state Labor Govts are proof of that. Like them you don't seem to grasp - that NO means NO.

We voted NO on a constitutional change to enshrine an Indigenous advisory body to parliament, "The Voice."

That’s it. One single element from the Uluru Statement required a referendum and a double majority to pass. It didn’t, so there will be no Voice. Simple as that.

We did not vote NO on the entirety of the Uluru Statement or any future Indigenous policies. The Voice was one part, and that’s all.

YOU might have voted against everything else in your own head, but that wasn’t what was on the table.

Claiming we voted NO to everything else is as absurd as saying we rejected pineapple on pizzas at the referendum. Stop inventing nonsense. The question was crystal clear:


Quote:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

What part of this don’t you get?

This is where you—and people like you—are outright lying about the situation, either out of sheer stupidity, wilful ignorance, or malicious intent.

It's been explained to you and your crowd countless times, so the fact that you persist with this false narrative is no accident. It’s a deliberate and deceitful choice.

Labor's platform was crystal clear when they ran for office. They made their intentions around Indigenous Australians known, and the people voted them in. If you didn’t bother to read it or couldn’t comprehend it, that’s your failure, not some secret conspiracy.

Everything that's happening aligns 100% with what they campaigned on. There’s no stealth agenda here, just your inability to face facts.

Here are a few examples straight from their election platform:


Quote:

And we cannot look to the future without coming to terms with our past. That must start by listening to the generosity of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and acting – including through a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution. We will work with Australia's First Nations people to achieve recognition, justice and a strong voice in our national affairs – because it's well past time to complete the historic task of reconciliation. Labor is committed to reconciliation, truth-telling, the empowerment of First Nations people and to self-determination. These principles will guide and underpin Labor policies and programs. Labor supports all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for agreement making and a national process of truth telling. Labor acknowledges First Nations people are the traditional custodians of the land. Today they are major landowners in Northern Australia making them key partners for Northern development. Labor will work with them to address systemic disadvantage, ensure quality education, housing and basic services, and provide training and skills so that First Nations workers so they can gain employment as skilled workers and to develop Indigenous cultural enterprises. Labor will expand trades and traineeship opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Australia’s Indigenous cultures are the oldest continuous cultures on earth. Labor is committed to effective protection of First Nations cultural heritage. Support programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to work on and manage country that support jobs, particularly through considering expanding long-term funding of and recognition for the highly successful Indigenous Ranger and Indigenous Protected Area programs; Labor supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and supports efforts to increase indigenous participation in UN forums. Include provisions that have the effect of restricting the Commonwealth’s procurement arrangements from any form of preference for the purpose of: iv. Implementing measures for the health, welfare and economic and social advancement of Indigenous people; Ensure Australian uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation is based on world best practice standards, extensive continuing research on environmental impacts and the health and safety of employees and affected communities, particularly Indigenous communities; Foster a constructive relationship between mining companies and Indigenous communities affected by uranium mining; and Prohibit the mining of uranium within national parks under International Union for Conservation of Nature protected area category 1A, category 1B, and category 2, and listed world heritage areas. Full platform is available here.

You, Grap, and anyone else whining about this are not victims.

This is democracy in action, plain and simple.

All the information was out there for anyone willing to be informed on election day. If people chose to ignore it, that’s their problem.

The electorate was informed, and they cast their votes accordingly. That’s democracy.

If you can’t handle the outcome, take the advice of many like yourself when defending Abbott, Turnbull, Abbott and Morrison, and just leave.

Simple.

The only thing deliberate and deceitful is State Labor Govts thinking they have a right or tyhe authority to go down the treaty path ... the treaty path is all about reparations.

They are also party to "freehold" native title claims without releasing any details ... so they must have something to hide because these land handovers are all about money.

When Aboriginals are in receipt of bordering on $36 billion a year from taxpayers for education, health, welfare and employment programs specifically for them only then you should answer the question as to when is enough enough?

The details of the one bit of the Uluru statement being what the referendum was all about is BS.

It's all connected.

There were & are already 100's and 100's of Aboriginal bodies that represent/advise on Aboriginal issues to Govt. NIAA ring any bells?

Adding another level of bureaucracy to our govt through the Constitution based on race was a stupid idea ... and no one has actually been able to pin point what actually it's capacity or power would have been - let alone who'd be on it.

All our current Politicians  - MPs and Senators are elected by all Australians ... including Aboriginals.

Why should they have had 2 chops at the cherry tree or are now able to have anything else implemented because of the Uluru statement?

Despite all your woke defense of what is happening with (their)Truth, Treaty & freehold land claims ..... it continues to be all about power & reparations.

I look forward to the time when there will be one Australian flag and "Welcome to country" is a thing of the past.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 9:20am:

I look forward to the time when there will be one Australian flag and "Welcome to country" is a thing of the past.

Hear, hear.

Apartheid IS a direct assault on any democracy of equals.

(That'll get their ulcers burning this morning.)

The two gentlemen below me have put it very nicely.

Footnote:-  I was frankly astounded to hear Uncle Calma (think it was) actually ask the burning question:-  "What special rights do Aborigines have?" - and the interviewer neatly side-steeped away from giving any answer.

The right to demand huge freehold swathes of land, something nobody else can do, and even have such nonsense received as 'reasonable'. 

The enormous number of representative groups that nobody else has.

The clearest examples of 'inside running' on any 'issue' they choose to raise, something nobody else has.

Mandatory consultation on any 'issue' they choose to raise, something nobody else has over the same issues.

A benevolent hearing in every avenue including media, government and all, over any 'issue' they wish to raise, something nobody else has over the same issues.  In fact, any opposing or differing view is met with a verbal violence which is frankly astounding to any reasoning person, and is startlingly reminiscent of the blatant abuse used by any despotic movement in history. (look at here for example).

The 'right' to demand a 'sovereignty' totally unexplained and totally unreasonable and unworkable in any democracy.

The right to demand and actually expect 'treaties' between themselves and the very nation of which they are part - or of which they choose to not be part, in which case their citizenship is revoked, along with all privileges of citizenship.

The right to dictate to elected and appointed government what they consider to be their entitlements, something nobody else has.

Amazing but all true.

Gnads wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 9:08am:

The details of the one bit of the Uluru statement being what the referendum was all about is BS.

You are categorically and demonstrably wrong. Your refusal to acknowledge this stems not from ignorance, but from sheer stubbornness, because the truth doesn’t align with your agenda.


Quote:

It's all connected.

It is connected in the sense that the Voice, like Treaty and Truth Telling, were elements of the Uluru Statement.


Quote:

There were & are already 100's and 100's of Aboriginal bodies that represent/advise on Aboriginal issues to Govt. NIAA ring any bells? Adding another level of bureaucracy to our govt through the Constitution based on race was a stupid idea ... and no one has actually been able to pin point what actually it's capacity or power would have been - let alone who'd be on it.

These factors may well have influenced why some within the majority "No" vote chose not to support the referendum question.


Quote:

All our current Politicians  - MPs and Senators are elected by all Australians ... including Aboriginals. Why should they have had 2 chops at the cherry tree or are now able to have anything else implemented because of the Uluru statement?

There will not be a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament; the electorate voted against it.

Similarly, the nation elected Labor in the last federal election, with a platform that explicitly included the following:


Quote:

“Labor supports all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for agreement-making, and a national process of truth-telling.”

YOU may personally disagree with this outcome, but that is the essence of democracy.

The facts don't care about your feelings.


Quote:

Despite all your woke defense of what is happening with (their)Truth, Treaty & freehold land claims ..... it continues to be all about power & reparations.

By all means, oppose Truth Telling and Reconciliation, but do so with integrity. Don't base your argument on the dishonest and blatantly misleading claim that the referendum was a vote against these principles, because it simply wasn’t. The question on the ballot did not even touch upon them, not remotely.

You, Grap, and those who share your views, must stop perpetuating this lie. If your opposition to Labor's mandate is so weak that you must fabricate its foundation,whether to cast yourselves as victims or pretend that democracy is being undermined,you've lost before the debate even begins.

Frankly, this is the most absurd example of so-called "stealth" I've ever encountered. Labor clearly stated: "We will pursue this if elected."

And yet, your response? "OMG THEY'RE DOING THINGS BY STEALTH!!!" It’s laughable.

I can't fathom why you and your ilk continue to distort reality. You won the referendum; there will be no Voice. Take the win.

Stop twisting its outcome into something it wasn’t, simply because the debate is over, and you’ve lost your avenue to mask bigotry in a veneer of political discourse.

That’s the only plausible reason you keep clinging to these lies about the Voice and the referendum.

Repeating these falsehoods will not make them true. It might bolster your delusions within Telegram echo chambers, but it holds no sway in the real world.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 9:37am:

Apartheid IS a direct assault on any democracy of equals. That'll get their ulcers burning this morning.

That’s yet another falsehood you’ve propagated.

The Voice, along with the other elements of the Uluru Statement, could not possibly give rise to a situation resembling apartheid,
unless, of course, you choose to redefine the term as you have with "lawfare" and "the Voice" to fit your agenda.

I wonder, if it’s not too taxing on your blood pressure, whether you could elucidate what you mean by apartheid?

Or am I once again attempting to engage in dialogue with someone incapable of substantive discourse?

So YOUR Apartheid is not an assault on any genuine democracy of equals?

NOTED!

Grappler:-
"Apartheid IS a direct assault on any democracy of equals."



Sad Kangaroo:-
"That’s yet another falsehood you’ve propagated.

The Voice, along with the other elements of the Uluru Statement, could not possibly give rise to a situation resembling apartheid,
unless, of course, you choose to redefine the term as you have with "lawfare" and "the Voice" .


Take the day off - you're definitely not in the running today...................... did-ums - of COURSE separate laws, regulations, rights, dealing in the courts/legal system, level of representation to governments, separate treaties from all others, etc, etc, etc... are "not Apartheid".  Feel better now?

Girlie - they are not even Segregation = separate but equal - they are Absolute Apartheid.

Too much wine last night?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 10:04am:

So YOUR Apartheid is not an assault on any genuine democracy of equals? NOTED!

For that to be true, you'd have to rewrite the very definition of Apartheid to shoehorn it into this situation and "The Voice."

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you've resorted to a textbook Grap manoeuvre, twisting terms to fit your narrative, much like you've done with "Lawfare" and "The Voice."

As they say, duly NOTED!

Many in the 'No' camp have pulled the same stunt, desperately grasping at an inflammatory concept to stoke outrage. It’s a predictable tactic when genuine arguments are lacking.

But the Voice to Parliament proposal was not an example of apartheid. The proposal aimed to establish an advisory body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to give them a formal voice in the legislative process.

This initiative was designed to ensure Indigenous Australians had a say in policies affecting them, addressing historical inequalities and marginalisation.

Apartheid refers to a system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination, as seen in South Africa between 1948 and 1994, where laws explicitly segregated racial groups and systematically oppressed non-white citizens.

The Voice, by contrast, was intended to promote inclusivity and address the historical exclusion of Indigenous people from the decision-making processes of the Australian government.

The claim was also examined in great detail,


Quote:

Claim: The Indigenous Voice to Parliament will create apartheid in Australia. The Verdic: False. There is no evidence that the Voice to Parliament proposes to establish systematic oppression over Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australians. The Voice would be an advisory body, able to provide advice to the government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians. You can read more about it here.

I'll do you a favour and not post anything more than the summary to make it easier for you to edit out when you reply, which appears to be your favoured method of evading the actual discussion at hand.

A convenient way to dodge engagement when things get too uncomfortable, isn't it?

You should be an NRL fullback with a sidestep like that!

Try again.  You've wasted enough time pretending to be a willy-willy spinning around on sixpence.  Time to advance your 'thinking' to incorporate reality.

Hint for today:-  try looking at the distinction between a 'definition' and a 'component result' = 'actual outcome'.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 11:28am:

Hint for today:-  try looking at the distinction between a 'definition' and a 'component result' = 'actual outcome'.

Even if one were to stretch the argument, this still isn’t apartheid.

What you’re doing is deliberately misrepresenting the situation, weaponising the term to paint your opponents as the “racists.”

It’s a transparent attempt to deflect from the accountability you so desperately wish to avoid for your own rhetoric, a rhetoric that, if scrutinised, would rightly have you wearing that label.

The added advantage of this manoeuvre is that it allows you to once again position yourself as the victim.

Those who supported the Voice, advocating for greater self-determination for Indigenous Australians, did so with the genuine intention of uplifting their communities.

The status quo has failed.

The Voice and the remaining components of the Uluru Statement were crafted by Indigenous leaders and elders as a thoughtful framework to address longstanding issues, to right some of the wrongs, and to provide a pathway forward for these communities.

That is far from apartheid.

Now let’s juxtapose that with your own disturbing proposals, segregation, imprisonment in hermetically sealed domes where people could pay to hunt them down, or your fantasies of an alternate reality where the British had "finished them off" during colonisation. You’ve gone as far as labelling any effort to benefit Indigenous Australians, public or private, as "Aboriginal supremacism."

You’re not just running from your past; you’re refusing to be held accountable for it. You feign concern for these communities, when it’s abundantly clear that your preference is for their erasure.

So, is it really surprising that you’ve twisted the definition of "apartheid" to suit your agenda? Hardly.

You’ve managed quite the rhetorical sidestep here, so much so that you’re making Benji Marshall in his Tigers prime look pedestrian.

Still haven't got it - well - let's try 'anticipated/planned consequences'.  Does that help your thinking?

What is your definition of 'reconciliation'?  It's a simple question - you keep evading it.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 11:53am:

Still haven't got it - well - let's try 'anticipated/planned consequences'.  Does that help your thinking?

It certainly clears up yours.

While the situation does not equate to apartheid, you seem to envisage a reimagined version of The Voice, one that diverges significantly from the proposed framework and its potential ramifications.

This vision creates a narrative in which, although it does not meet the strict criteria of apartheid, it is close enough for you to assert that it is, effectively positioning yourself as the victim.

Isn’t that a bit excessive?

Sure, prominent figures like Bolt and Bernardi, alongside a chorus of lesser-known voices, have propagated this claim, yet it appears driven more by emotion than by rational discourse or empirical reality.

But when it tells you what you want to hear, why would you question it?

Clearly, you have not.

This appears to be a superficial attack line that you are ill-equipped to defend. All you do is ignore those who take the time to disprove the claim, either with selective replies, distractions, or literal erasure of their quotes.

Bravo.


Quote:

What is your definition of 'reconciliation'?  It's a simple question - you keep evading it.

Please see the other thread.

Now we see if you're a man of your word or not.

... continue to address 'potential ramifications' - relate those to Uluru Statement ... align thinking...

At least you have progressed to 'potential ramifications' - though the 'potential' in context of Uluru is very tenuous...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 12:54pm:

... continue to address 'potential ramifications' - relate those to Uluru Statement ... align thinking... At least you have progressed to 'potential ramifications' - though the 'potential' in context of Uluru is very tenuous...

No change is without, well change...

You've not stumbled onto some hidden truth there friend.

Who knew?!

There is no 'potential' here in context of The Voice Policy Thrust Overall.. titled The Voice (not the TV show)..

"In politics nothing happens by chance - if it happens at all it was planned that way."  - FDR.

"Truth is so fragile that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."  - Winston Churchill.

You can clearly see the relationship between both statements and Signore Albanese's 'simple one page request'.

Keep digging, grasshopper.... your education is moving ahead daily.

Start with YOUR definition of 'reconciliation'.... I am fully aware that is quicksand for you and your ideology ....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 1:20pm:

There is no 'potential' here in context of The Voice Policy Thrust Overall.. titled The Voice (not the TV show).. "In politics nothing happens by chance - if it happens at all it was planned that way."  - FDR. "Truth is so fragile that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."  - Winston Churchill. You can clearly see the relationship between both statements and Signore Albanese's 'simple one page request'. Keep digging, grasshopper.... your education is moving ahead daily. Start with YOUR definition of 'reconciliation'.... I am fully aware that is quicksand for you and your ideology ....

We’ll leave the reconciliation discussion to the other thread, but let me clarify: I’m not learning anything from you, just about you.

I've heard everything you're saying before.  It's just usually said in a much less public setting, usually confined to close groups where they use more colourful language than you. 

You've got that going for you I suppose.  You're a slightly lighter shade of poo.

You keep making demands, then tossing aside the results when they don't suit your palate, offering absolutely nothing in return. It’s an amusing pattern, really.

Do you know how we describe someone who behaves like this? I’d spell it out, but you’ll predictably cry "abuse" again. Poor little snowflake.

Still not listening, eh?  You must not only listen but hear - and you have not passed step one.

You ad your kind are totally one-sided - like uninformed children - those you desperately seek to ally me with and equate mmy views with are the same..... I stand for ALL the people not just some....

You mistake the generous offer of the DEMANDED homeland state of their own, and the one-off offer of a house block for each family to settle their 'land claims that never were from wandering about in small groups as tourists on the land' - a far better deal than anyone else gets here - and you CRY racist.... but, sonny - these are ABORIGINAL ideas - to have their own state/homeland where they can 'do things their way' without 'hindrance' .. to claim land that is now governed by different rules than simple armed occupation (lawfare, you see), and now to demand vast areas as Freehold since Native title does not - as I pointed out in agreement with a WA Elder - even give them the right to build a home!  So the offer of a house block is both generous and unshared and is a more than fair compromise - a special privilege - and also resolves all land claims in accordance with modern usage.  Once and for all - here is a very costly gift that others have to work years to get ... but that's it.  If you can't make it with that start - do a Stan Grant or something - you can't make it.

My dear sir/madam - it is YOUR KIND who are the true danger to this country.  You drove buses up there, eh?  So suddenly Australia is directly responsible for 76/81 and so forth - that you could - in your white privileged life - actually witness for yourself.  It must be YOU who forces them to remain in their camps and broken-down 'communities' and lay waste to it and fight other groups over it without choosing to move away... land rights, innit ... ancient style.... nobody else does........ nobody else forces them to engage in crime....... (bring on dividie the commo - he'll set us right)...

Getchu head outchu ass and into the 21st Century.  How much could you have possibly seen driving a bus and living in your white community?

Footnote:-  Ah bin in the REAL desert Outback, bro... in dem towns the bruvvas is lined up under the pub porch sleeping at nine in the morning.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 5:06pm:

Still not listening, eh?  You must not only listen but hear - and you have not passed step one. You ad your kind are totally one-sided - like uninformed children - those you desperately seek to ally me with and equate mmy views with are the same..... I stand for ALL the people not just some.... You mistake the generous offer of the DEMANDED homeland blah blah blah.

You don't get to pretend you meant something else when you were talking about killing them.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 9:40am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21st, 2024 at 5:06pm: Still not listening, eh?  You must not only listen but hear - and you have not passed step one. You ad your kind are totally one-sided - like uninformed children - those you desperately seek to ally me with and equate mmy views with are the same..... I stand for ALL the people not just some.... You mistake the generous offer of the DEMANDED homeland blah blah blah. You don't get to pretend you meant something else when you were talking about killing them.

All I said was the Poms didn't do much of a job and perhaps could do better next time around..... the only reference was to the authorities having to declare a state of riot and in extremis open fire on rioting crowds that would not disperse.  You're slow, aren't you?

It's like demands for 'sovereignty' - fine - go for it - hand in your Australian citizen card with all benefits..... go your own way.... here - you want your own state and homeland - go for it .... all on your own.... do things 'your way' without any evil white man's interference in any way ..... (snuckles) .....

You and your kind simply do not want to confront the realities of the demands.... demanding instant access to vast freeholdings without payment, something nobody else can do, is not Apartheid to you... different rules in courts are not Apartheid to you... and so on and so on and so on.... it's not even Segregation - separate but equal - it's a demand for separate but unequal.

All such demands lead inevitably to complete separation without any of the white man's facilities other than what they can buy and import.... and that includes cars, money, supermarkets, healthcare, and so on.....  you can't demand to be a sovereign group and have your own state without borders mingling for free in amongst all the benefits, and then not expect to have to pay for your healthcare and such, receive benefits, have a right to vote.... just can't happen .... can't have it both ways .... and you need to explain that to them, O Great Activist!

So - how now your demands and foolishness?   8-)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 10:12am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 23rd, 2024 at 9:40am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21st, 2024 at 5:06pm: Still not listening, eh?  You must not only listen but hear - and you have not passed step one. You ad your kind are totally one-sided - like uninformed children - those you desperately seek to ally me with and equate mmy views with are the same..... I stand for ALL the people not just some.... You mistake the generous offer of the DEMANDED homeland blah blah blah. You don't get to pretend you meant something else when you were talking about killing them. All I said was the Poms didn't do much of a job and perhaps could do better next time around.....

No, you said it would have been less trouble if they'd gotten rid of them all, while of course using a racial slur:


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 9^th, 2019 at 11:08pm:

Be a lot less trouble today if they'd gotten rid of all the Boongs... the Poms need to go back and re-plan their Invasion to get it right...

There is no weaselling out of that.  Your intentions are clear.


Quote:

the only reference was to the authorities having to declare a state of riot and in extremis open fire on rioting crowds that would not disperse.  You're slow, aren't you?

You wanted to shoot Indigenous people on-site if they were on Uluru, and you know, 10% of Boris' targets for the Army shooting them on sight might be worth saving.  Both of those comments you offered without prompting, decided to enter and agree, or offer an unprompted suggested of shooting them on site yourself.

Again, your intentions are clear.


Quote:

You and your kind simply do not want to confront the realities of the demands.... demanding instant access to vast freeholdings without payment, something nobody else can do, is not Apartheid to you... different rules in courts are not Apartheid to you... and so on and so on and so on.... it's not even Segregation - separate but equal - it's a demand for separate but unequal.

You’ve consistently redefined the concept of Apartheid to fit your narrative, warping its meaning beyond recognition.

It's a constant theme with you, you ignore what others say, literally editing their quotes to remove what you cannot deal with, then redefine terms you want to use, to suit your argument.

And you want to attack others for not wanting to confront reality.

Please.

You’ve made it abundantly clear that you harbour no goodwill towards Indigenous Australians.

Don’t pretend to cloak yourself in the guise of “doing what they want” or to feign concern for Indigenous communities, especially for the women and children.

You actively oppose funding that would help women escape violence in those very communities. You’ve suggested that the punishment for children swimming in the wrong places should involve a cable tie around their necks, yet you expect anyone to take seriously your hollow pleas about helping these women and children?

Out of the 81 women killed due to domestic violence, 93% were Indigenous, and still, you manipulate this tragic reality to serve your argument.

You’ve weaponised these statistics as a shield, all while refusing—despite being asked repeatedly—to offer a single constructive solution. You demand answers from others, yet remain conspicuously silent when it comes to outlining what you would do to genuinely help.

Your intent is clear: it was never about helping Indigenous Australians. You exploit these statistics purely to fuel your attacks on them, and no one is buying into your thinly veiled deceit.

Your inability to engage in honest discourse is evident, as is your habitual evasion of reality while accusing others of precisely that.

Engaging with you is utterly futile.

And to top it off, you continuously peddle blatant falsehoods that demand correction, lest this space devolve into a self-sustaining echo chamber where you argue only with your own delusions.

Just like the American Indians were screwed over by the Yanks, so too, the Australian Aborigines were screwed over by the Poms.

This was done by people of up to 7 generations ago.

Now it is time to quit the separatism and public teat sucking, get jobs and show how resilient the First Nations people are.

Do better by working within the system rather than trying to be separate from it.

Some do very nicely thankyou. Noel Pearson for example is a very wealthy man, now set to become a highly paid member of the Board of Directors at Fortescue.

Get jobs, quit the booze and show how well you can do within this country.

"Be a lot less trouble today if they'd gotten rid of all the Boongs... the Poms need to go back and re-plan their Invasion to get it right...


There is no weaselling out of that.  Your intentions are clear."

No intention shown there at all.. just a comment on history - the Poms will never get a second chance... only had one ... now its 236 years later and time for the native to grow into the modern life... many do and quite well... what's wrong with the rest?

Ooooooh!  What intentions did YOU imagine there were?

"You wanted to shoot Indigenous people on-site if they were on Uluru, and you know, 10% of Boris' targets for the Army shooting them on sight might be worth saving. "

Easier to shoot criminal climbers than go up and arrest them, don' cha reckon?  Might as well go the whole hog if you ban climbing on OUR Ayers Rock.... one law for all... just a way to save time and money prosecuting them...

As for the rioters - well - on the figures to date maybe 10% of those might be worth saving... that's about right for those who climb out of their sink-hole and get a good life.... even illiterate and ill-educated rioters might have a few worth saving...

God, you're slow...

Never defined Apartheid - just pointed out the bits that are and their cumulative effect of becoming................... Apartheid.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 11:38am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 23rd, 2024 at 10:12am: [quote author=sadkangaroo link=1728909803/51#51 date=1729640406][quote author=The_Grappler link=1728909803/50#50 date=1729494397]Still not listening, eh?  You must not only listen but hear - and you have not passed step one. You ad your kind are totally one-sided - like uninformed children - those you desperately seek to ally me with and equate mmy views with are the same..... I stand for ALL the people not just some.... You mistake the generous offer of the DEMANDED homeland blah blah blah. Now then - let's just remove the things resolved - that you keep ranting over and over about like some heroic activist - and the rest that hold no merit:- [quote author=The_Grappler link=1509750506/750#750 date=1570626508]

Hmm - not much reality there... a lot of paranoid raving... you twist every single thing ....  did you ever consider consulting a psychiatrist?

You're not fooling anyone, champ.

Keep living in denial, just don't expect anyone else to go along with your delusions.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Silliness and slagging removed, chump... nothing left as usual.   8-)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 1:38pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 23rd, 2024 at 1:34pm: Silliness and slagging removed, chump... nothing left as usual.   8-)

You're taking the cowards way out, as always.

Just start the blog already mate.

This back and forth discussion style is clearly beyond you.

The moment I saw your title on this strand as a response - my reaction was to smile.

I'm just removing your wasteful and wasted personal slags...

BTW - what's the definition of 'champ'?  You started there and it came across as very condescending  (Greek Sky-diver) .. so I bit you to see what you were made of......

Perhaps we could start again... but you'll have to accept that The Sum Of All Their Tears amounts to Apartheid and not even Segregation - separate but unequal is what it is... they want to be separate, have their own sovereignty and such, but they also want every benefit from their 'enemy' and then some - such as freehold land handed to them while others struggle to get the money together for a block of land to call home.

Then they translate that offer of a freehold piece of land into some massive swathe - an area the size of a Far Ken cattle station of=r a Fraser Island or something - which is totally beyond the pale.

ADDS:-  I warned yez!!  I looked at that piece of fantasy created by the Queenslund 'government', and the Aborigines, local or not who get it, can sell it etc - so it is clear that gifting huge blocks of prime land like Fraser Island is ultimately intended to offer developers carte blanche to buy it all and then it's back to square one - demand more land and do it again.... FFS - you all blind or something, chumps?

At that point I'll give you the guarantee that the Queensland people will tell them to get stuffed - even if the government there goes ahead with it....

Secession Now!  I've decided the rump left at Brisdrain should be titled Rumphole State.... Vote Labor and Make Australia Grate Its Teeth Again ....

---

The word was a resounding

NO

End of story, go cry somewhere else.
Lost again.
First the whole country.
And now the voice.

WHAT A PACK OF LOSERS.