Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 7:44pm:


A wonderful example of the closed conservative brain not being able to understand logic. 

Meanwhile Trump was booed at a Libertarian conference recently- oh the joys of blind-leading-the-blind 'democracy' with lizard-brain-driven blind men like you.

Let's see what you got:

Quote:


Proving my point: you are incapable of logically pointing to my error, so you are reduced to blathering at the mouth. Show what my buzz words are, and why they aren't logically sound.

Have a shot at engaging the non-lizard part of your brain instead, it will do you good; you need to critique this (rather than freak out....):


 
 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 5:25pm:


The government did that. But they were accused of creating a "stolen generation". You cannot have the best of both worlds here. You either adapt to modern lifestyles and make an effort contribute. Or you can go back to chasing goannas for a meal. None of this "getting paid to be black" rubbish. The aboriginals lost their land. Then the aboriginals were encouraged to join the nation. This might only be 50-something years since indigenous people have been fully integrated into modern society. But, present day aboriginals trying to piggy-back on other people's hard work is a real insult to their ancestors who were the victims.

Quote:


You should start to realise that aboriginal Australians are prioritised housing and jobs. If you cannot look around your suburb/town at the way indigenous people live, you must live in a very non-indigenous part of the country. As a Rockhamptonite, I see indigenous people of varying ethnic backgrounds live varying degrees of societal success. It comes down to their attitude as to how they are treated. But, they get hand ups and hand outs much more freely than people of other racial backgrounds.

I happen to be underemployed, at the moment. It just happens to be a matter of circumstances and attitude. I cannot just go about saying that I have inherited PTSD because my great-uncle fought in New Guinea in WW2.

Well .............................................. (portentous wait) ............................................................... MAKE them participate in the modern economy!!!  Get cracking - the bird of time has but a short distance to fly........ and LO - the bird is on the wing...

You reckon you are all 'off grid' etc - WTF would you know about the economy and how the Aborigines fit into it?  They fit in as consumers and taxpayers - they consume what they want, they pay tax on every purchase, many of them have jobs and even pay income tax, they are provided with the wherewithal such as boats and stuff to earn a living, they have free money coming in from 'royalties' and gifting from the paternalist government  out of taxpayer's funds ...... how much more do they expect and think they have a right to demand?

You all missed it - in declaring this is 'their land' and nobody else's - they are declaring genocide or submission on all the rest of us. Would you feel the same - all you unthinking dorks out there - if it were the Black South Africans who came here and told you that this was to be their land and they would control it any way they saw fit?  The Chinese?  The Palestinians?  The Iranians?  The Taliban?

WTF is wrong with you all?  I suppose though - on track record - the 'educated elite' university students would be OK with Palestinians arriving here and declaring this their country to control under their rules and would beat the rest into submission one way or another.

tgd,

Your answers to me resemble what I see on my university assessment feedback. I await an "Unsatisfactory. Only partially answered" response, soon.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 30^th, 2024 at 12:45pm:


Only too happy to respond to points "only partially answered" - feel free to identify them.

Sometimes I wonder what would’ve happened if the ‘Voice to parliament’ got in.. We dodged a bullet Australia 🇦🇺 😳

https://x.com/KatyKray73/status/1857944410454950236

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:


I agree; cultural hegemony/exceptionalism is a pain in the arse.

Statement from Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on the Voice
It has been two years since Australia said ‘No’ to racial division

16 October 2025

Two years on from the Voice to Parliament referendum, one of the leading figures of the successful ‘No’ campaign, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, has made the following statement.

When millions of Australians resoundingly rejected the Voice referendum two years ago, their decision preserved our values and democracy.

A constitutionally enshrined Voice was far from a ‘modest request’. It would have been a radical and permanent change to our democratic system.

The Voice would have been a new institution: a fourth arm of national power sitting alongside the Parliament (which makes and changes laws), the Government and public service (which put laws into action), and the courts (which interpret the laws).

The Voice would have had the power to have a say on any area of policy.

Nothing would have been off limits.

And more Canberra-based bureaucracy would have been created to support the Voice, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The Voice would have also given one set of Australians a privilege based on their ancestry. It would have divided us by race. It would have undermined the fundamental democratic principle that all Australians are treated equally under the law.

The Voice was far from a ‘gracious request’ too. Activists who championed the Voice called it ‘a black political force to be reckoned with’ and ‘the first step in redistributing power’.

The longer version of the Uluru Statement mentions the goals of ‘self-government’, ‘self-determination’, ‘reparations’ and ‘a financial settlement’.

The worthy goals of reconciliation and rectifying Indigenous disadvantage were not front and centre of the activists’ minds.

They pushed so hard for a constitutional Voice because they wanted power to carry forward an agenda driven by retribution and resentment.

These activists found a useful ally in Anthony Albanese. From the moment he became Prime Minister, Mr Albanese refused to be upfront with Australians about the Voice. And he was incapable of moderation during the referendum process.

He rejected holding a constitutional convention to thrash out his proposal.

He provided no details about how the Voice would function in practice.

He ruled out having separate referendum questions on constitutional recognition and a constitutionally enshrined Voice (the former would have likely passed on its own).

He dismissed calls to road-test the Voice by establishing it through legislation.

When Australians raised reasonable questions about his proposal, the Prime Minister resorted to insults, calling them ‘chicken littles’ and ‘doomsayers’.

When Australians raised legitimate criticisms about the Voice, the Albanese Government accused them of peddling misinformation and disinformation.

And that’s food for thought given the Albanese Government is still seeking to be the arbiter of the truth through its illiberal and censorious misinformation and disinformation agenda.

For the first 16 months of his first term, the Prime Minister was fixated on the Voice referendum. He wasted $450 million of taxpayers’ money as he yearned for his own Paul Keating Redfern moment and to ink his name in the history books.

Mr Albanese should have been focused on Australians’ number-one concern: the cost-of-living crisis. But because he wasn’t, Australians have paid the price for the Albanese Government’s inattention.

Today, power bills continue to soar; so many Australians cannot afford to buy a home, or find one to rent; crime is up in many communities; too many businesses are struggling or closing; and industries continue to move offshore.

Our 45th referendum didn’t simply cause unnecessary division. It also cost the nation and the Australian people.

And Mr Albanese was the author of this dark and divisive chapter in our country’s history. On this 2nd anniversary of the Voice referendum, we remember what the Prime Minister put to the people.

On multiple occasions, Mr Albanese said that he was committed to implementing the Uluru Statement ‘in full’ which included three components. The Uluru Statement states, ‘We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution… We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.’

The Prime Minister’s commitment to all three components was evident in the t-shirt he wore emblazoned with the words, ‘Voice Treaty Truth.’

The ‘No’ referendum result wasn’t just a rejection of the divisive Voice. It was also a rejection of divisive treaty-making. It was also a rejection of those activists who have no interest in telling history in the round, but instead, seek to rewrite our past in the most hostile, unforgiving and unbalanced manner imaginable.

The activists have a political goal: to demonise British settlement in its entirety. By falsely claiming our nation was founded on original sin, the activists seek to delegitimise the achievement of modern Australia.

Despite Australians voting ‘No’ to Voice, Treaty and Truth-telling, certain Labor governments and leaders still won’t take ‘No’ for an answer and are pressing ahead with such goals.