https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12362543/Anthony-Albaneses-letter-demanding-reparations-land-Aboriginals-amid-treaty-backlash.html

Dear God! Little wonder Burney has shut her mouth and can’t answer any questions! Both Burney and Albo have engaged in misleading AND deceptive conduct!

From the above link 👆

Albo's decades-long push for a treaty revealed: Anthony Albanese signed a letter demanding reparations in 1986 - as calls grow for Linda Burney to resign after refusing to answer questions

2 August 2023

As a 23-year-old leftwing activist Albo signed the open letter to The National Times, dated April 18, 1986, with Indigenous leaders Pat Dodson and Marcia Langton.

The letter supported the 'granting of land rights and appropriate compensation' for the 'invasion of Aboriginal land'.

It called for 'recognition of (Aboriginal) sovereignty, land rights, and compensation for lands lost and for social and cultural disruption'.

Mr Dodson and Ms Langton, who are both heavily involved in the 'Yes' campaign ahead of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, were listed as points of contact for readers seeking more information.

The revelation comes as the Albanese-led Labor government moves to distance the concept of treaty - and any suggestion of compensation for Indigenous Australians - from the Voice referendum, to be held between October and December.

However, with the referendum now just three months away and with polls showing support for the Voice is softening, Mr Albanese and his ministry are hesitant to link treaty-making and truth-telling to the Voice.

He told ABC Radio National on Wednesday morning he will not move to negotiate a treaty or treaties in his first term - contradicting an election campaign vow he made in November 2021 in which he said a Makarrata Commission would be required to report to the Labor government on treaty progress within Mr Albanese's first term.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency confirmed earlier this year that progress on the Makarrata Commission has been paused until after the referendum.

At the time, Senator Lidia Thorpe said: 'The government's handbook on questions related to First Nations issues now is an automatic response saying "we'll deal with that after the Referendum".

'They have spent $900,000 on Truth and Treaty and have nothing to show for it. Less than a year ago Minister Burney was speaking about how the public shouldn't forget that the Uluru Statement was about Truth and Treaty as well as the Voice.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12359469/linda-burney-voice-script.html

Linda Burney read out a scripted answer about footballer Johnathan Thurston when asked about what happens AFTER the Voice

👆 This woman IS unable to do her freaking job ffs! Or too scared to. She’s either unable or not allowed to speak the truth. Which is it? Either way she needs to GO!

Govt can legislate reparations if it wanted to with or without a voice.

Only the terminally stupid would think this has anything to do with the voice. Congrats Larry, you qualify as terminally stupid.

"As early as 1986, Mr Albanese was publicly advocating for reparations, land back and Aboriginal sovereignty".

37 years ago, Lisa. People do change their minds every so often. Perhaps Mr Albanese has had a change of heart in that time. 23 years of age and left-wing at the time, I could probably allege that Albanese had different priorities at the time.

What you might notice in the press conference on the Voice, Mr Albanese seemed a bit coerced into making the statements he made. When this Voice to Parliament gets overwhelmingly defeated in the coming months, if Albanese starts mouthing off about racist Australians voting against it, then we will confirm Albanese's allegiance to minorities.

Albanese will lose the next election.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

"As early as 1986, Mr Albanese was publicly advocating for reparations, land back and Aboriginal sovereignty". 37 years ago, Lisa. People do change their minds every so often. Perhaps Mr Albanese has had a change of heart in that time. 23 years of age and left-wing at the time, I could probably allege that Albanese had different priorities at the time. What you might notice in the press conference on the Voice, Mr Albanese seemed a bit coerced into making the statements he made. When this Voice to Parliament gets overwhelmingly defeated in the coming months, if Albanese starts mouthing off about racist Australians voting against it, then we will confirm Albanese's allegiance to minorities. Albanese will lose the next election.

Nooooo!!!! Have you read the article in its entirety?

There is a clear link btwn his original agenda and it involves the same original collaborators (who have now been appointed by Albo) and are currently functioning in key Voice Referendum positions.

Re next election - Albo will probably go.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 1:21pm:

Govt can legislate reparations if it wanted to with or without a voice. Only the terminally stupid would think this has anything to do with the voice. Congrats Larry, you qualify as terminally stupid.

Get out of here Dumbarse! You’ve no idea about politics or anything really! Including the rubbish you’ve just posted which is incorrect BTW and has nothing to do with this topic.

I did not read the entirety of the article. I got bored after I read the part about what Albanese did in 1986. In 1986, I was still learning to add, subtract, read and write. When I turned 23 years old, I held views vastly different to what I have now. When I turn 60, I bet my priorities will differ again.

I would be sure that Albanese is motivated by his priorities to do enough so that his upcoming retirement years don't get bogged down in political criticism that will follow him into his old age. What he did as a 23-year-old was just inconsequential posturing.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 2:08pm:

1. I did not read the entirety of the article. I got bored after I read the part about what Albanese did in 1986. 2. In 1986, I was still learning to add, subtract, read and write. 3. When I turned 23 years old, I held views vastly different to what I have now. 4. When I turn 60, I bet my priorities will differ again. 5. I would be sure that Albanese is motivated by his priorities to do enough so that his upcoming retirement years don't get bogged down in political criticism that will follow him into his old age. 6. What he did as a 23-year-old was just inconsequential posturing.

Note : I’ve placed numbers in your post as that helps me in clearly addressing your post. Ok? So please don’t get cranky with me over that.

1. I kinda knew you hadn’t read the article in its entirety. Hence why I asked if you had.

2, 3, 4 👈 I get. And I agree.

5. and 6. 👈 Hmmm. Speculation (and that’s ok because that’s pretty much all anyone can do with the bits n pieces of information we’re allowed to know through MMM)

Albanese is just guessing what he thinks the public wants. He has misread what is best for Australia. He is so city-centric that he does not know what goes on in rural and regional areas need done.

It will never be enough:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW5Nebs3TFA

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 1:21pm: Govt can legislate reparations if it wanted to with or without a voice. Only the terminally stupid would think this has anything to do with the voice. Congrats Larry, you qualify as terminally stupid. Get out of here Dumbarse! You’ve no idea about politics or anything really! Including the rubbish you’ve just posted which is incorrect BTW and has nothing to do with this topic.

Is this is where you consolidate your stupidity and double down ?
I think soooooo

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 2:25pm:

Albanese is just guessing what he thinks the public wants. He has misread what is best for Australia. He is so city-centric that he does not know what goes on in rural and regional areas need done.

💯

He is also ego centric.

Before the election - he was the poor Housing Commission kid with only a mum and no dad.

After the election - he revealed his true colours ie an ego centric, rich, investment property portfolio equipped Capitalist.

Australians won’t easily forget his before and after transformations. They’re not that stupid.

Posters here might like to look up the UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE which Australia endorsed, after some hesitancy, on April 3, 2009.

Although it doesn't tie our hands to any course of action, the direction is set.

"The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 September 2007 (AEST). The Declaration has 46 substantive articles and 24 preambular paragraphs.1 It includes 9 changes to the text of the Declaration as adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2006.

The Declaration is divided into the following broad thematic areas:

    Over-arching principles (Articles 1-6): The rights of indigenous peoples to the full enjoyment of all human rights, non-discrimination, self-determination and autonomy, maintenance of Indigenous institutions, and the right to a nationality.

    Life, integrity and security (Articles 7-10): Freedom from genocide, forced assimilation or destruction of culture, forced relocation from land, right to integrity and security of the person, and right to belong to an indigenous community or nation.

    Cultural, spiritual and linguistic identity (Articles 11 – 13): Rights to practice and revitalize culture and the transmission of histories, languages etc; and the protection of traditions, sites, ceremonial objects and repatriation of remains.

    Education, information and labour rights (Articles 14-17): Right to education, including to run own educational institutions and teach in language; cultures to be reflected in education and public information; access to media (both mainstream and indigenous specific); and rights to protection of labour law and from economic exploitation.
   

Participatory, development and other economic and social rights (Articles 18-24): Rights to participation in decision-making, through representative bodies; rights to their own institutions to secure subsistence and development; special measures to be adopted to address indigenous disadvantage and ensure non-discriminatory enjoyment of rights; guarantees against violence and discrimination for women and children; right to development; and access to traditional health practices and medicines.

 
  Land, territories and resources rights (Articles 25-32): rights to maintain traditional connections to land and territories; for ownership of such lands and protection of lands by State; establishment of systems to recognize indigenous lands; rights to redress and compensation for lands that have been taken; conservation and protection of the environment; measures relating to storage of hazardous waste and military activities on indigenous lands; protection of traditional knowledge, cultural heritage and expressions and intellectual property; and processes for development on indigenous land.
   

Indigenous institutions (Article 33 – 37): Rights to determine membership and to maintain institutions (including judicial systems), to determine responsibilities of individuals to their communities, to maintain relations across international borders, and right to the recognition of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States.

    Implementation of the Declaration (Articles 38 – 42): States and UN agencies to implement the provisions of the Declaration, including through technical and financial assistance; access to financial and technical assistance for Indigenous peoples to implement the Declaration; and conflict resolution processes to be established that are just and fair.

    General provisions of the Declaration (Articles 43-46): The provisions of the Declaration are recognized as minimum standards and apply equally to Indigenous men and women; the standards recognized in the Declaration may not be used to limit or diminish indigenous rights, and must be exercised in conformity with the UN Charter and universal human rights standards; the provisions in the Declaration to be interpreted in accordance with principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith."

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples

I had difficulty clicking on that non clickable link but eventually I got there.

So what happened to this missing bit?

The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law, and in accordance with international human rights obligations.

Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:02pm:

Posters here might like to look up the UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE to which Australia endorsed this, after some hesitancy, on April 3, 2009. Although it doesn't tie our hands to any course of action, the direction is set. "The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 September 2007 (AEST). The Declaration has 46 substantive articles and 24 preambular paragraphs.1 It includes 9 changes to the text of the Declaration as adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2006. The Declaration is divided into the following broad thematic areas:     Over-arching principles (Articles 1-6): The rights of indigenous peoples to the full enjoyment of all human rights, non-discrimination, self-determination and autonomy, maintenance of Indigenous institutions, and the right to a nationality.     Life, integrity and security (Articles 7-10): Freedom from genocide, forced assimilation or destruction of culture, forced relocation from land, right to integrity and security of the person, and right to belong to an indigenous community or nation.     Cultural, spiritual and linguistic identity (Articles 11 – 13): Rights to practice and revitalize culture and the transmission of histories, languages etc; and the protection of traditions, sites, ceremonial objects and repatriation of remains.     Education, information and labour rights (Articles 14-17): Right to education, including to run own educational institutions and teach in language; cultures to be reflected in education and public information; access to media (both mainstream and indigenous specific); and rights to protection of labour law and from economic exploitation.     Participatory, development and other economic and social rights (Articles 18-24): Rights to participation in decision-making, through representative bodies; rights to their own institutions to secure subsistence and development; special measures to be adopted to address indigenous disadvantage and ensure non-discriminatory enjoyment of rights; guarantees against violence and discrimination for women and children; right to development; and access to traditional health practices and medicines.     Land, territories and resources rights (Articles 25-32): rights to maintain traditional connections to land and territories; for ownership of such lands and protection of lands by State; establishment of systems to recognize indigenous lands; rights to redress and compensation for lands that have been taken; conservation and protection of the environment; measures relating to storage of hazardous waste and military activities on indigenous lands; protection of traditional knowledge, cultural heritage and expressions and intellectual property; and processes for development on indigenous land.     Indigenous institutions (Article 33 – 37): Rights to determine membership and to maintain institutions (including judicial systems), to determine responsibilities of individuals to their communities, to maintain relations across international borders, and right to the recognition of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States.     Implementation of the Declaration (Articles 38 – 42): States and UN agencies to implement the provisions of the Declaration, including through technical and financial assistance; access to financial and technical assistance for Indigenous peoples to implement the Declaration; and conflict resolution processes to be established that are just and fair.     General provisions of the Declaration (Articles 43-46): The provisions of the Declaration are recognized as minimum standards and apply equally to Indigenous men and women; the standards recognized in the Declaration may not be used to limit or diminish indigenous rights, and must be exercised in conformity with the UN Charter and universal human rights standards; the provisions in the Declaration to be interpreted in accordance with principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith." https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples

Aboriginese are fully participating in the country's social and political life and have hundreds of organisation of self- directed action in all walks of life, many funded by everyone else (taxpayers).

Thd Voice in the constitution is not something this or any UN declaration or treaty requires. Australia fully meets its obligation without such a constitutional change.

The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:13pm:

I had difficulty clicking on that non clickable link but eventually I got there. So what happened to this missing bit? The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law, and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.

Linus ... how come you missed posting this section??

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:22pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:13pm: I had difficulty clicking on that non clickable link but eventually I got there. So what happened to this missing bit? The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law, and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society. Linus ... how come you missed posting this section??

If you're insinuating I did it intentionally, forget it. If I wanted to hide anything, I wouldn't have given you a link to my source.  ::)

I thought that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People would better inform this debate and highlight why Australia is moving as it is.

But do note, that I did indicate that how Australia pursues the provisions in the declaration is not set.

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:20pm:

The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same.

Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days.

Frank wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Aboriginese are fully participating in the country's social and political life and have hundreds of organisation of self- directed action in all walks of life, many funded by everyone else (taxpayers). Thd Voice in the constitution is not something this or any UN declaration or treaty requires. Australia fully meets its obligation without such a constitutional change.

Exactly!

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:40pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days.

Nothing passive-aggressive about it.

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 3:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it.

So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else?

You are a dreamer.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer.

It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine.

I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this:

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership ,

then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1686550788196446208

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 6:05pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares.

The point is and always has been - what part of Aboriginal interaction with our society does not affect others?  Your path to understanding could start there... think 'what part of women's rights impact only on women?' .... so - what part oa Indigenous rights impact only on the Indigenous?

....then move to - then why does this need to be enshrined in the constitution when the job could be done more cheaply without those added costs of a voice superstructure which history, according to Albo himself with New Zealand, shows will lead to troubles and lawsuits and so forth and gained powers and control over segments of society at large?

I said long ago that Albo was undermining the very voice he said he was proposing and supporting.... like all the rest of them he's done a great job of destroying its chances.

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 6:05pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares.

I'll second Grapplers comment .... you're a dreamer

or delusionary.

Linus wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 6:05pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares.

This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate.

The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:32am:

This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do.

I will now return you to my discussion point raised previously and ignored in the overall furore.

Because:- "The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do."

Why then are dual citizens, who cannot stand for or sit in the over-arching arm of government - the legislature which makes laws - permitted to vote in a referendum that will change that constitution which "affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government".

When people begin to play the game of 'classes ' of citizen - they are opening up one massive can of worms.  We are either a democracy of equals with one person/one vote for all citizens of all stamps - or we are not.

Just reminding you all - the work needed in this country to get it on the straight and narrow is enormous and not restricted to a single issue such as this 'voice'.

Now then - about this 'comparative disadvantage ' .... but I'll leave that for another discussion...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:33am:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:32am: This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. I will now return you to my discussion point raised previously and ignored in the overall furore. Because:- "The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do." Why then are dual citizens, who cannot stand for or sit in the over-arching arm of government - the legislature which makes laws - permitted to vote in a referendum that will change that constitution which "affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government". When people begin to play the game of 'classes ' of citizen - they are opening up one massive can of worms.  We are either a democracy of equals with one person/one vote for all citizens of all stamps - or we are not. Just reminding you all - the work needed in this country to get it on the straight and narrow is enormous and not restricted to a single issue such as this 'voice'. Now then - about this 'comparative disadvantage ' .... but I'll leave that for another discussion...

Conflict of interest.

I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler.

In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities.

As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia.

By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years.

Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes.

Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:26am:

I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation.

Thank you. Linus. for taking the time to say what i have long since given up saying on here.

Many blessings on you.

Your words will be lost on these posters. They are not, however, lost on me. Nor where they really count.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:32am:

Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares. This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do.

100%!

Linus has appointed himself as our Voice. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of that ID knows no bounds.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2023 at 2:25pm:

Albanese is just guessing what he thinks the public wants. He has misread what is best for Australia. He is so city-centric that he does not know what goes on in rural and regional areas need done.

Yeah that's true

I reckon hardly anyone in the bush will vote "Yes"

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:54am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 2:25pm: Albanese is just guessing what he thinks the public wants. He has misread what is best for Australia. He is so city-centric that he does not know what goes on in rural and regional areas need done. Yeah that's true I reckon hardly anyone in the bush will vote "Yes"

Absolutely!

I know for a fact that hardly any Chinese (and they’re mainly left wingers) will be voting YES. In fact they can’t stand Albo now. They’re no fools! They know the Voice movement is REALLY about massive land grabs and massive handouts of money (which our Govt doesn’t have and will need to borrow).

I don’t think Albo will be around for long.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:40am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. Thank you. Linus. for taking the time to say what i have long since given up saying on here. Many blessings on you. Your words will be lost on these posters. They are not, however, lost on me. Nor where they really count.

Thank you for your kind words, Mothra. And you appear to be correct. I'm already being labelled by Lisa as a hypocrite for expressing a point of view. How she can construe that I've appointed myself as anything is beyond me.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:26am:

I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler.

Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison.

How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty?

That's just your desperation saying that

Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future"

The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice

Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:11am:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:40am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. Thank you. Linus. for taking the time to say what i have long since given up saying on here. Many blessings on you. Your words will be lost on these posters. They are not, however, lost on me. Nor where they really count. Thank you for your kind words, Mothra. And you appear to be correct. I'm already being labelled by Lisa as a hypocrite for expressing a point of view. How she can construe that I've appointed myself as anything is beyond me.

I wouldn't worry about anything lisa says ..... soon she'll be calling you a sock :D :D

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:19am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison.

Absolutely none of that is going to happen.

Why must you people base all of your opinions on scare-mongering? Did you not learn to be discerning at any part in your life?

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:19am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison.

This seems to sum up the last two negative posts.

I understand that you may have concerns about the potential impact of recognizing Indigenous rights and establishing the Voice to Parliament.

However, it's crucial to avoid generalizations about Indigenous communities. It's important to remember that the goal of the Voice to Parliament is not about promoting a 'hippie lifestyle' or blocking progress but rather about recognizing the historical injustices faced by Indigenous Australians and providing them with a platform to have their voices heard.

The aim of constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament is to promote inclusivity, respect, and understanding while working towards a more equitable and just society. It does not seek to disadvantage or exclude anyone but rather to create opportunities for genuine dialogue, consultation, and collaboration.

Economic development and progress can indeed coexist with the recognition of Indigenous rights. In fact, research has shown that when Indigenous communities have a say in projects and policies that affect their lands, there is a greater likelihood of successful outcomes and sustainable development.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:35am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:19am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison. This seems to sum up the last two negative posts. I understand that you may have concerns about the potential impact of recognizing Indigenous rights and establishing the Voice to Parliament. However, it's crucial to avoid generalizations about Indigenous communities. It's important to remember that the goal of the Voice to Parliament is not about promoting a 'hippie lifestyle' or blocking progress but rather about recognizing the historical injustices faced by Indigenous Australians and providing them with a platform to have their voices heard. The aim of constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament is to promote inclusivity, respect, and understanding while working towards a more equitable and just society. It does not seek to disadvantage or exclude anyone but rather to create opportunities for genuine dialogue, consultation, and collaboration. Economic development and progress can indeed coexist with the recognition of Indigenous rights. In fact, research has shown that when Indigenous communities have a say in projects and policies that affect their lands, there is a greater likelihood of successful outcomes and sustainable development.

Right on!

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:26am:

I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation.

What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures?

Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott.

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:28am:

How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us

You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway.

The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:41am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott.

Were you labouring under the misapprehension that Indigenous people were a homogenous blob?


Why shouldn't there be diversity of opinion amongst them?

I know from personal discourse, some are disgruntled that the Voice doesn't actually provide them with anything tangible.

Meanwhile you lot a screeching like your first borns are about to be taken from you.

Go figure.

Leftists have always been on a "moral" crusade, and if that means undermining Australia democracy, so be it. Democracy is only important to Leftists when it suits their agenda. The so called Voice is being touted as the moral thing to do, but it is actually a way to pad parliament with more Leftists, especially those who can be bought with promises of reparation for the indignity of being included as citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

You know, we already have history books that state that there was a take over of the Australian continent over a period of 140 years. We recognise that Australia has been a country for the last 122 years. We recognise that indigenous people were made citizens of Australia 56 years ago. And we recognise that indigenous people have rights afforded to them because of that.

There is no need to change a Constitution to do any of the proposed changes that are already in place.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:46am:

Leftists have always been on a "moral" crusade, and if that means undermining Australia democracy, so be it. Democracy is only important to Leftists when it suits their agenda. The so called Voice is being touted as the moral thing to do, but it is actually a way to pad parliament with more Leftists, especially those who can be bought with promises of reparation for the indignity of being included as citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

Ph for crying out loud.

Where on earth are you people getting your information from?

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:49am:

Ph for crying out loud. Where on earth are you people getting your information from?

We should ask you the same thing.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:51am:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:49am: Ph for crying out loud. Where on earth are you people getting your information from? We should ask you the same thing.

Well i'm getting my information from official sources, Rocky.

Is that surprising to you?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:03am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:54am: UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 2:25pm: Albanese is just guessing what he thinks the public wants. He has misread what is best for Australia. He is so city-centric that he does not know what goes on in rural and regional areas need done. Yeah that's true I reckon hardly anyone in the bush will vote "Yes" Absolutely! I know for a fact that hardly any Chinese (and they’re mainly left wingers) will be voting YES. In fact they can’t stand Albo now. They’re no fools! They know the Voice movement is REALLY about massive land grabs and massive handouts of money (which our Govt doesn’t have and will need to borrow). I don’t think Albo will be around for long.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:41am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott.

In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:35am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:19am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison. This seems to sum up the last two negative posts. I understand that you may have concerns about the potential impact of recognizing Indigenous rights and establishing the Voice to Parliament. However, it's crucial to avoid generalizations about Indigenous communities. It's important to remember that the goal of the Voice to Parliament is not about promoting a 'hippie lifestyle' or blocking progress but rather about recognizing the historical injustices faced by Indigenous Australians and providing them with a platform to have their voices heard. The aim of constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament is to promote inclusivity, respect, and understanding while working towards a more equitable and just society. It does not seek to disadvantage or exclude anyone but rather to create opportunities for genuine dialogue, consultation, and collaboration. Economic development and progress can indeed coexist with the recognition of Indigenous rights. In fact, research has shown that when Indigenous communities have a say in projects and policies that affect their lands, there is a greater likelihood of successful outcomes and sustainable development.

And yet, your post is full of generalizations

I can tell you now that this Voice thing is only to console and appease the Aboriginals while the two major half brain parties import millions more immigrants

If they had any respect for Abos, they'd stop immigration right now

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:52am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:51am: mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:49am: Ph for crying out loud. Where on earth are you people getting your information from? We should ask you the same thing. Well i'm getting my information from official sources, Rocky. Is that surprising to you?

I intend on switching on the youtube channel and listening to a university lecturer lecture about the Australian Constitution. Perhaps I can go online and access the Constitution to read for myself, too. I also intend to read up on the appropriate law regarding racial discrimination. Then I want to apply both in an argument about the legality of changing the Constitution to racially discriminate against non-indigenous Australians.

I would doubt that my official sources would help your argument at all.

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:58am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:35am: UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:19am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. Yeah, but your cost of living and access to social services will disappear when indigenous people make land and money grabs and all those projects get scrapped because some indigenous people want to live a hippie lifestyle and block any progress that would boost the Australian economy. Because if the indigenous are incapable of dragging themselves out of the Stone Age, then they might as well drag the modern society into the Stone Ages, so that they don't look so bad by comparison. This seems to sum up the last two negative posts. I understand that you may have concerns about the potential impact of recognizing Indigenous rights and establishing the Voice to Parliament. However, it's crucial to avoid generalizations about Indigenous communities. It's important to remember that the goal of the Voice to Parliament is not about promoting a 'hippie lifestyle' or blocking progress but rather about recognizing the historical injustices faced by Indigenous Australians and providing them with a platform to have their voices heard. The aim of constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament is to promote inclusivity, respect, and understanding while working towards a more equitable and just society. It does not seek to disadvantage or exclude anyone but rather to create opportunities for genuine dialogue, consultation, and collaboration. Economic development and progress can indeed coexist with the recognition of Indigenous rights. In fact, research has shown that when Indigenous communities have a say in projects and policies that affect their lands, there is a greater likelihood of successful outcomes and sustainable development. And yet, your post is full of generalizations I can tell you now that this Voice thing is only to console and appease the Aboriginals while the two major half brain parties import millions more immigrants If they had any respect for Abos, they'd stop immigration right now

I'm sorry, where are the generalisations in his post?

Quote:

I know for a fact that hardly any Chinese (and they’re mainly left wingers) will be voting YES. In fact they can’t stand Albo now. They’re no fools! They know the Voice movement is REALLY about massive land grabs and massive handouts of money (which our Govt doesn’t have and will need to borrow).

Where did you run your poll, Lisa? Over the back fence?

John Smith wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:45am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect

Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all

Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino

Only to recognise a Voice to parliament.

That is all.

What on earth is wrong with that?

God you people are deranged. Chicken Littles is spot on.

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino

What you're really concerned about is whether the Voice will negatively impact your life. Tell me how The Voice will be a detriment to you.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:20pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino Only to recognise a Voice to parliament. That is all. What on earth is wrong with that? God you people are deranged. Chicken Littles is spot on.

It divides Australia and we have Australia and a separate entity non Australia because you cannot make a treaty or pay reparations with Australians - only Non-Australians.

The Voice creates a separate Nation

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:41am:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott.

Name ONE thing Australia, or any 'white' country for that matter, did that 100% of the population agreed with?

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Yeah, yeah, whatever, Matty, whatever.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Boris wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:34pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:20pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino Only to recognise a Voice to parliament. That is all. What on earth is wrong with that? God you people are deranged. Chicken Littles is spot on. It divides Australia and we have Australia and a separate entity non Australia because you cannot make a treaty or pay reparations with Australians - only Non-Australians. The Voice creates a separate Nation

No it doesn't.

Are you incapable of understanding what it is about because you are so triggered by the subject matter?

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:03pm:

Quote: I know for a fact that hardly any Chinese (and they’re mainly left wingers) will be voting YES. In fact they can’t stand Albo now. They’re no fools! They know the Voice movement is REALLY about massive land grabs and massive handouts of money (which our Govt doesn’t have and will need to borrow). Where did you run your poll, Lisa? Over the back fence?

We have a few wealthy Chinese neighbours around us. One has a few notable political links.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:46am:

Leftists have always been on a "moral" crusade, and if that means undermining Australia democracy, so be it. Democracy is only important to Leftists when it suits their agenda. The so called Voice is being touted as the moral thing to do, but it is actually a way to pad parliament with more Leftists, especially those who can be bought with promises of reparation for the indignity of being included as citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

^^^^^^^^
Pure Stupidity

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:55am:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass.

So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution.

Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:46am:

Leftists have always been on a "moral" crusade, and if that means undermining Australia democracy, so be it. Democracy is only important to Leftists when it suits their agenda. The so called Voice is being touted as the moral thing to do, but it is actually a way to pad parliament with more Leftists, especially those who can be bought with promises of reparation for the indignity of being included as citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

The leftist concept of “morality” changes all the time. It can mean anything. That’s why leftists are often referred to as lying grubs.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:27pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino What you're really concerned about is whether the Voice will negatively impact your life. Tell me how The Voice will be a detriment to you.

Once again ... Linus has appointed himself as the Voice for others.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:53am:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:32am: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares. This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. 100%! Linus has appointed himself as our Voice. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of that ID knows no bounds.

Again : Linus .... the self-appointed Voice of OzPol

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino

Yes, obviously it changes the constitution since that is why you get a vote you dumbarse. You must have gone to high school to figure that out on your own. Irrespective of that, it will have ZERO impact on you and your life

John Smith wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:51pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino Yes, obviously it changes the constitution since that is why you get a vote you dumbarse. You must have gone to high school to figure that out on your own. Irrespective of that, it will have ZERO impact on you and your life

I honestly don't know what it is they think will happen.

I keep asking them what they're afraid of and not one of them has given me a reasonable reply.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:51pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:53am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:32am: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares. This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. 100%! Linus has appointed himself as our Voice. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of that ID knows no bounds. Again : Linus .... the self-appointed Voice of OzPol

You're perplexing Lisa. How am I appointing myself the voice of Ozpol in any way? I offered a point of view like you and others.

So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution?

Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:08pm:

So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution?

Who said that there is anything wrong with it?

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:08pm:

So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice.

And how exactly does that proposed change effect you?

John Smith wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:10pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it?

Linus.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:17pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice. And how exactly does that proposed change effect you?

This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate.

The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do.

(The word is 'affect you' fatheaded spelling nazi)

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:08pm:

So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice.

Frank is being clever in quoting my typo. My mistake, I hit the "s" key which is right next to the "a" key.

And he's also being precious. You know very well, Frank, that you and the like, aren't concerned about Constitutional change per se. You're problem is that you harbour a view that it will benefit Indigenous Australians to your detriment.

There is no evidence that it will, and if you re-read what I wrote, The Voice will be a win/win for Australian society.

John Smith wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 12:51pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino Yes, obviously it changes the constitution since that is why you get a vote you dumbarse. You must have gone to high school to figure that out on your own. Irrespective of that, it will have ZERO impact on you and your life

Well, howabout you quit implying it won't affect every other Australian ... we have to pay for all the concessions the Abos get, for a start, unless you, mothra & Co alone don't mind paying for it

The Abos would be better off with their own Constitution, so they can run their own affairs. They wouldn't have to put up with all you whitie leftie know-it-all dogooders then

You've done enough damage to them already, now you want to damage them even further with your elitist whitie privileged forked tongue globalist humanist sh!t

see below.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus.

You did twist my words. Are you always this dishonest, Frank?

I said that how you vote depends on your conscience and moral compass.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:28pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:17pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Do note that the debate is about CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, not about the legislated existence of an Aboriginal voice. And how exactly does that proposed change effect you? This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. (The word is 'affect you' fatheaded spelling nazi)

I'm sorry old boy, did you think that answered my question?

But now i have a new one for you. Does every single aspect of the Constitution as it stands effect every aspect of your daily life?

If not, would you like to think about answering my original question more sincerely?

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:35pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:26pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus. You did twist my words. Are you always this dishonest, Frank? I said that how you vote depends on your conscience and moral compass.

Frank doesn't do to well when asked to represent himself. Usually it's just a whole lot of adjectives slung together, usually with some form of reference to faeces in it.

Mostly he just copy and pastes other peoples work in lieu of his own opinion. And he rarely references it. I suspect for a good part of it, he's trying to pass it off as his own.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:35pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:26pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus. You did twist my words. Are you always this dishonest, Frank? I said that how you vote depends on your conscience and moral compass.

Well, what is wrong with NO morality and conscience?
Obviously not like your morality or conscience. So where and what are the opposite side's shortcomings?  You wouldnt raise these aspects of character if you didn't thing they mattered or that they signified something.

So I think you are a bit dishonest here.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 2:01pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:35pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:26pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus. You did twist my words. Are you always this dishonest, Frank? I said that how you vote depends on your conscience and moral compass. Well, what is wrong with NO morality and conscience? Obviously not like your morality or conscience. So where and what are the opposite side's shortcomings?  You wouldnt raise these aspects of character if you didn't thing they mattered or that they signified something. So I think you are a bit dishonest here.

Are you amoral and without a conscience, Frank?

Unless, you're some kind of uber psychopath, Frank, everyone has a moral compass and conscience.

You continue to impute meanings to my words that are not there.

I don't understand why you're taking umbrage to me saying that how you vote is up to your conscience and moral compass. I'm not saying what anyone's conscience or moral compass should be.

This is all a wild goose chase on your part.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 2:31pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 2:01pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:35pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:26pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus. You did twist my words. Are you always this dishonest, Frank? I said that how you vote depends on your conscience and moral compass. Well, what is wrong with NO morality and conscience? Obviously not like your morality or conscience. So where and what are the opposite side's shortcomings?  You wouldnt raise these aspects of character if you didn't thing they mattered or that they signified something. So I think you are a bit dishonest here. Are you amoral and without a conscience, Frank? Unless, you're some kind of uber psychopath, Frank, everyone has a moral compass and conscience. You continue to impute meanings to my words that are not there. I don't understand why you're taking umbrage to me saying that how you vote is up to your conscience and moral compass. I'm not saying what anyone's conscience or moral compass should be. This is all a wild goose chase on your part.

You are implying that it is a morally diminished character with a conscience not as fine and lofty as yours who votes NO in this referendum.

You have presented the reasons for voting YES as moral imperatives and thise who recognise and follow such moral imperatives are following their fine and praiseworthy conscience- implying that taking thd opposite view point to the opposites in conscience and morality.

But a constitution is not a morality play so arguments from morality alone - your arguments - are missing the point but heavily mine the rich veins of moral and emotional blackmail.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 11:55am:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass.

You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament?
Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines?
Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character?

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:02pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:51pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:53am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:32am: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares. This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. 100%! Linus has appointed himself as our Voice. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of that ID knows no bounds. Again : Linus .... the self-appointed Voice of OzPol You're perplexing Lisa. How am I appointing myself the voice of Ozpol in any way? I offered a point of view like you and others.

You’re in denial Linus. You appointed yourself as the Voice of OzPol by offering a point of view for/on behalf of OzPol.

The full PDF document of the Uluru Statement of the Heart has been made public through a FOI application ...

it lays bare the full intent behind the referendum & the Voice.

And as has been stated that's just the beginning of much more.

The leftards here were & are wrong.

Hey Aussie you wanker ... get a hold of the document & have a read.

It's not the sanitised shyte you've been reading.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:08pm: So what is wrong with 'morsl compass' and ' conscience of Aborigines opposing the Voice in the Constitution? Who said that there is anything wrong with it? Linus.

I'm not sure he did.

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 1:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:51pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:45am: Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:28am: How can you say it won't affect our lives Linus Numpty? That's just your desperation saying that Politicians and people of note are too scared not to begin speeches with "We recognize Elders past, present and future" The Abos have already got us by the balls ... and they're gunna squeeze tighter if they get this Voice Bushies need a voice too, we get nothing out here, we're almost living like Abos, local Councils just ignore us You need not worry so much since you have no balls anyway. The voice will have ZERO impact on anyone's lives except perhaps that of racists who risk depression if the voice suceeds and aborigines, who's lives it is supposed to affect Nah, it only changes the Constitution, that's all Now tell us the Constitution doesn't affect everyone?, Ballsy Gino Yes, obviously it changes the constitution since that is why you get a vote you dumbarse. You must have gone to high school to figure that out on your own. Irrespective of that, it will have ZERO impact on you and your life Well, howabout you quit implying it won't affect every other Australian ... we have to pay for all the concessions the Abos get, for a start, unless you, mothra & Co alone don't mind paying for it The Abos would be better off with their own Constitution, so they can run their own affairs. They wouldn't have to put up with all you whitie leftie know-it-all dogooders then You've done enough damage to them already, now you want to damage them even further with your elitist whitie privileged forked tongue globalist humanist sh!t

;D ;D  ;D

You aren't paying for shit.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:13pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character?

I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference.

It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 1:02pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 12:51pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:53am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:32am: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 5:27pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:47pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:40pm: Linus wrote on Aug 2nd, 2023 at 3:20pm: The Voice is not going to impinge on you in any adverse way, Lisa. You'll continue to muddle through in your benighted universe just the same. Your passive-aggressive assumptions are not even interesting these days. Nothing passive-aggressive about it. So the voice idea is totally Aboriginal exclusive territory, and has no impact on anyone else? You are a dreamer. It won't affect Lisa's life  and I doubt it will affect yours or mine. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen. But if it's along the line of this: https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-referendum-will-not-end-private-land-ownership , then I think you're having unnecessary nightmares. This is one of the most vacuous and parochial 'arguments' in this debate. The Constitution affects every aspect of your life that has anything to do with laws and government because it is the basis law and rule book of what legislations and the three arms of government that make and administer them can and cannot do. 100%! Linus has appointed himself as our Voice. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of that ID knows no bounds. Again : Linus .... the self-appointed Voice of OzPol You're perplexing Lisa. How am I appointing myself the voice of Ozpol in any way? I offered a point of view like you and others. You’re in denial Linus. You appointed yourself as the Voice of OzPol by offering a point of view for/on behalf of OzPol.

If I'm guilty of that, so is everyone here, including yourself, who offered a point of view.

What am I supposed to do with that kind of critique, Lisa?

Here you go--------> SHRUG.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:24pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character? I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank.

So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be?
In the Constitution?

There is NO Aboriginal Voice.

It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other.
Why not, FFS!

Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!!

Tellembuggerem.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:30pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character? I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank. So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be? In the Constitution? There is NO Aboriginal Voice. It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other. Why not, FFS! Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!! Tellembuggerem.

What a astonishingly stupid argument.

To use your argument, considering that Aussies never agree on anything,  does that mean we should abolish government?  :D

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:30pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character? I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank. So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be? In the Constitution? There is NO Aboriginal Voice. It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other. Why not, FFS! Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!! Tellembuggerem.

Frank, every group contains people with differing views. In spite of this, consensus is often reached on issues.

This might help you, scroll down to the section which describes how The Voice arose.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMcbDVuaHM4



Read it here:

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:06pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:30pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character? I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank. So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be? In the Constitution? There is NO Aboriginal Voice. It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other. Why not, FFS! Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!! Tellembuggerem. Frank, every group contains people with differing views. In spite of this, consensus is often reached on issues. This might help you, scroll down to the section which describes how The Voice arose. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-a

So we have a parliament for the variety of views. Democratically elected.  The Aboriginal voice is not democratically elected, and it is IN ADDITION to the democratically elected Aboriginal voices in parliament.

What can an undemocratic Voice say that a democratic parliament with democratically elected Aborigines cannot?
Not to mention the myriad other Aboriginal voices, organisations, corporations, ministries, councils, services, departments.

No constitutional change will have ANY effect on the savage, brutal, disgusting treatment some - not all - Aborigines visit on each other,their wives and children every day.

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:19pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:06pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:30pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler. In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities. As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia. By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years. Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes. Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character? I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank. So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be? In the Constitution? There is NO Aboriginal Voice. It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other. Why not, FFS! Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!! Tellembuggerem. Frank, every group contains people with differing views. In spite of this, consensus is often reached on issues. This might help you, scroll down to the section which describes how The Voice arose. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-a So we have a parliament for the variety of views. Democratically elected.  The Aboriginal voice is not democratically elected, and it is IN ADDITION to the democratically elected Aboriginal voices in parliament. What can an undemocratic Voice say that a democratic parliament with democratically elected Aborigines cannot? Not to mention the myriad other Aboriginal voices, organisations, corporations, ministries, councils, services, departments. No constitutional change will have ANY effect on the savage, brutal, disgusting treatment some - not all - Aborigines visit on each other,their wives and children every day.

Frank, you're going off on a tanget but suffice it to say that domestic violence is not limited to Indigenous Australians.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:25pm:

Frank, you're going off on a tanget but suffice it to say that domestic violence is not limited to Indigenous Australians.

Indeed - but the predominance is in Indigenous communities.  The figures on deaths and hospital admissions and treatments for injuries show that.

Let us not get lost here in finding reliable solutions based on solid data.

The Western Australia cultural heritage legislation which will hamstring economic development, is a taste of what is to come nationally, if the Voice is established in the Constitution. This referendum is the first step in the Labor Party's overall goal to end capitalism and free enterprise in  Australia by undermining the authority of the Commonwealth and ending private property. You either believe in these principles or you don't. And plenty on this forum don't.

The Labor Party does not want Australians to vote on issues, they want you to vote along party lines and not think for yourself. Further Labor-Green legislation will include Universal Basic Income, and the legalisation of drugs for “recreational” use. Medicinal cannabis is the thin end of the wedge. Labor's ideal population are zombies who don't own anything and rely on Government handouts.

Notice how Labor-Greens have gone silent on AUKUS and nuclear subs, two subjects the Left opposes. It was an election expedient. This is pure hypocrisy, but don't expect them to remain silent indefinitely.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:46am:

The Western Australia cultural heritage legislation which will hamstring economic development, is a taste of what is to come nationally, if the Voice is established in the Constitution. This referendum is the first step in the Labor Party's overall goal to end capitalism and free enterprise in  Australia by undermining the authority of the Commonwealth and ending private property. You either believe in these principles or you don't. And plenty on this forum don't. The Labor Party does not want Australians to vote on issues, they want you to vote along party lines and not think for yourself. Further Labor-Green legislation will include Universal Basic Income, and the legalisation of drugs for “recreational” use. Medicinal cannabis is the thin end of the wedge. Labor's ideal population are zombies who don't own anything and rely on Government handouts. Notice how Labor-Greens have gone silent on AUKUS and nuclear subs, two subjects the Left opposes. It was an election expedient. This is pure hypocrisy, but don't expect them to remain silent indefinitely.

But ONLY if it's everyone else's.. their properties will be sacrosanct..... you don't expect Albo to give up his property portfolio in the Revolution, do you?  He's way above such things.

Reading a book on the failure of the ancient Roman republic - amazing comparisons with the modern West in its foolhardy drive to self-immolation to suit rampaging egos.*

What this comes down to is that we, the people, are being demanded of that we give permission for our being ruled by a self-appointed elite, who will own all the property while we own none and we labour as cattle in the fields to feed their fantasies of glory.

Albo is a raving lunatic - as are most of them these days.

Stop them NOW!

*It's titled simply 'Rubicon' - the river Caesar crossed to end the republic and begin the empire.

A member of Anthony Albanese’s referendum advisory group says the AUKUS nuclear submarine project has the potential to impact Indigenous communities, signalling she backs the voice to parliament advising government on the key pillar of Australia’s defence policy.

Artist Sally Scales said Aboriginal communities should be consulted on aspects of the nuclear subs deal, including where they will be docked.

“I don’t care about the nuts and the bolts of the submarines. But what do I care about? Where’s that nuclear waste going to go for (those) submarines?” Ms Scales told an event at the Australian National University on Wednesday night.

“If we’re going to build new ports for these submarines, where are those ports going to be? How (are) those Aboriginal communities going to be consulted and worked with?”

Ms Scales was a member of the government’s referendum advisory group that provided guidance to Anthony Albanese on the wording for amending the Constitution to enshrine a voice.

The comments contradict statements made last week by Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who was also a member of the referendum advisory group.

Mr Pearson told a La Trobe University event the constitutional amendment – which states the voice would make representations on “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” – was unlikely to extend to issues such as parking fines and submarines, a rejection of a key No campaign argument.

“I just don’t know how you squeeze parking tickets and ­nuclear submarines and so on into that clause, as a purpose of this voice. The purpose is clear that it’s on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander peoples,” he said.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-claims-of-no-say-onsubs-torpedoed-by-poll-adviser/news-story/4f4aa9ffaee8b7f8c2155fe02175f7ec.


Tellembuggerem.

Gnads wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:14pm:

The full PDF document of the Uluru Statement of the Heart has been made public through a FOI application ... it lays bare the full intent behind the referendum & the Voice. And as has been stated that's just the beginning of much more. The leftards here were & are wrong. Hey Aussie you wanker ... get a hold of the document & have a read. It's not the sanitised shyte you've been reading.

Good post Gnads!

My post from the topic next door 👇

The main pain points hiding inside the current Voice proposal. Essentially the current model for the Voice comes down to two linked issues:

1. Unlimited Scope - of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself.

2. Equality of Citizenship - where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.

Bottom line? LINUS should change his ID to ILIE

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another repeat from another thread, hey, Larry?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Boris wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:23pm:

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

read this crap

How can anyone want this excrement?

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:01pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another repeat from another thread, hey, Larry?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

And what was your response to it there, Bbwian?  Yawn? Tut-tutting? Both?

Talk about repeat, Bbwianesque cockwomble, talk about repeat! You are the worst kind of repetitious fathead far and wide. You couldn't make a coherent point so you repeat your empty insanities endlessly. Thicko Gino Smiff and Arrsie oik are intellectual giants of the most articulate and kind next to you, brain-dead cream puff. Vanity is all you have.

Gnads wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:14pm:

The full PDF document of the Uluru Statement of the Heart has been made public through a FOI application ... it lays bare the full intent behind the referendum & the Voice. And as has been stated that's just the beginning of much more. The leftards here were & are wrong. Hey Aussie you wanker ... get a hold of the document & have a read. It's not the sanitised shyte you've been reading.

Good post Gnads!

My post from the topic next door 👇

The main pain points hiding inside the current Voice proposal. Essentially the current model for the Voice comes down to two linked issues:

1. Unlimited Scope - of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself.

2. Equality of Citizenship - where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.

Bottom line? LINUS should change his ID to ILIE

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another repeat, hey, Larry?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Maybe the Chinese should be allowed to impact on Indigenous communities.... just ruminating here..... a missile or two on the front porch never hurt nobody .....  clearly this is just angling for some cargo cult payout in return for providing defence to the sorry bastards along with everyone else.

NO!!

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, another repeat, hey, Larry?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

And you still cant make a counter-argument, only tut-tutting, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain.


“When you are a Bbwian of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”
― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

Just so.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:38pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:14pm: The full PDF document of the Uluru Statement of the Heart has been made public through a FOI application ... it lays bare the full intent behind the referendum & the Voice. And as has been stated that's just the beginning of much more. The leftards here were & are wrong. Hey Aussie you wanker ... get a hold of the document & have a read. It's not the sanitised shyte you've been reading. Good post Gnads! My post from the topic next door 👇 The main pain points hiding inside the current Voice proposal. Essentially the current model for the Voice comes down to two linked issues: 1. Unlimited Scope - of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself. 2. Equality of Citizenship - where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law. Bottom line? LINUS should change his ID to ILIE

What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose?

Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up?

Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D

What ever happened to UNSW (The Jewish TAFE they called it) since my days (when I went to the Hilton Bombing and to a shootout in Kensington before some other things) and the days of Nick Farr-Jones?

What is the YES bloc frightened of losing?  They have, after all, nothing to gain but fat cash for a few and a portion of GDP paid for life so they can have a luxury lifestyle on your sweat ... they won't lose the kid and wife bashing, the kids going hungry and rampaging on the streets....and so forth... their unemployment lifestyle ... so their culture will be intact.

You know what shocked me this evening on the news?  Our local police bosses starting up a 'sports program' at the 'village' to try to control junior crime, and the commentator saying it was on top of a program to provide breakfasts run by the same police... WTF??

Can I ask again WTF some of you are talking about, since you clearly know nothing and cannot think for yourselves?

NOBODY with half a brain wants this voice and all that follows from it - try reading before asking silly questions - the full ULURU statement has been published for you.  Try reading it here...

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf

These are not Credlin's words - these are the words of the Uluru Statement on which she based her editorial.  Do try the same for the sake of your country and the future of any children and grand-children you may have one day.  My grand-children are not going to bear that load to satisfy a pack of whining losers in their frontier wars.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 5:57pm:

What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose?

A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic.

Quote:

What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO?

Quote:

Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D

Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere.

I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty.
I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty.

No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos.

Quote:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? [quote] A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D

Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere.

I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty.
I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty.

No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos.[/quote]

[/quote]
[/quote]

Why should they, Frank ? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans?

And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank?

You certainly don't have any answers to the questions I raised.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:14pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D

Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere.

I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty.
I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty.

No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos.



Quote:

Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank?

We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans.

That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic.


Alien 777 is correct. Alien.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:21pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:14pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere. I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty. I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty. No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos. Quote: Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank? We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans. That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic. Alien 777 is correct. Alien.

Your comment about taking modernity back from them is ridiculous. Sorry, if you didn't figure that out.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:26pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:14pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere. I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty. I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty. No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos. Quote: Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank? We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans. That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic. Alien 777 is correct. Alien. Your comment about taking modernity back is ridiculous. Sorry, if you didn't figure that out.

You couldn't articulate that, could you?
Asserting emotional crap is your limit?

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:29pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:14pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere. I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty. I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty. No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos. Quote: Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank? We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans. That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic. Alien 777 is correct. Alien. Your comment about taking modernity back is ridiculous. Sorry, if you didn't figure that out. You couldn't articulate that, could you? Asserting emotional crap is your limit?

Excuse me, Frank. I think you're talking about yourself there and are projecting. You might need to review the garbage you wrote.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:33pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:29pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:14pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere. I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty. I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty. No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos. Quote: Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank? We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans. That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic. Alien 777 is correct. Alien. Your comment about taking modernity back is ridiculous. Sorry, if you didn't figure that out. You couldn't articulate that, could you? Asserting emotional crap is your limit? Excuse me, Frank. I think you're talking about yourself there and are projecting. You might need to review the garbage you wrote.

You are evading. We see you.


A treaty should be with pre-1788 Aborigines.

They should all revert to the state they were before colonialism was imposed on them. It makes no sense to take ALL the benefits of colonialism  and then try to negotiate AS IF they were still pre-colonial. It's just nonsense.

If colonialism was so bad, abandon and relinquish ALL its benefits as well its drawbacks,  revert to pre colonial ways and let's negotiate from there.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:59pm:

What is the YES bloc frightened of losing?  They have, after all, nothing to gain but fat cash for a few and a portion of GDP paid for life so they can have a luxury lifestyle on your sweat ... they won't lose the kid and wife bashing, the kids going hungry and rampaging on the streets....and so forth... their unemployment lifestyle ... so their culture will be intact. You know what shocked me this evening on the news?  Our local police bosses starting up a 'sports program' at the 'village' to try to control junior crime, and the commentator saying it was on top of a program to provide breakfasts run by the same police... WTF?? Can I ask again WTF some of you are talking about, since you clearly know nothing and cannot think for yourselves? NOBODY with half a brain wants this voice and all that follows from it - try reading before asking silly questions - the full ULURU statement has been published for you.  Try reading it here... https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf These are not Credlin's words - these are the words of the Uluru Statement on which she based her editorial.

It's there on page 64

Quote:

There was strong support for Agreement Making as a vehicle for implementing policies such as a truth and reconciliation commission, designated seats in parliament, self determination policies, and economic measures like seeking a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). There was strong support for a mechanism that would seek agreement for a percentage of GDP to be allocated to and administered by First Nations The idea of ‘sovereign debt’ was raised, to pay for the debts of dispossession and colonialism

The restless natives want compensation for colonialism paid by those who had nothing to do with colonialism or dispossession.

Why should kids be taught a language that is used by less than 3% of our population and not spoken anywhere else in the world?

Keep that claptrap out of our schools and teach STEM subjects.

I doubt any woke idiots would read that document they will vote yes on feelings ingorance and emotion.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:33pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:29pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:14pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:03pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:57pm: What are you afraid of, exactly? What do you think you will lose? A moronic, question, calculated to be moronic. What are YOU afraid of? What do you thing YOU will lose if the answer is NO? Here are a few questions you can mull over. Native Title has been around for a while now and there have been quite a few successful claims, tell me, did you lose anything? Did your life change in any way? Did you even notice? What makes you think that the sky will fall if The Voice gets up? Honest answers please, LIEsa  ;D Yes. Access is limited, fake Abos proliferated, 'cultural' bollocks interference is everywhere. I am happy to treaty with Abos if they surrender every gain modernity gave them. Go back to pre-1788 Abo ways and let us treaty. I am all for that. And stay pre-1788 until we have a treaty. No modern amenities for you until then - no medicine, schools, internet, cars, houses, plumbing, clothes, shoes, none of the evil British oppressive impositions on Abos. Quote: Why should they? Should the world give back everything that they got from the Greeks and Romans? And why do you need to be derogatory toward them, Frank? We are NOT seeking a treaty with the Greeks and the Romans. That I need to point out something so elementary to you tells me that you are completely out of your depth - like Burhey- and frankly, too stupid for words. Idiotic. Alien 777 is correct. Alien. Your comment about taking modernity back is ridiculous. Sorry, if you didn't figure that out. You couldn't articulate that, could you? Asserting emotional crap is your limit? Excuse me, Frank. I think you're talking about yourself there and are projecting. You might need to review the garbage you wrote. You are evading. We see you. A treaty should be with pre-1788 Aborigines. They should all revert to the state they were before colonialism was imposed on them. It makes no sense to take ALL the benefits of colonialism  and then try to negotiate AS IF they were still pre-colonial. It's just nonsense. If colonialism was so bad, abandon and relinquish ALL its benefits as well its drawbacks,  revert to pre colonial ways and let's negotiate from there.

Apart from repeating yourself , Frank, what you said is still batshit crazy.

Multiculturalism was sold to Australians as fair and logical way to dismantle the long standing white-Australia policy. Everyone was supposed to have the same rights before the law. All races with their religions could be citizens. Cracks started to show in that idea when Muzelums started murdering people for not being Muzelams.

Did Leftist progressives pause to think which political culture wrote multiculturalism into its laws? Not even with the fact that these multicultural countries are the only ones that refugees want to go to. But Leftist Humanist Prgressives are never wrong about anything, and now they want to qualify multiculturalism with a special status based on race. That's supposed to make things fairer.

Quote:

Multiculturalism was sold to Australians as fair and logical way to dismantle the long standing white-Australia policy. Everyone was supposed to have the same rights before the law. All races with their religions could be citizens.

This is passable


Quote:

Cracks started to show in that idea when Muzelums started murdering people for not being Muzelams.

What some individuals did  has got nothing to do with whole communities.


Quote:

Did Leftist progressives pause to think which political culture wrote multiculturalism into its laws?

Do Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico, Mauritius, Kenya, Fiji and South Africa count?


Quote:

Not even with the fact that these multicultural countries are the only ones that refugees want to go to.

Refugees have gone to all the above counties I mentioned, apart from maybe Fiji.


Quote:

Prgressives are never wrong about anything, and now they want to qualify multiculturalism with a special status based on race. That's supposed to make things fairer.

The Indigenous Voice seeks to address the historical marginalization and exclusion of Indigenous Australians from decision-making processes in their own country. It is an attempt to recognize and remedy the unique and ongoing impacts of colonization and dispossession on Indigenous communities, which have experienced severe and long-standing injustices.

The proposal for the Indigenous Voice is not about granting a "special status" to Indigenous Australians above all other ethnic communities. Instead, it is about providing a constitutionally enshrined mechanism for Indigenous Australians to have a say in matters that directly affect them, acknowledging their distinct position as the First Nations of Australia.

It's consistent with multiculturalism and it's making things fairer.

Linus wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 12:16am:

Quote: Multiculturalism was sold to Australians as fair and logical way to dismantle the long standing white-Australia policy. Everyone was supposed to have the same rights before the law. All races with their religions could be citizens. This is passable [quote]Cracks started to show in that idea when Muzelums started murdering people for not being Muzelams.

What some individuals did  has got nothing to do with whole communities.


Quote:

Did Leftist progressives pause to think which political culture wrote multiculturalism into its laws?

Do Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico, Mauritius, Kenya, Fiji and South Africa count?


Quote:

Not even with the fact that these multicultural countries are the only ones that refugees want to go to.

Refugees have gone to all the above counties I mentioned, apart from maybe Fiji.


Quote:

Prgressives are never wrong about anything, and now they want to qualify multiculturalism with a special status based on race. That's supposed to make things fairer.

The Indigenous Voice seeks to address the historical marginalization and exclusion of Indigenous Australians from decision-making processes in their own country. It is an attempt to recognize and remedy the unique and ongoing impacts of colonization and dispossession on Indigenous communities, which have experienced severe and long-standing injustices.

The proposal for the Indigenous Voice is not about granting a "special status" to Indigenous Australians above all other ethnic communities. Instead, it is about providing a constitutionally enshrined mechanism for Indigenous Australians to have a say in matters that directly affect them, acknowledging their distinct position as the First Nations of Australia.

It's consistent with multiculturalism and it's making things fairer.
[/quote]

So you've read the full Uluru Statement?

Going by that prog waffle you have not.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

A treaty should be with pre-1788 Aborigines. They should all revert to the state they were before colonialism was imposed on them.

Just when I think you said the dumbest thing ever, you go and come up with something even dumber :D :D

How will that work Sore end? Will all the white people go back to pre 1788 too so that the aborigines can go back to the way they were?

Christ you're an idiot

I still want to know how they're going to find the rent money on all the improvements...  do you have any idea how much a gold mine in Kalgoorlie costs?  Or an entire city?

John Smith wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 10:32am:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:58pm: A treaty should be with pre-1788 Aborigines. They should all revert to the state they were before colonialism was imposed on them. Just when I think you said the dumbest thing ever, you go and come up with something even dumber :D :D How will that work Sore end? Will all the white people go back to pre 1788 too so that the aborigines can go back to the way they were? Christ you're an idiot

The absurdity of it demonstrates the absurdity of making a treaty with Aborigines who have inexorably and irreversible MOVED INTO modernity.  There are no Aborigines who are still like pre1788 Abos, and never will be. The treaty would be with thoroughly Europeanised Aborigines, speaking, thinking like Europeans. It wou lok d be a MODERN political treaty, exclusively along the lines of modern Western political and legal lines,  not a treaty between two worlds, one pre-contact and the other modern.


The black armband, sorry business type of moaning about Aborigines ignores the benefits and, for a pre-contact Aborigine, unimaginable improvements that Europeans have brought to their lives. If they were serioys about colonisation being an unmitigated disaster they should abandon and give up any of the benefits of it. Can't have it both ways. Truth telling is a two way street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be8E9aagdls

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Yeah, yeah, who cares, except Racists like you, Matty?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 12:34pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Yeah, yeah, who cares, except Racists like you, Matty?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

It is much more than a modest change - it is huge

They will divide Parliament House into 3 and the Voice will be equal to the Senate and the House of Reps

This is dangerous

The Voice is evil and will destroy my country - not a "Modest Request"

Frank wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 10:53am:

The absurdity of it demonstrates

your stupidity


Frank wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 10:53am:

There are no Aborigines who are still like pre1788 Abos, and never will be

thats why no one has ever suggested such stupidity other than you

Frank wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 10:53am:

The treaty would be with thoroughly Europeanised Aborigines, speaking, thinking like Europeans

are you afraid that you won't be able to trade NSW for a bag of beads or a shiny mirror anymore? Ohh the horror. :D :D

.

Linus wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 12:16am:

The Indigenous Voice seeks to address the historical marginalization and exclusion of Indigenous Australians from decision-making processes in their own country. It is an attempt to recognize and remedy the unique and ongoing impacts of colonization and dispossession on Indigenous communities, which have experienced severe and long-standing injustices.

This is a lie.

Aborigines are not marginalised nor excluded from anything. They fully participate in the national life as equal citizens.

40% of the Australian population was born overseas or has at least one parent born overseas. So almost half the current population has absolutely nothing to do with any 'historical' events in Australia. Needless to say, none of the rest of the Australian population is guilty of any of those 'historical'grievances.
Aborigines are not the only people who were discriminated against in the past.
Today they have every opportunity open to them, with more additional encouragement and assistance than any other group.



Quote:

The proposal for the Indigenous Voice is not about granting a "special status" to Indigenous Australians above all other ethnic communities. Instead, it is about providing a constitutionally enshrined mechanism for Indigenous Australians to have a say in matters that directly affect them, acknowledging their distinct position as the First Nations of Australia. It's consistent with multiculturalism and it's making things fairer.

Aborigines have more-than proportional representation in Parliament and in government decision making at every level.
Adding another constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal body separates Aborigines from everyone else forever and gives them an additional say in everything BASED ON THAT ARTIFICIAL SEPARATENESS.

They have no 'distinct position' in today's society. 

John Smith wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 12:36pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: The absurdity of it demonstrates your stupidity Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: There are no Aborigines who are still like pre1788 Abos, and never will be thats why no one has ever suggested such stupidity other than you

The point, thick as mince Gino, is that Aboriginal activist like Hold-da-Mayo, Davis, Burney et al only ever squawk about 'disadvantage', and never about the immense benefits Eurooean colonisation brought them personally and to Aborigines generally.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 12:36pm: Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: The absurdity of it demonstrates your stupidity Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: There are no Aborigines who are still like pre1788 Abos, and never will be thats why no one has ever suggested such stupidity other than you The point, thick as mince Gino, is that Aboriginal activist like Hold-da-Mayo, Davis, Burney et al only ever squawk about 'disadvantage', and never about the immense benefits European colonisation brought them personally and to Aborigines generally.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 12:36pm: Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: The absurdity of it demonstrates your stupidity Frank wrote on Aug 5th, 2023 at 10:53am: There are no Aborigines who are still like pre1788 Abos, and never will be thats why no one has ever suggested such stupidity other than you The point, thick as mince Gino, is that Aboriginal activist like Hold-da-Mayo, Davis, Burney et al only ever squawk about 'disadvantage', and never about the immense benefits European colonisation brought them personally and to Aborigines generally.

In last week’s Queen's Birthday Honours List two prominent people were given “Order of Australia” awards for services said to benefit indigenous people. One was Marcia Langton, a long-time Aboriginal university professor. The other was former Liberal-National Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

The question must be asked: How did Langton, who began her political life in the 1970s as a leader of the Communist League, purporting to fight for the overthrow of capitalism, become, at the age of 68, the beneficiary of a Queen’s Honour alongside Abbott?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/17/lang-j17.html

A separate government that controls everything... simple really.

I went through the available pages of the Uluru Statement last night for Aussie - pretty much showed a clear picture of the aims and intents and what the 'statement' is based on..... though pages 1-85 are not publicly available.

I consider the demand for control of land, water and resources to be the most important - those are the lifeblood of any nation, and I have no intention of paying for my use of water that falls from the sky or the land I've bought and paid for - and the resources were never used by the wandering hunters way back.... the ones who never settled anywhere for long and therefore cannot claim it as their property by squatter's rights - and their right to possession by conquest was extinguished when they themselves were conquered when they chose frontier war instead of co-operation....

Come on, dorks - compare the White civilisation of Australia to Putin's invasion of Ukraine..... we need a laugh.... and it might give some of you meaningful non-market based work to do....   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  .... or some work for a change.....