Australian Politics Forum - The Aboriginal Voice referendum

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44721
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1215 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:10am

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 19^th, 2023 at 3:29pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 19^th, 2023 at 2:51pm:

Employable Aborigines are guaranteed employment through a miriad preferments.

Your error there is the proposition of "employable blacks" - an error based on your conservative TINA fallacy.

Quote:

Unemployable Aborigines, like any other unemployable person, would have to be forced into a make belief job or be left on the social security support system.

Everyone (except severely disabled), is employable; that's where the government acting as 'employer of last resort' (ELR), comes in.

https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/

The Case for a Job Guarantee
PAVLINA R. TCHERNEVA

Quote:

You cannot force people to work if they are unwilling or unable.

An above poverty wage will usually entice people into a job

.....and like I said, everyone is ABLE to perform some or other useful work.

They have to make themselves employable, even when employed by government: be presentable, turn up on time, stay to the end, perform tasks as directed. Unless there is a coercive mechanism (slavery) individuals must make themselves employable.

Remote Aborigines - there are a few hundred people in these settlements. They would know each other personally. Why can't they get together and work together? Are the delinquent, criminal rapists in the majority in these settlements? If not, how come the rest can't pull together? Why arent the Stan Grant's there helping them pull together and straighten out their lives by cleaning up their houses and streets and themselves and get organised?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16941
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1216 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1217 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:05am

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 11:01am:

Gnads wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 6:41pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 2:09pm:

I've been away from this poo hole for another few weeks or months, I wasn't counting, can anyone fill me in to save 78 pages of bullshit, what are the current lies being used to justify the No vote?

Is the voice still going to hand Indigenous Australians power over everyone else?

Is it still racism to recognise them and the atrocities done to them in the constitution?

Should we still be sending the army into the Alice to commit genocide against them?

Have y'all moved on from the crap you were spouting back then?

Pack your bags &

f

uc

k

back off.

There is no logical & sane reason to vote for a constitutional amendment based on race.... period!

You are just another led by the nose softcock without a real clue.

So, you're still being a hyperbolic sh

it

c

unt

?

Good to know.

Oi! Stop it!

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12505
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1218 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:13am

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:10am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 19^th, 2023 at 3:29pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 19^th, 2023 at 2:51pm:

Employable Aborigines are guaranteed employment through a miriad preferments.

Your error there is the proposition of "employable blacks" - an error based on your conservative TINA fallacy.

Quote:

Unemployable Aborigines, like any other unemployable person, would have to be forced into a make belief job or be left on the social security support system.

Everyone (except severely disabled), is employable; that's where the government acting as 'employer of last resort' (ELR), comes in.

https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/

The Case for a Job Guarantee
PAVLINA R. TCHERNEVA

Quote:

You cannot force people to work if they are unwilling or unable.

An above poverty wage will usually entice people into a job

.....and like I said, everyone is ABLE to perform some or other useful work.

They have to make themselves employable,

Chicken and egg problem: social dysfunction must be ameliorated in order for people to be capable of presenting for work and holding a job.

Quote:

Unless there is a coercive mechanism (slavery) individuals must make themselves employable.

Simplistic, as noted above; social dysfunction needs to be addressed by government, to enable individuals to function at work.

And social dysfunction is most ably dealt with by provision of jobs (via government as ELR) and other support (housing, anti-drug addiction) where required.

Quote:

Remote Aborigines - there are a few hundred people in these settlements. They would know each other personally. Why can't they get together and work together?

Because paid jobs and other social supports are not readily available in remote - or even in larger - centres like Alice Springs ; the dole is not successful in ameliorating social dysfunction.

Quote:

Are the delinquent, criminal rapists in the majority in these settlements?

Hopefully, not in most communities.

Quote:

If not, how come the rest can't pull together? Why arent the Stan Grant's there helping them pull together and straighten out their lives by cleaning up their houses and streets and themselves and get organised?

Because the Stan Grant's can't fulfil/replace and fund the services which only the government can do, as outlined above.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:19am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83835
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1219 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:29am

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

That question was sort of raised in the video Frank put up... the NOTION of constitutional recognition in isolation should perhaps be asked first - with precise details of what that recognition actually means - but that is not in itself part of any concept of a separate Voice to Parliament.

That is very muddled thinking from those who spent so much wasted time trying to put together this crazy idea, since the two are completely separate, and the instant any reasonable person sees 'Recognition and a Voice' their ears perk up in suspicion - I know mine do.

If you add in the equally crazy idea that the Australian taxpayer should fund an unspecified number of local Aboriginal council voice groups, then an unspecified number of regional ones, then an over-arching Federal one - the clear presentation is of one massive and costly bureaucracy that offers handsome payment to members of one small group, while nobody yet knows how those will even be elected or appointed - but clearly there are those with their eye on those positions of free money.

If the Muslim community, for instance, demanded the same thing, or the mining industry, or even the (heaven forbid) majority White Australians - what would be your response, is my simple question.... I know what mine would be..... the exact same in every scenario - NO - and purely on the grounds that NO preference, under our form of democratic government ruled by OUR law, can even begin to be given to ANY group, and their possession or lack of poverty has nothing to do with it.

Even if they were the richest group in this land I would still vote NO!! Capisce??? If you don't, I cannot help you. Make that ESPECIALLY if they were the richest group in this land because to do so would be to introduce tyranny and despotism and feudal overlordship to this nation.

All those 'problems' that people keep throwing up as needing resolution will NOT be resolved by any such absurd and over-bloated and costly bureaucracy that IS undermining our democracy and entire way of life - the causes are manifold and none is as simple as just giving them a HEAD (Hand 'Em A Duty) job.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44721
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1220 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83835
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1221 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:40am

All this a bit too toxic for you? Pretty simple, really....

Aborigines etc already have all the voice they need same as everyone else.

They already have a higher percentage of representation in Parliament than their percentage representation in the community.

They are already enshrined in the constitution as Australians - same as everyone else.

They also have lobby groups, special representative groups with access to government, and over-representation in the press.

They have the support of Labor, the Greens, the majority of Independents, as well as a number of those on the 'right' side of Parliament.

What the actual powers and functions of any Special Voice are intended to be has not begun to be addressed. The wording is vague, perhaps deliberately so.

Such a voice is racist, discriminatory and exclusionist.

It is not clear if any 'voice' has political voting power in Parliament.

Such a voice body would be an ATSIC or similar that could never be abolished or stood down for corruption etc.

It will achieve nothing that cannot be achieved without it, and at huge and unnecessary cost in money and disturbance of the democratic process

The intent of 'Aboriginal activists' is not to view this as the end result, but as the stepping stone towards the creation of mini-states throughout Australia, all bound by treaty to the Australian Government and funded by the taxpayer and any relevant business wishing to operate there.

It is not simply about 'Aboriginal issues'. Any claim or demand by one group has direct effects on every member of Australia. Similar to 'women's issues' and such these do not exist in a vacuum.

Depending on the model, it could mean permanent seats in Parliament for people who are only voted on by that one group (or groups) – those claiming Aboriginal descent.

To have a separate voice elected only by Aboriginals would mean that the current Aboriginal elected representatives are superfluous and should be stood down.

The claim to have 'never ceded sovereignty', means that elected Aborigines are ineligible to be chosen or to sit in Parliament.

44. Any person who –

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16941
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1222 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:42am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:29am:

If the Muslim community, for instance, demanded the same thing, or the mining industry, or even the (heaven forbid) majority White Australians - what would be your response]

You're comparing the surviving people of colonial genocide and the stealing of their land, to giving the mining industry a voice to parliament?

You're comparing apples to butt plugs mate...

This is a prime example of misinformation as part of the "no" camp's justifications.

At first I thought you were joking, especially since that industry has actual control, not a voice, over many politicians and their votes/polices already, but then I remembered it was you...

Can't tell if trolling or just imbecilic.

Back to top

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16941
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1223 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

Back to top

IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 9925 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1224 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:47am
Back to top	The 2025 election could be a shocker. IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16941
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1225 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:49am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:40am:

Such a voice is racist, discriminatory and exclusionist.

You know, if those who question the No camp are not allowed to pull the racist card without their points being instantly dismissed, surely when the No camp hilariously claims racism, they should fu

ck

right off too?

And, given the context of everything else you've posted here, and don't worry, I'm not going to waste time quoting some of the more hideously racist things you've said, again, you want people for a second to think you're concerned about racism?

Like, seriously?

It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly ridiculous and the topic wasn't so serious.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12505
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1226 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:54am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:29am:

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

That question was sort of raised in the video Frank put up... the NOTION of constitutional recognition in isolation should perhaps be asked first - with precise details of what that recognition actually means

I agree: indeed the '67 referendum already recognizes blacks in the constitution.

Quote:

- but that is not in itself part of any concept of a separate Voice to Parliament.

That is very muddled thinking from those who spent so much wasted time trying to put together this crazy idea, since the two are completely separate, and the instant any reasonable person sees 'Recognition and a Voice' their ears perk up in suspicion - I know mine do.

Well, yes, I suppose I should now direct my remarks to Sad Kangaroo, because YOU well know my thoughts on the matter - "it's the economy, stupid".

Quote:

If you add in the equally crazy idea that the Australian taxpayer should fund.....

Bingo, right on cue; meanwhile the yes camp think the voice will magically close the gap, and the no camp think it will not help to close the gap.

The former are deluded, because government money IS required to close the gap, and a yes vote won't in itself help much in releasing more government money; while the latter are simply satisfied that the gap cannot be closed....because....."poverty is always with us/is the fault of its victims". To wit:

Quote:

All those 'problems' that people keep throwing up as needing resolution will NOT be resolved by any such absurd and over-bloated and costly bureaucracy that IS undermining our democracy and entire way of life - the causes are manifold and none is as simple as just giving them a HEAD (Hand 'Em A Duty) job.

See? The nation just has to live with the gap, unless blacks themselves close it. And if they can't/won't, we can just lock'em up, to avoid the fall out on the rest of the community....

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44721
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1227 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:14pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44721
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1228 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:16pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12505
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1229 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:18pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:49am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:40am:

Such a voice is racist, discriminatory and exclusionist.

You know, if those who question the No camp are not allowed to pull the racist card without their points being instantly dismissed, surely when the No camp hilariously claims racism, they should fu

ck

right off too?

And, given the context of everything else you've posted here, and don't worry, I'm not going to waste time quoting some of the more hideously racist things you've said, again, you want people for a second to think you're concerned about racism?

Like, seriously?

It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly ridiculous and the topic wasn't so serious.

SK, are you aware Noel Pearson supports a Job Guarantee (after his contact with prof. Bill Mitchell several years ago)?

Thoughts?

Note: a JG implies funding via 'government money', which is different to funding via 'taxpayer money' (in MMT).

As you can see from Graps' posts, funding of aboriginal services is a major concern for him as a taxpayer, as it is for all taxpayers.

I will just say MMT proposes funding via government money ie money issued by the currency issuing government...just to interest you in MMT...

I see no future in the endless struggle between 'high taxes' and 'low taxes' as the source of govt. funds.

..an endless struggle which is why Labor can't achieve much even when in government.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Will the referendum be voted in?
* This poll has now closed *
No 42 (75.0%) Yes 14 (25.0%) Total votes: 56 « Last Modified by: Redmond Neck on: Feb 25^th, 2023 at 11:17am »