Australian Politics Forum - We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?

Laugh till you cry

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #105 - Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 9:05pm

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 9:00pm:

And so the rot continues. Aboriginals continue to
force the abolishment of place names that have a
special historical significance to 97% of our
population.

The names of some of Byron Bay's most famous
landmarks in northern New South Wales could soon
be changed to traditional Aboriginal names.

Under proposals by The NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Cape Byron would be renamed
"Walgun" and Julian Rocks would be "Nguthungulli".

Byron Shire Council has also been approached by a
volunteer group for a reserve informally known as
Weir Park or Pool Park, to be given the Aboriginal
place name of "Piccabeen"

"Reawakening Aboriginal place names helps to
preserve cultural traditions and provide a sense of
belonging for people from all walks of life," NSW
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty David Harris
said.

—All walks of life? WTF? Not my life! Angry

Those who like UK names can get all they want by visiting the UK.

Back to top

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74257
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #106 - Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74257
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #107 - Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:23pm

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 9:00pm:

And so the rot continues. Aboriginals continue to
force the abolishment of place names that have a
special historical significance to 97% of our
population.

The names of some of Byron Bay's most famous
landmarks in northern New South Wales could soon
be changed to traditional Aboriginal names.

Under proposals by The NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Cape Byron would be renamed
"Walgun" and Julian Rocks would be "Nguthungulli".

Byron Shire Council has also been approached by a
volunteer group for a reserve informally known as
Weir Park or Pool Park, to be given the Aboriginal
place name of "Piccabeen"

"Reawakening Aboriginal place names helps to
preserve cultural traditions and provide a sense of
belonging for people from all walks of life," NSW
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty David Harris
said.

—All walks of life? WTF? Not my life! Angry

Does changing the name mean you'll stop visiting? If so I'm all for it.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29297
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #108 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

Quote:

At 30 June 2022, there were 3,521 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations registered under the CATSI Act, including 243 registered native title bodies corporate.

These are just for QLD - some have been deregistered - some areas locations have multiple Aboriginal Corps for that area.

They are all funded by the taxpayer.

https://register.oric.gov.au/PrintCorporationSearch.aspx?state=QLD

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 4^th, 2023 at 10:04am by Gnads »

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

The Heartless Felon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2869
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #109 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:22am

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 9:00pm:

And so the rot continues. Aboriginals continue to
force the abolishment of place names that have a
special historical significance to 97% of our
population.

The names of some of Byron Bay's most famous
landmarks in northern New South Wales could soon
be changed to traditional Aboriginal names.

Under proposals by The NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Cape Byron would be renamed
"Walgun" and Julian Rocks would be "Nguthungulli".

Byron Shire Council has also been approached by a
volunteer group for a reserve informally known as
Weir Park or Pool Park, to be given the Aboriginal
place name of "Piccabeen"

"Reawakening Aboriginal place names helps to
preserve cultural traditions and provide a sense of
belonging for people from all walks of life," NSW
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty David Harris
said.

—All walks of life? WTF? Not my life! Angry

It will be interesting to see what name the, er, interested groups come up with when they decide to re-name Australia...

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74257
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #110 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

No they don't. Most of the time aborigines are an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to the hands of their donors or their puppets. No one listens to the aborigines. Those aborigines in govt have mostly sold out, forced to tow the party line over and above any attempt to represent their fellow aborigines.

Who gives a bugger about a constitution? It's a piece of paper with rules set for it's time. It's been changed before and will change again in the future. Bellowing for strict adherence to something written in a previous era is ludicrous, and leads to the sort of stupidity you see from gun lobbyists in the USA or religious nutjobs in the ME. The constitution is there to serve the public, when it ceases doing that it's time to amend it. There is nothing sacred about rules written to suit a particular society. As that society changes, so does the need for the rules to change.

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 24621
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #111 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:40am

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am:

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

Why should we specifically recognise aborigines in the constitution, when the aborigines are already recognised, through the removal of race-specific sections of the Constitution in the year 1967? Australia was not indigenous land after the 1920s. Heck, we might as well say that Australia was not indigenous land after the 1890s, when the indigenous people were on the verge of dying off.

We are not paying the rent. We taxpayers (well, maybe not so much me) have basically bought the country from the indigenous people. And if there is going to be no change to the way the government works with or without the "Voice to Parliament" in effect, then we might as well ditch the upcoming referendum and start looking at repealing any special benefits indigenous people get.

Personally, I think 36 years after the 1967 referendum should be enough time for a demographic to get their act together. And even if you want to reconsider the 1992 Mabo decision as the starting point for my proposed 36-year leniency period, the year 2028 is only 5 years away. I would be happy for the affirmative action given to indigenous people be done away with by then.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29297
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #112 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 10:14am

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

No they don't. Most of the time aborigines are an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to the hands of their donors or their puppets. No one listens to the aborigines. Those aborigines in govt have mostly sold out, forced to tow the party line over and above any attempt to represent their fellow aborigines.

Who gives a bugger about a constitution? It's a piece of paper with rules set for it's time. It's been changed before and will change again in the future. Bellowing for strict adherence to something written in a previous era is ludicrous, and leads to the sort of stupidity you see from gun lobbyists in the USA or religious nutjobs in the ME. The constitution is there to serve the public, when it ceases doing that it's time to amend it. There is nothing sacred about rules written to suit a particular society. As that society changes, so does the need for the rules to change.

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

Perfect example as to why idiots like you shouldn't get a vote.

It's not "the least we can do" ... that's just leftoid wanker emotive guilt ridden bullshyte.

re:highlight - if that's true then why have it in there based solely on race?

You don't try & placate a people by pandering to Constitutional change.

And Albaneses right hand man in the Voice, Thomas Mayo does not believe that bullshit you've just tried to use as a coverup, one iota.

He sees this as a opportunity to grab power & control & a big money spinner in reparations, compensation & control.

Having a nation within a nation & growing fat off that purely based on his race.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44744
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #113 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 2:41pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

No they don't. Most of the time aborigines are an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to the hands of their donors or their puppets. No one listens to the aborigines. Those aborigines in govt have mostly sold out, forced to tow the party line over and above any attempt to represent their fellow aborigines.

Who gives a bugger about a constitution? It's a piece of paper with rules set for it's time. It's been changed before and will change again in the future. Bellowing for strict adherence to something written in a previous era is ludicrous, and leads to the sort of stupidity you see from gun lobbyists in the USA or religious nutjobs in the ME. The constitution is there to serve the public, when it ceases doing that it's time to amend it. There is nothing sacred about rules written to suit a particular society. As that society changes, so does the need for the rules to change.

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

So some remote Abos get legless by lunchtime, beat their wives, diddle their nieces and trash their government housing because they are not recognised in the Constitution. ONCE they are written into it, they will change and all will be well.

It's as easy as playing the flute, innit, thickerooni - you blow in one end, move your fingers up and down the holes and that's it!

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: 12511
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #114 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 4:25pm

Frank wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 2:41pm:

So some remote Abos get legless by lunchtime, beat their wives, diddle their nieces and trash their government housing because they are not recognised in the Constitution. ONCE they are written into it, they will change and all will be well.

It's a pity the proposal is to write the voice into the constitution, when plain recognition of prior occupation would assist in healing.

In fact, judging by the polls, failure of the Voice vote will take recognition of prior occupation down with it.

Quote:

It's as easy as playing the flute, innit, thickerooni - you blow in one end, move your fingers up and down the holes and that's it!

No, closing the gap will be very hard, given the current gruesome neoliberal NAIRU orthodoxy.

(and what if the parrot is correct?)

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44744
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #115 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 5:55pm

Nobody has ever disputed that Abos were here before 1788.

They were just too primitive, fragmented and backward to do anything with even remotely approaching partnership. Even now, the ones you can talk to are the ones that are least Aboriginal. There cannot be a dialogue of equals across a 60,000 years wide cultural, developmental gap.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95307
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #116 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 8:08pm

Frank wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 5:55pm:

Nobody has ever disputed that Abos were here before 1788.

They were just too primitive, fragmented and backward to do anything with even remotely approaching partnership. Even now, the ones you can talk to are the ones that are least Aboriginal. There cannot be a dialogue of equals across a 60,000 years wide cultural, developmental gap.

Oh, I don't know. Who keeps raising King Knut?

I blame Islam. Who else would come up with a calling card like that?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 103154 Melbourne Gender:	Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice? Reply #117 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 8:13pm It will never be enough:
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74257
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #118 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:41pm

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 10:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

No they don't. Most of the time aborigines are an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to the hands of their donors or their puppets. No one listens to the aborigines. Those aborigines in govt have mostly sold out, forced to tow the party line over and above any attempt to represent their fellow aborigines.

Who gives a bugger about a constitution? It's a piece of paper with rules set for it's time. It's been changed before and will change again in the future. Bellowing for strict adherence to something written in a previous era is ludicrous, and leads to the sort of stupidity you see from gun lobbyists in the USA or religious nutjobs in the ME. The constitution is there to serve the public, when it ceases doing that it's time to amend it. There is nothing sacred about rules written to suit a particular society. As that society changes, so does the need for the rules to change.

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

Perfect example as to why idiots like you shouldn't get a vote.

It's not "the least we can do" ... that's just leftoid wanker emotive guilt ridden bullshyte.

re:highlight - if that's true then why have it in there based solely on race?

its a token gesture

You don't try & placate a people by pandering to Constitutional change.

ignoring them hasn't worked for 200 yrs, what makes you think continuing to ignore them will suddenly work?

And Albaneses right hand man in the Voice, Thomas Mayo does not believe that bullshit you've just tried to use as a coverup, one iota.

then he's as deluded as you

He sees this as a opportunity to grab power & control & a big money spinner in reparations, compensation & control.

Having a nation within a nation & growing fat off that purely based on his race.

nationwithina nation Grin

stay off the drugs

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74257
Gender: male

Re: We lost Uluru - more to lose with a voice?
Reply #119 - Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:43pm

Frank wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 2:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:23am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 9:02am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2023 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2023 at 10:02am:

Exactly....The Voice has SFA to do with Native title so why is Bobby posting bullshit....You are actually supporting my argument with your rant mate!!!

I'm not posting bullshit.

What else do we stand to lose if the Voice vote is yes -
you tell us?

Christ you're a moron.

How typical of the racists and bigots on here, crying that giving someone else a voice will lose them something they never had. Cheesy

How moronic is it that lefty numbskulls can't understand that Aboriginal Australians already have more than ample "Voices" .... yes plural voices - multiple voices?

And why would they want the Constitution amended based on race?

No they don't. Most of the time aborigines are an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to the hands of their donors or their puppets. No one listens to the aborigines. Those aborigines in govt have mostly sold out, forced to tow the party line over and above any attempt to represent their fellow aborigines.

Who gives a bugger about a constitution? It's a piece of paper with rules set for it's time. It's been changed before and will change again in the future. Bellowing for strict adherence to something written in a previous era is ludicrous, and leads to the sort of stupidity you see from gun lobbyists in the USA or religious nutjobs in the ME. The constitution is there to serve the public, when it ceases doing that it's time to amend it. There is nothing sacred about rules written to suit a particular society. As that society changes, so does the need for the rules to change.

Recognizing aborigines in the constitution is the least we can do given that it was their land. It does no more than that and and these constant scare tactics are just that, bullshit designed to obscure and instill fear. There is nothing the govt can do with the 'voice' in the constitution, that it cannot already do with no 'voice' in the constitution. Your scare tactics are bullshit.

So some remote Abos get legless by lunchtime, beat their wives, diddle their nieces and trash their government housing because they are not recognised in the Constitution. ONCE they are written into it, they will change and all will be well.

It's as easy as playing the flute, innit, thickerooni - you blow in one end, move your fingers up and down the holes and that's it!

I don't think it's possible that you get dumber ... one thing I do know though is that if anyone can, it's you

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged