I thought the same as Blair Cottrell.

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

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

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

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

https://itsoktobewhite.quora.com/Why-do-white-people-get-so-bent-out-of-shape-wh...

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


QUOTE -

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many more do they need?

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

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

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

Quote:


https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/fifteen-queensland-t...

Editorial todays Courier Mail

Quote:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

These are separate issues.

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

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


Ok, let me stop you there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Especially when some concede,

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


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

Quote:


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

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

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

A government cannot make treaty with its own citizens.

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

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

The answer is NO!

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Which in a way, he did.

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

That ended the moment the vote was defeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is, nothing.

In reality, it's simply this,

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


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

Ultimately, that is the essence of these tears.

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



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

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

Boohoo.

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


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

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

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

Oh, you poor thing.

.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


What part of this don’t you get?

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

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

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

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

Here are a few examples straight from their election platform:

Quote:


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

This is democracy in action, plain and simple.

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

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

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

Simple.

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

Apartheid IS a direct assault on any democracy of equals.

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

The two gentlemen below me have put it very nicely.

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

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

The enormous number of representative groups that nobody else has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing but all true.

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


That’s yet another falsehood you’ve propagated.

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

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

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

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


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

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

As they say, duly NOTED!

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

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

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

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

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

The claim was also examined in great detail,

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The status quo has failed.

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

That is far from apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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


It certainly clears up yours.

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

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

Isn’t that a bit excessive?

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

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

Clearly, you have not.

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

Bravo.

Quote:


Please see the other thread.

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

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


No change is without, well change...

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

Who knew?!

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Quote:


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

Again, your intentions are clear.

Quote:


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

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

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

Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engaging with you is utterly futile.

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

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


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

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

Ooooooh!  What intentions did YOU imagine there were?

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

You're not fooling anyone, champ.

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

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


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

Just start the blog already mate.

This back and forth discussion style is clearly beyond you.

The word was a resounding

NO

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

WHAT A PACK OF LOSERS.