Brian Ross wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 5:48pm:


Get your hand out from under your cassock you dirty old bishop bashing deviate.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 6:52pm:

NZ is different from Oz and has no specific constitution. The monarch has a bit more authority.
In 2006 the Queen enacted 'Administrator of the Government.
Whenever the Office of Governor-General is vacant, or the holder of the Office is for any reason unable to perform all or any of the functions of the Office, We [ the monarch] do hereby authorise, empower, and command the Chief Justice of New Zealand to perform the functions of the Office of Governor-General. If, however, there is for the time being no Chief Justice able to act as Governor-General, then the next most senior Judge of the New Zealand judiciary who is able so to act is so authorised, empowered, and commanded. The Chief Justice or the next most senior Judge, while performing all or any of the functions of the Office of Governor-General, is to be known as the Administrator of the Government; and in these Our Letters Patent every reference to Our Governor-General includes, unless inconsistent with the context, a reference to Our Administrator of the Government.”

'And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves and Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them shall seem meet.'
-----
That needs a referendum under the Oz constitution so the monarch in NZ = the population of Oz.  Thorpe was nuts to demand Charles give her a Treaty, he can't.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/legal-expert-chris-merritt-ca...
The video shows her stalking Charles personally and not in the group of pollies.  He had a treaty in his pocket and could have just handed it over.

She asked him for the treaty which shows she regards him as the government pinnacle (or that was her theatrical image). It's an American/ foreign concept that he rules Aboriginals. He don't.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 25^th, 2024 at 7:08am:


In case it wasn’t clear, I have a job and a life. I’m not some bitter, retired individual with nothing better to do than fixate on belittling Indigenous people at every opportunity just to boost my own sense of worth.  I'm not here 24x7.

I initially joined this forum under the assumption that it was a place for legitimate political discussion, unlike the overly sanitised environment of Whirlpool.

I hadn’t anticipated it being the polar opposite of that place. Less censorship and moderation is good, but outright platforming racist hate speech was entirely unexpected.  Some may think that FD has a lot to answer for.

Yet, I chose to stay because the only way to genuinely challenge and refine my views is to engage with perspectives I fundamentally disagree with, preventing myself from becoming trapped in an echo chamber.

While we’ve certainly clashed on numerous occasions it's not ever been anything personal.  One thing I cannot tolerate is when people abandon reality and substitute it with their own delusions, especially when it serves as a shield for blatant racism and bigotry.

You, ever the perpetual victim and fragile snowflake, have taken all of this far too personally. Rather than engage with reality, you’ve entrenched yourself deeper in an alternate world that makes you feel safe, validated, and superior.

It’s clear you’re simply not equipped for genuine discussion, especially when it reveals just how fragile your views are under the scrutiny of truth.

Just start the blog already.

One would think, after all these years, you might have evolved, but instead, you’ve regressed, becoming increasingly extreme as time goes on.

I truly pity those in your life who have to endure this deteriorating version of you. I can only hope it’s confined to us here, because if not, it’s only a matter of time before you drive everyone else away.

Quote:


I attempted to engage with you respectfully, played along with your approach, and yet you still chose to act like a petulant, disrespectful child.

So now, I see no reason not to return your insolence in kind. You've earned it, slick.

Quote:


You’ve become so unmoored from reality that your only recourse is to resort to conspiracy theories whenever someone dares to disagree with you or when the facts fail to align with your warped beliefs.

Frankly, it’s pathetic.

Do yourself a favour and reach out to your family, assuming they haven’t disowned you yet. You’re clearly starved of human connection, which is driving you further into extremism.

But please, spare the rest of the world. Stay the gutless keyboard warrior you are. Keep your hatred confined to this forum, where at least it can be documented and scrutinised. You do realise this space is entirely public, right? No account is required to witness the vile trail of posts you've left behind for all to see.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 25^th, 2024 at 2:07pm:


That is patently untrue. The only individuals I would categorise as racist or bigoted are those who consistently resort to racial slurs and advocate for genocide or segregation based on race—just as you do.

Quote:


You requested that I answer your questions, so I proposed a reset. I committed to treating you with respect and engaging in a good faith discussion.

Yet, you either refused or were incapable of reciprocating that respect. I provided you with multiple opportunities and reminded you of the civility we aimed to achieve, without invoking the phrase "in good faith" as you claimed this to be abusive, but you still lacked the integrity to engage meaningfully.

As a result, you will be treated no better than you have treated me and others who dissent from your views.

If you find this treatment objectionable, it does not make you a victim; it is merely a reflection of your own behaviour. Shocking as it may be, actions have consequences.

Quote:


It's in black and white.  I replied, in good faith, answering your questions, but you just ignored it.  Or, do the multiple people running your account not talk to each other? /s

Quote:


"Apartheid proven"?

Simply asserting that something is proven does not make it so—especially when you redefine terms to suit your narrative yet again.

The Uluru Statement is not about Indigenous supremacy; that’s merely a line you believe will resonate with individuals as bigoted as yourself. You are accustomed to viewing yourself as superior, so any effort to level the playing field is perceived as a personal affront to your perceived supremacy. This is a profound failing within you; it is not anyone else’s fault.

Your concerns clearly centre on Indigenous land rights, which is indeed a legitimate issue. However, when you frame it as "The Voice by stealth" and repeatedly lie to mask the other falsehoods you’ve perpetuated, genuine debate becomes impossible.

If your position is so weak that you must resort to lies to bolster it, perhaps it’s time to pause, reassess, and approach the matter anew. Yet, your stubbornness reveals that, like many with limited intellectual capacity, you equate admitting any mistake with losing the argument. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how discourse operates.

Reevaluate your stance and engage with the facts and reality. You are entitled to critique the existing framework of Indigenous land rights as a legislative issue. However, when you justify your views by espousing violence—wishing for the annihilation of Indigenous peoples during colonisation, fantasising about imprisoning them in zoos, or using racial slurs—your position shifts from a legislative concern to a bigoted and racist diatribe.

It does not help that you label everything as "lawfare" or "The Voice by stealth" to claim that whatever issue you’re discussing is undemocratic simply because the referendum was defeated. Your bigoted views, underpinned by lies and misrepresentations of truth, combined with your incessant use of racial slurs while portraying yourself as a victim, invalidate any claims of unfair treatment you may assert in this forum.

You've cried wolf about "The Voice by Stealth" and "Lawfare" that those claims of yours have no meaning anymore, especially after you admitted to redefining what "The Voice" meant.

So cease your whining, stop being a racist tool, and strive to be better. If you genuinely desire a substantive debate, the door remains open. However, you must first demonstrate your capacity for meaningful engagement. Time and again, you have shown that this is far beyond your reach.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 25^th, 2024 at 3:53pm:


If you don't want to be called racist, stop advocating for things are racist and using racial slurs.

Quack quack.

Quote:


You're now redefining what a slur is...  White flag accepted.

Quote:


You want to be taken seriously here, claiming to have a genuine concern for the people you "joke" about killing and ethnically cleansing?

Please.

Quote:


Again, if you don't want to be thought of as racist, then stop acting racist.

It's such a simple concept.

Joking about killing Indigenous People, joking about the British should have done a better job killing them all during colonisation, joking about shooting them on site, constantly using racial slurs, constantly lying about any piece of news being "The Voice by stealth" or "Lawfare" when they have nothing to do with it and having such a monumental tantrum when being called out about it all, these are not the actions of someone who is acting in good faith and isn't a racist piece of sh.

If you don't like what you see in the mirror, attacking me won't help.

Be better.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 25^th, 2024 at 6:06pm:


You have an interesting way of showing it.

If that were genuinely your intent, you’d be actively fighting for Indigenous rights, working to dismantle the barriers that drive de facto segregation, barriers embedded in economic inequality, residential divisions, education gaps, employment discrimination, and social exclusion within areas of higher Indigenous populations.

Instead, you oppose every initiative aimed at addressing these issues, recently dismissing them as "lawfare."

Your actions speak louder than your hallow words.

Distorting Indigenous advocacy to equate it with forced captivity and fantasies of hunting people for sport, your absurd "Aborassic Park" notion, is not supporting their demands.

Quote:


I would prefer if you refrained from treating people as though they were animals, creatures to be confined in "hermetically sealed" enclosures or hunted and killed for sport.

Quote:


You draw arbitrary boundaries around regions you aim to isolate, forcibly separating people from the rest of society while insisting, "it's what they want."

This isn't what they're advocating for.

What you're suggesting is segregation.

Quote:


If you take issue with land rights policies and legislation, then engage with that subject directly.

Do not disguise your agenda by framing The Voice by stealth against the will of the people. Refrain from racial slurs and abandon the vile rhetoric that advocates violence against Indigenous communities, or fantasies of isolating them within “sealed domes” or establishing quotas for those heinous ideas that involve the hunting, harm, or targeting of people as though they were animals subject to “bag limits.” or saying this would have all been easier if the British has wiped them out during colonisation.

If you can’t restrain yourself to a constructive debate on land rights, then it's clear that land rights are not your true concern, they’re merely a cover for racist intent, just like everything else recently.

If you dislike the reflection of your own words, consider changing your stance rather than blaming others for holding up the mirror.

You have no grounds to complain of "abuse" when others cite and criticise the openly racist statements you have made. You cannot rewrite history to erase documented evidence; your statements stand in context, available for all to read.

Be better, slick.