Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..cammd said..
The Voice is step one of a three step activist agenda "called The Uluru Statement from the Heart" to seek a treaty that will seek reparations, control of resources, transfer of power and Aboriginal soveriegnty.
Oh come on.Former Liberal ministers and shadow ministers are in favour of the Uluru statement and they aren't seeking Aboriginal sovereignty.
People who are seeking aboriginal sovereignty or more power include "No" proponents like Michael Mansell, who wants indigeneous people to get the same Senate representation as states, and Lidia Thorpe who says that "No" would be a victory for the Blak Sovereign movement.
When leading campaigns for Aboriginal sovereignty are calling for a No vote how the heck can yoi claim they have a three step process where Yes leads to Aboriginal sovreignty?
Do you have any evidence for your claim?
Evidence, ... lets see
its in the notes behind the Uluru Statement, its on the public record in interviews.
What do you think the slogan VOICE TREATY TRUTH represents
its on the Uluru statement FFS
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or 'mother nature', and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
Meanwhile zero evidence a Voice will make any difference to outcomes. ZERO EVIDENCE
Select to expand quoteTequila ! said..remery said..Tequila ! said..
What is a woman?
You'll know when/if you grow up and get a girlfriend.
Girlfriend? What if I want a boyfriend?
Are you assuming my gender?
I think he is stretching too far by making the assumption you can even understand written words.
Select to expand quoteBuster fin said..
I have lived on the edge of a desert. I have seen the true nomadic bush people. They are not like us. They don't have the same expectations as us. I wonder if cannibalism and infanticide is still a thing... It's not "our" thing, but it is a part of the indigenous culture, so do we allow it to continue? ...
If you really do wonder if it's a thing, have you considered the reason that there would have been cannibalism and infanticide? It's not just a random thing where someone just decided to give it a try. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would have done either of these in 'modern times'.
In nomadic hunter and gatherer groups, food scarcity would be a problem from time to time. When you need to move, you move. If you can only feed 1 child, why try and support another just because one has just arrived? These are groups where resources are scarce at times.
Plenty of cultures around the world would have eaten their enemies after warfare, whether it was a spiritual belief or a use of available protein.
I would guess that these practices completely disappeared once aboriginals were dragged into settlement life and provided with other sources of food.
Did these practices happen? Probably, just like in other cultures around the world. Do they still exist? Not outside the mind of people that want to paint them as stone age people.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..cammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
So back to point 3 (can only deal with one at a time)
Firstly apologies for the misunderstanding, when I asked you for evidence I was calling for evidence that the Voice would provide different outcomes. I have seen no actual evidence to support that claim.
Secondly the evidence of disadvantage you provide is well documented, no arguments from either side about that. The "No" side is very much committed to addressing that disadvantage "based on need not race" by starting with a genuine review/audit into what is and what is not working. I don't believe "disadvantage" is inherent to Indigenous people in terms of genetics or some other permanent state that would see them unable to overcome it without special rights. I actually think that argument is racist it assumes a permanent deficiency in some way.
If you want to see a real change then vote No because The "Voice" will most likely just be the same people we have now who have failed to "close the gap" over the last 30 or 40 years. We need change we don't need to enshrine the failure in the constitution.
I've got no issues with "based on need but race" and similar concepts.
It's not racist to say that a group could be at such a disadvantage because of temporary factors that they need special rights until that disadvantage is erased. We say similar things about other groups; we give temporary assistance to farmers, exporters, and big business when they suffer periods of disadvantage.
Heck, Barnaby Joyce has been calling for a change to allow regions special senators to give country people and indigenous people better representation - Barnaby certainly isn't racist towards country people so when he calls for extra representation for them it shows that you do NOT have to feel that people are inferior to claim they need special representation.
To use an analogy from the Constitution, Qld used to get "special rights" because it had the same number of Senate seats as NSW, which had eight times the population when the Constitution was written. Tasmania, WA and SA still get such "special rights". Does that mean we're being racist towards people from those states? Nope, it means that we can see that they need a Constitutional structure to get over the fact that they are a minority. So the fact that a minority gets special allowance in the Constitution certainly doesn't mean that they are seen as inferior.
Indigenous people from many countries, including NZ, Canada, Taiwan, Malaysia, South Africa and the USA suffer severe disadvantage. When the prevalence of disadvantage is so widespread it's pretty easy to say that the process of having another group come into your country and becomes dominant it leads to major problems for those who were there first.
Is the Voice the best mechanism? I'm not enchanted with the way the Voice has been run but many of the claims from the No side are BS.
Once again the Yes case cannot provide evidence that special rights will erase disadvantage. This is your third opportunity to present the evidence from the Yes campaign. I haven't seen any argument other than it will help us listen betterer FFS. That's kindergarten level stuff and people are not buying it.
Also enshrinement in the constitution is not temporary, you can argue that it can be changed so it may not be permanent but no one, absolutley no one is suggesting the Voice should be temporary. It would be a very weak/borderline false argument to suggest the Voice will only be a temporary measure.
Your examples of special rights above are not based on race or ancestory, basing special rights on race is racist. Spin it ten different ways or twenty or as many as you want the fact remains putting special rights into the constitution based on race means those rights are race based duh. Your an intelligent guy, see it for what it is.
All people in every country throughout the entire history of the world suffer when another group comes in a dominants, that's the History of the world, it cannot be changed. What can be changed is the message that you are defined by your ancestory, you are a victim of colonisation, you live in a racist society and you have no agency to help yourself. That is the message from the Yes side, it is clearly demonstrated by the add on TV with the young boy asking if he will live as long as others or get an education, "Yes makes it possible" F%&cken Horse S&^t, that lad needs to be told its up him, his life is in his hands.
"It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul."
Its easy to say many claims from the No side as BS, which ones and why are they BS.
1- You haven't asked me to present the case for the Yes campaign, since you can do that yourself. Other people have spent more time putting the Yes case than I can. However I can address the arguments that people give here.
I've spent more time and space writing here than anyone else so asking me to do more isn't really on.
2- You ask me to point out which claims from the No side are BS but I've already pointed to a bunch in earlier posts. For example, I've said that the claims that the Voice will definitely allow more court challenges are BS. I've pointed out that the claims that the main Voice proponents are communists are BS.
As I write this a former conservative deputy PM John Anderson is saying other BS. He's just said that the Constitution treats all Australians equally, but it doesn't. There ARE special cases in our system, or proposed by the Right, where one person effectively gets far more votes than other Australians. The point is that to say "other Australians don't get special treatment under the Constitution therefore the indigenous shouldn't" is simply incorrect. People who don't want the Constitution to change are NOT saying "all Australians are equal under the Constitution"*; what they are effectively saying is "special rights are OK for some people but not for other people".
One fascinating point about equality under the Constitution is that it's denied to those of the ACT and NT; one of them will almost certainly vote Yes and the other is likely. So it's ironic that the No vote is saying we should all be equal under the Constitution when the No vote benefits from the fact that we are NOT all equal under the Consitution.
3- I know my examples of special rights aren't based on race. I never said they were, so you can put your "duh" where it fits. However they show that "we are all currently equal under the Constitution" is simply untrue as the difference in representation in the Senate shows.
Equality is not just treating everyone in exactly the same way; it's treating people differently when they need to be. It's well accepted that, for example, it's not equality to the blind to ignore the fact that they can't see. It's not equality to treat
The Constitution is designed around that concept - it is designed to treat people from different states differently in order to create effective equality. Arguably the Voice would follow that same general approach.
4- Can I ask whether you have ever sat back of Bourke with indigenous people or done something similar? Have you been in the Riverina working with indigenous organisations? Do you know anyone who has worked in the Outback for indigenous people or the wider community?
I'm not sure about your background but have you come from a position of disadvantage of the type that many indigenous people suffer? Do you have experience about how hard it is to be inspired by poetry when you are living in a place like Goodooga (makes Wilcannia look nice in my very limited experience)?
I understand about the message of telling people they are disadvantaged, and agree with the downsides. But when the disadvantage is as real as it is in many cases we can't just tell people "lift yourself above it".
5- What is being called for is a way to cut through the fact that indigenous people are a tiny part of our nation and have a voice that is largely drowned out. You can't just ignore as you want us to do, and the fact is that indigenous people have suffered huge social disadvantage in the past. That sort of social disadvantage and the CONTINUED racism they suffer have severe effects like learned helplessness, welfare dependency, etc. There is also a major disconnect between indigenous people on the ground and those making the decisions.
It's not "kindergarten stuff" to say that having a direct voice to government helps - that's why industrial groups spend big dollars on lobbyists. I run a sporting group in regional Australia, and I have a direct voice to the Mayor and state representatives (the conservative Federal rep doesn't answer calls probably because he's pissed as usual). I've worked for 18 months in federal government in Canberra and can see how out of touch it is. I was designing a policy for a major employment sector and wasn't allowed to talk to industry at all. That's crap. I've got first hand experience in how much it changes things to have a direct voice in government (just as industry groups do) and how out of touch government is now.
I'm not a great fan of the Voice or the way the campaign has been run but I do think that it can change one of the biggest problems in Australia for the better, and at a fairly low cost.
6- You say (and I agree) that you want to see indigenous disadvantage wiped out - but even today Dutton, a leader of the No side, has got no new strategy for achieving that in interviews. I don't think anyone doubts that Howard, for example, wanted to close the gap - but it's still there. There's not much use saying "let's not change anything but let's expect a new result that will change indigenous disadvantage" so why follow that line of thinking? Are we willing to ignore a good chance of making things better in order to defend a false claim that people are equal under the Constitution?
I got to point 1 and gave up reading anymore of your reply, the way you twist words is frustrating
case in point
-you claim the Voice will produce better outcomes
-I ask you to provide evidence of how it will produce better outcomes.......for the third time
-you then say I didn't ask you to present the case for Yes.
Well no I didn't, I asked you to provide evidence to back up the claim a Voice will produce better outcomes....again
twisting words because you have no evidence
Select to expand quotecammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
So back to point 3 (can only deal with one at a time)
Firstly apologies for the misunderstanding, when I asked you for evidence I was calling for evidence that the Voice would provide different outcomes. I have seen no actual evidence to support that claim.
Secondly the evidence of disadvantage you provide is well documented, no arguments from either side about that. The "No" side is very much committed to addressing that disadvantage "based on need not race" by starting with a genuine review/audit into what is and what is not working. I don't believe "disadvantage" is inherent to Indigenous people in terms of genetics or some other permanent state that would see them unable to overcome it without special rights. I actually think that argument is racist it assumes a permanent deficiency in some way.
If you want to see a real change then vote No because The "Voice" will most likely just be the same people we have now who have failed to "close the gap" over the last 30 or 40 years. We need change we don't need to enshrine the failure in the constitution.
I've got no issues with "based on need but race" and similar concepts.
It's not racist to say that a group could be at such a disadvantage because of temporary factors that they need special rights until that disadvantage is erased. We say similar things about other groups; we give temporary assistance to farmers, exporters, and big business when they suffer periods of disadvantage.
Heck, Barnaby Joyce has been calling for a change to allow regions special senators to give country people and indigenous people better representation - Barnaby certainly isn't racist towards country people so when he calls for extra representation for them it shows that you do NOT have to feel that people are inferior to claim they need special representation.
To use an analogy from the Constitution, Qld used to get "special rights" because it had the same number of Senate seats as NSW, which had eight times the population when the Constitution was written. Tasmania, WA and SA still get such "special rights". Does that mean we're being racist towards people from those states? Nope, it means that we can see that they need a Constitutional structure to get over the fact that they are a minority. So the fact that a minority gets special allowance in the Constitution certainly doesn't mean that they are seen as inferior.
Indigenous people from many countries, including NZ, Canada, Taiwan, Malaysia, South Africa and the USA suffer severe disadvantage. When the prevalence of disadvantage is so widespread it's pretty easy to say that the process of having another group come into your country and becomes dominant it leads to major problems for those who were there first.
Is the Voice the best mechanism? I'm not enchanted with the way the Voice has been run but many of the claims from the No side are BS.
Once again the Yes case cannot provide evidence that special rights will erase disadvantage. This is your third opportunity to present the evidence from the Yes campaign. I haven't seen any argument other than it will help us listen betterer FFS. That's kindergarten level stuff and people are not buying it.
Also enshrinement in the constitution is not temporary, you can argue that it can be changed so it may not be permanent but no one, absolutley no one is suggesting the Voice should be temporary. It would be a very weak/borderline false argument to suggest the Voice will only be a temporary measure.
Your examples of special rights above are not based on race or ancestory, basing special rights on race is racist. Spin it ten different ways or twenty or as many as you want the fact remains putting special rights into the constitution based on race means those rights are race based duh. Your an intelligent guy, see it for what it is.
All people in every country throughout the entire history of the world suffer when another group comes in a dominants, that's the History of the world, it cannot be changed. What can be changed is the message that you are defined by your ancestory, you are a victim of colonisation, you live in a racist society and you have no agency to help yourself. That is the message from the Yes side, it is clearly demonstrated by the add on TV with the young boy asking if he will live as long as others or get an education, "Yes makes it possible" F%&cken Horse S&^t, that lad needs to be told its up him, his life is in his hands.
"It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul."
Its easy to say many claims from the No side as BS, which ones and why are they BS.
1- You haven't asked me to present the case for the Yes campaign, since you can do that yourself. Other people have spent more time putting the Yes case than I can. However I can address the arguments that people give here.
I've spent more time and space writing here than anyone else so asking me to do more isn't really on.
2- You ask me to point out which claims from the No side are BS but I've already pointed to a bunch in earlier posts. For example, I've said that the claims that the Voice will definitely allow more court challenges are BS. I've pointed out that the claims that the main Voice proponents are communists are BS.
As I write this a former conservative deputy PM John Anderson is saying other BS. He's just said that the Constitution treats all Australians equally, but it doesn't. There ARE special cases in our system, or proposed by the Right, where one person effectively gets far more votes than other Australians. The point is that to say "other Australians don't get special treatment under the Constitution therefore the indigenous shouldn't" is simply incorrect. People who don't want the Constitution to change are NOT saying "all Australians are equal under the Constitution"*; what they are effectively saying is "special rights are OK for some people but not for other people".
One fascinating point about equality under the Constitution is that it's denied to those of the ACT and NT; one of them will almost certainly vote Yes and the other is likely. So it's ironic that the No vote is saying we should all be equal under the Constitution when the No vote benefits from the fact that we are NOT all equal under the Consitution.
3- I know my examples of special rights aren't based on race. I never said they were, so you can put your "duh" where it fits. However they show that "we are all currently equal under the Constitution" is simply untrue as the difference in representation in the Senate shows.
Equality is not just treating everyone in exactly the same way; it's treating people differently when they need to be. It's well accepted that, for example, it's not equality to the blind to ignore the fact that they can't see. It's not equality to treat
The Constitution is designed around that concept - it is designed to treat people from different states differently in order to create effective equality. Arguably the Voice would follow that same general approach.
4- Can I ask whether you have ever sat back of Bourke with indigenous people or done something similar? Have you been in the Riverina working with indigenous organisations? Do you know anyone who has worked in the Outback for indigenous people or the wider community?
I'm not sure about your background but have you come from a position of disadvantage of the type that many indigenous people suffer? Do you have experience about how hard it is to be inspired by poetry when you are living in a place like Goodooga (makes Wilcannia look nice in my very limited experience)?
I understand about the message of telling people they are disadvantaged, and agree with the downsides. But when the disadvantage is as real as it is in many cases we can't just tell people "lift yourself above it".
5- What is being called for is a way to cut through the fact that indigenous people are a tiny part of our nation and have a voice that is largely drowned out. You can't just ignore as you want us to do, and the fact is that indigenous people have suffered huge social disadvantage in the past. That sort of social disadvantage and the CONTINUED racism they suffer have severe effects like learned helplessness, welfare dependency, etc. There is also a major disconnect between indigenous people on the ground and those making the decisions.
It's not "kindergarten stuff" to say that having a direct voice to government helps - that's why industrial groups spend big dollars on lobbyists. I run a sporting group in regional Australia, and I have a direct voice to the Mayor and state representatives (the conservative Federal rep doesn't answer calls probably because he's pissed as usual). I've worked for 18 months in federal government in Canberra and can see how out of touch it is. I was designing a policy for a major employment sector and wasn't allowed to talk to industry at all. That's crap. I've got first hand experience in how much it changes things to have a direct voice in government (just as industry groups do) and how out of touch government is now.
I'm not a great fan of the Voice or the way the campaign has been run but I do think that it can change one of the biggest problems in Australia for the better, and at a fairly low cost.
6- You say (and I agree) that you want to see indigenous disadvantage wiped out - but even today Dutton, a leader of the No side, has got no new strategy for achieving that in interviews. I don't think anyone doubts that Howard, for example, wanted to close the gap - but it's still there. There's not much use saying "let's not change anything but let's expect a new result that will change indigenous disadvantage" so why follow that line of thinking? Are we willing to ignore a good chance of making things better in order to defend a false claim that people are equal under the Constitution?
I got to point 1 and gave up reading anymore of your reply, the way you twist words is frustrating
case in point
-you claim the Voice will produce better outcomes
-I ask you to provide evidence of how it will produce better outcomes.......for the third time
-you then say I didn't ask you to present the case for Yes.
Well no I didn't, I asked you to provide evidence to back up the claim a Voice will produce better outcomes....again
twisting words because you have no evidence
Twisting words... it seems to change definition based on what way you already lean.
What does "evidence" mean from your viewpoint?
When you look at the potential negative affects of a 'yes' outcome for the voice, evidence doesn't seem to matter and it all comes down to inference and suggestion and worst possible outcomes.
For the positive effects of a 'yes' outcome you want 'evidence'? Of something that hasn't happened yet?
I think we have all arrived at the same conclusion. Those that will vote no will still vote no. Those that will vote yes will still vote yes.
Arguing about "evidence" is just trying to hide your bias. You may as well just say you want "no" and that's enough.
All of this discussion reminds me of why Tony Abbott did well in politics.
It's easy to tear down something and criticize something someone else suggests. There is always a negative side and people will default to it when they are uncertain.
It is much harder to create something. People will always want to claim it is bad for whatever reason.
But like Tony Abbott, once you need to create something, the cupboard is bare and nothing will ever get done.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said.
What does "evidence" mean from your viewpoint?
When you look at the potential negative affects of a 'yes' outcome for the voice, evidence doesn't seem to matter and it all comes down to inference and suggestion and worst possible outcomes.
For the positive effects of a 'yes' outcome you want 'evidence'? Of something that hasn't happened yet?
I think we have all arrived at the same conclusion. Those that will vote no will still vote no. Those that will vote yes will still vote yes.
Arguing about "evidence" is just trying to hide your bias. You may as well just say you want "no" and that's enough.
I am sure if you had some evidence you would be happy to provide it, all the above confirms is you have no idea what the Voice will or won't do.
Who cares about evidence right, I mean
Will outcomes for Indigenous people be improved - doesn't matter
Will it affect our democracy- doesn't matter
Will it divide the Nation- doesn't matter
Does it fit with my ideology - now that matters. Vote accordingly
Select to expand quoteTequila ! said..remery said..Tequila ! said..
What is a woman?
You'll know when/if you grow up and get a girlfriend.
Girlfriend? What if I want a boyfriend?
Are you assuming my gender?
You asked "What is a woman". By all means get a boyfriend, it just won't help you to find out what a woman is.
Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said.
What does "evidence" mean from your viewpoint?
When you look at the potential negative affects of a 'yes' outcome for the voice, evidence doesn't seem to matter and it all comes down to inference and suggestion and worst possible outcomes.
For the positive effects of a 'yes' outcome you want 'evidence'? Of something that hasn't happened yet?
I think we have all arrived at the same conclusion. Those that will vote no will still vote no. Those that will vote yes will still vote yes.
Arguing about "evidence" is just trying to hide your bias. You may as well just say you want "no" and that's enough.
I am sure if you had some evidence you would be happy to provide it, all the above confirms is you have no idea what the Voice will or won't do.
Who cares about evidence right, I mean
Will outcomes for Indigenous people be improved - doesn't matter
Will it affect our democracy- doesn't matter
Will it divide the Nation- doesn't matter
Does it fit with my ideology - now that matters. Vote accordingly
You ask about evidence and then bring up things where there is no evidence of a negative outcome yet you feel strongly that it will be one.
If I have one point to make, there is no evidence of either positive or negative outcomes. So why are you asking for evidence for one point of view but accepting hypotheticals for the other side?
Select to expand quoteremery said..Tequila ! said..remery said..Tequila ! said..
What is a woman?
You'll know when/if you grow up and get a girlfriend.
Girlfriend? What if I want a boyfriend?
Are you assuming my gender?
You asked "What is a woman". By all means get a boyfriend, it just won't help you to find out what a woman is.
Cant answer? Will send B Walsh interview you too.
Select to expand quotesnoidberg said..remery said..snoidberg said..
Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.
You're talking about the latest Nobel Prize winners right?
Hahah funny how the nobel prize winners didn't even invent MRNA Robert Malone invented MRNA. The noble prize winners just figured out a way to shut down the immune system to prevent our body's from destroying the MRNA delivery.
I don't think they deserve a Nobel Prize for shutting down people immune systems because our immune system don't just fight bacteria or virus infections, it destroys mutated cells and prevents cancer.
Now I wonder what could possibly be causing all these turbo cancers everywhere all of a sudden.
Doctors are baffled one again.
Baffled at your claim of "turbo cancer"?
What sort of cancer is it? Does it occur faster after exposure to a carcinogen? Does it grow faster than other cancers of the same classification? Are they completely brand new cancers never before seen in medicine? (Maybe a Nobel prize in it for a clever investigator?)
24 hrs and all this sh!t will be over bar the counting and we can resume regular programming, bring it on.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
24 hrs and all this sh!t will be over bar the counting and we can resume regular programming, bring it on.
Can we guess as to the replacement topic? Vaccines? Terrorism in Israel? Harold Holt? Flat Earth?
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
24 hrs and all this sh!t will be over bar the counting and we can resume regular programming, bring it on.
I think there will be many months of many people finger pointing and blaming everyone and everything, other than themselves, for all the problems of society they manage to drag up from wherever........
oh yeah, you're right... that is back to the regular programming..
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Can we guess as to the replacement topic? Vaccines? Terrorism in Israel? Harold Holt? Flat Earth?
I'm guessing the cuteness or otherwise of baby pandas.
This Voice is the least our our problems looking at the large numbers celebrating barbatic Palestine recent acts around our own country.
Theres bigger fish to fry guys.
Select to expand quoteTequila ! said..
This Voice is the least our our problems looking at the large numbers celebrating barbatic Palestine recent acts around our own country.
Theres bigger fish to fry guys.
I don't even know what that means. Are you siding with Hamas or the other?
Did you side with the IRA or the other?
Did you side with the Tamil Tigers or the other?
All considered terrorists by our trusty government, all right in their stance.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Tequila ! said..
This Voice is the least our our problems looking at the large numbers celebrating barbatic Palestine recent acts around our own country.
Theres bigger fish to fry guys.
I don't even know what that means. Are you siding with Hamas or the other?
Did you side with the IRA or the other?
Did you side with the Tamil Tigers or the other?
All considered terrorists by our trusty government, all right in their stance.
People that think what just happened is justifiable walk among us in our society.
Select to expand quotesun fisher said..
There are less Israelis than first nations currently living in Australia. Should we put a voice for them in the constitution as well?
NO
And I side w Israel fully w the latest happenings.
Select to expand quoteTequila ! said..sun fisher said..
There are less Israelis than first nations currently living in Australia. Should we put a voice for them in the constitution as well?
NO
And I side w Israel fully w the latest happenings.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..airsail said..
24 hrs and all this sh!t will be over bar the counting and we can resume regular programming, bring it on.
Can we guess as to the replacement topic? Vaccines? Terrorism in Israel? Harold Holt? Flat Earth?
Ok, that's funny.
The name calling and corporate endorsement will probably be the yes advocates downfall.
But it was predictable.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Within a few hours the ignorant racists will be celebrating. Staya.
it wont take that long for the name calling to start
Select to expand quoteRango said..
The name calling and corporate endorsement will probably be the yes advocates downfall.
.
Ahhh.... I think that's just an after-effect. How can it be a "downfall" if it happens after the fact?
Seriously, is there anyone here that is unsure on how they have/will vote? For issues like this most people will know what they feel and will vote that way.
There will be people that are thinking and have always thought "aboriginals have it too easy and they have it easier than me", and it's obvious what they will vote. There is no need to pretend to justify it with other reasons, if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel.
Others will be thinking "they have a pretty crap life in some places" and its clear what they will vote.
No need to worry about name calling. Name calling is something that would bother you if you were in a minority, but you aren't. Ironic, huh?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Rango said..
The name calling and corporate endorsement will probably be the yes advocates downfall.
.
Ahhh.... I think that's just an after-effect. How can it be a "downfall" if it happens after the fact?
Seriously, is there anyone here that is unsure on how they have/will vote? For issues like this most people will know what they feel and will vote that way.
There will be people that are thinking and have always thought "aboriginals have it too easy and they have it easier than me", and it's obvious what they will vote. There is no need to pretend to justify it with other reasons, if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel.
Others will be thinking "they have a pretty crap life in some places" and its clear what they will vote.
No need to worry about name calling. Name calling is something that would bother you if you were in a minority, but you aren't. Ironic, huh?
Not quite true.
There are some of us who were unsure.
Yes most people understand that things have to change for indigenous Australians.
But in my case I wasn't sure as to what the implications of constitutional change would be and wondered if this particular course of action was the right way to go about it.
Some the genuine discussion here has actually clarified the situation for me and I have no problem going to the polls today and making my vote count.
It's shame that most of the actual reasoned discussion was obscured by unhelpful insults and appeals to fear of change, that didn't help anyone wanting to figure out how to vote.
If we can't have a reasonable discussion about changing our Constitution, how are we as a nation going to discuss anything in the future? Tax reforms, immigration, Defence policy, health and education.
