This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Goes both ways, I can say the same for you. Though your foolishness follow with aggression and anger.
The very act of saying something does not make it true.
You need to show how Sheridan's comments are aligned with reality.
I have shown them to be baseless, and outright lies.
You seem to have a problem doing that and keep using logical fallacies to back your point of view.
As for your idea that I am angry, you could not be further from the truth. I consider liars to be dangerous when they have so much airplay, and then are held up in social media by folk like you to be credible.
Then you add "aggression" to your kit of put downs. Yet all I am doing is regularly pointing out where the no case falls down, mostly through disinformation and sheer ignorance. We have @SirRumpole for example claiming the Voice to be some form bureaucracy and creating concerns out of thin air. "No" voters are looking at every avenue to justify their stance, but refuse to concede there needs to be a change because of centuries of policy failure. It's akin to keeping ATSI people down and kicking them again if they dare to try to get up.
 
Where is that specified ?
OMG!
How about you work out if a body can do anything at all if it has no capacity to act, because it is not given any authority to act.
Do you understand "context"?

I worked for numerous agents of government for 20 years and was granted powers to act by departments that awarded contracts that prescribed the work I was able to perform under their aegis. You appear to be confusing the power to act to carry out a function to do a job with the power of a function that requires others to act in accordance with that functional power, ie., give legally binding directions to others.
 
Do you understand "context"?

When dealing with a major matter like modifying the Constitution everything has to be spelled out so that there is no confusion and people don't have to make assumptions.

You have made your assumption about what "power" means, to suit your viewpoint, others can make other assumptions.

Unless the Solicitor General's report is released in full and deals with the detail then I don't believe it's safe to vote yes.
 
If you are talking about Jacinta clearly she hates blackfellas and makes it very clear, go fugue, no representation there.

Wow that’s a big statement, can’t get traction on the issue, so throw some mud.
 
When dealing with a major matter like modifying the Constitution everything has to be spelled out so that there is no confusion and people don't have to make assumptions.
You actually need to apply some common sense as well.
No powers to act beyond being able to do their job are being conferred on the Voice. In fact, if the Voice were to have "powers" that allowed it to make lawful demands on others then it would breach existing lawful powers given to other arms of government, and invalidate its Constitutional role.
You have made your assumption about what "power" means, to suit your viewpoint, others can make other assumptions.
No. "Powers" have a context. I have the power to go out and buy something I want. I don't need permissions. I have the power to prevent trespass, as the laws of the land grant that to property owners. I don't have the power to perform an arrest.
You are simply unable to differentiate basic concepts.

Unless the Solicitor General's report is released in full and deals with the detail then I don't believe it's safe to vote yes.
I get that it is your position.
It again reflects on your poor understanding of most things on this topic.
The Solicitor General provides "advice." He does not rule on points of law.
Wording may change to give greater clarity to those who have concerns about what might be challenged. However, the chosen wording has been endorsed by various law councils who see it being adequate.
The Solicitor General's advice has been made available and the reports I have read from those who have seen it suggest it does not offer any weight to a "no" vote.
 
The Solicitor General's advice has been made available and the reports I have read from those who have seen it suggest it does not offer any weight to a "no" vote.
Then why is it being kept secret from the people who have to vote on the question ?
 
It's a distraction.
The Solicitor General's views also went to Cabinet, and that has always entailed a non-release policy.
It went to the Working Group to allay concerns, and this Group has been bound to confidentiality.

Maybe we could wait until the King has seen his advice as well, and nobody vote "yes" until he says it's ok.
 
Wow that’s a big statement, can’t get traction on the issue, so throw some mud.
It was idiotic in fact, totally outrageous and divisive.

This person's opinion should be completely disregarded as it is clearly not coming from a good place.
 
also went to Cabinet, and that has always entailed a non-release policy.

No it hasn't.

The SG's views on the Morrison multiple ministries were released and that was only for a Parliamentary debate.

Your argument is very weak.
 
No it hasn't.
Seriously confused person:
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is insisting the Solicitor-General is supportive of the federal government's Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal, while rejecting ongoing demands for his advice to cabinet to be made public."
Your argument is very weak.
I am using the Uluru Statement of the Heart and its supporting material.
You have yet to make a credible point.

I am saying the Voice is an ATSI people's solution to their concerns.
You are making excuse after excuse to not support a change that ATSI people have been fighting for and had bipartisan support until Dutton got into the fray.
 
Last edited:
Albo is confused, yes.

As I've said before , everyone should have the right to petition Parliament on matters that affect them, it shouldn't be enshrined for one group only.
 
As I've said before , everyone should have the right to petition Parliament on matters that affect them, it shouldn't be enshrined for one group only.
You have the same capacity as the Voice when it comes to making representations. The difference is that this body may have used a collaborative grass roots approach to arrive at their ideas, as distinct from personal experience.

Everyone does have the rights you are concerned about, so nothing changes in the matter of representation. You cannot seem to grasp these realities.
 
That is one of the most arrogant, racist stupid statements I have ever read in ASF.
Mick

She has stood up at the IPA of all places and disparaged the so called "woke" crowd.

I haven't ever seen her speak a positive word re culture.
 
Jacinda appears to have committed the heinous and egregious sin of not agreeing with absolutely everything about radical left ideology. And to top it off, she has the absolute temerity to say so.

Of course this means she is an extreme bigot and must hate everyone except old white men, and especially must despise her own race.

</sarc>
 

Probably has the wrong qualifications -

 
From what I have heard from JNP, her message seems to be that Aborigines should take more responsibility for themselves and rely on white people less, which seems sensible to me.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...