Of course it did, as you point out in your next pearl of wisdom, " they are implementing an electoral pledge", which I will get to next.
The "voice" until Albo made it a political issue, was a movement by a sector of the aboriginal community and still isn't wholly endorsed by all sectors of the aboriginal community.
Drawing another long bow, "clearly approved by voters", Labor won by the smallest margin ever and all of a sudden it is made out to be a mandate. ?
When the reality of how absurd it is, of course people will start and question the reasoning, having a sector of a democracy with greater access to the Government than the rest of the population enshrined in your constitution, just flies in the face of a fair and equal society.
If a sector requires more help or even compensation that's one thing, enshrining in the constitution that one sector has more political rights than the rest of the population, is bizarre.
Of course the rusted on party followers will shout its merits from the roof tops, as they do with any other party policy, that's to be expected, but it doesn't validate the issue.
The argument was made that same sex marriage and gay people were hugely disadvantaged, which they were they could be jailed for homosexuality, it didn't take a recognition in the constitution to give them equal rights and recognition.
Equality wont be achieved by putting a phrase in our constitution, that states that some have more rights and political access than others, as I've said before who says the aboriginals want to be like us?
They are disadvantaged because they don't want to conform to our expectations and become wage slaves, yet to be equal with our outcomes in our society that is what is required, so as has been happening we try to facilitate their lifestyle choices.
If there are better ways of developing policies, they only require developing, same as any other policy.
That is a salesman's pitch.
The only thing that the proposed "Voice" will do is to put pressure on politicians to solve the problems of the Aboriginal communities.
Why can't those communities shoulder some of the burdens ? There is no reason why they can't encourage themselves to give up alcohol, drugs, crime , domestic violence etc.
There are laws that are supposed to limit or punish these things but whenever the offenders are put away, it's discrimination and 'disadvantage'.
I don't buy that.
More responsibility by those communities is the answer not bureaucratic intervention.
Yet another misquote by the mob, some would rather a treaty, than a voice to parliament, so how about we stay on the same page? ?So given all that you have said NZ is an unfair democracy (rated higher now than Australia from memory) they have a treaty denied to Aboriginals they have reserved seats in parliament plus much much more makes the arguments here… questionable
More BS.The only thing that the proposed "Voice" will do is to put pressure on politicians to solve the problems of the Aboriginal communities.
It is clear to me you have no idea what "systemic disadvantage' means and also prefer to remain ignorant of what is outlined in the Voice.Why can't those communities shoulder some of the burdens ? There is no reason why they can't encourage themselves to give up alcohol, drugs, crime , domestic violence etc.
There are laws that are supposed to limit or punish these things but whenever the offenders are put away, it's discrimination and 'disadvantage'.
I don't buy that.
More responsibility by those communities is the answer not bureaucratic intervention.
You claimed "that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians" and I correctly said this is untrue.Of course it did, as you point out in your next pearl of wisdom, " they are implementing an electoral pledge", which I will get to next.
Please read the history I linked o above, as you will see you are quite wrongThe "voice" until Albo made it a political issue, was a movement by a sector of the aboriginal community and still isn't wholly endorsed by all sectors of the aboriginal community.
Actually that point was supported by constant polling, so your point again misses the mark.Drawing another long bow, "clearly approved by voters", Labor won by the smallest margin ever and all of a sudden it is made out to be a mandate. ?
Please show how the Voice has greater access to government. I can do everything the Voice can do if I have a good idea. The Voice will not have the clout of major industry lobby groups that spend millions in funding electoral campaigns.When the reality of how absurd it is, of course people will start and question the reasoning, having a sector of a democracy with greater access to the Government than the rest of the population enshrined in your constitution, just flies in the face of a fair and equal society.
Except that is not true. How about you tell us all which rights change?If a sector requires more help or even compensation that's one thing, enshrining in the constitution that one sector has more political rights than the rest of the population, is bizarre.
Correct, as it was a matter easily solved by legislation.The argument was made that same sex marriage and gay people were hugely disadvantaged, which they were they could be jailed for homosexuality, it didn't take a recognition in the constitution to give them equal rights and recognition.
Equal outcomes was what I was talking about, and is precisely what the Voice is targeting achieving. You seem to be confused, and also continue to make baseless claims.Equality wont be achieved by putting a phrase in our constitution, that states that some have more rights and political access than others, as I've said before who says the aboriginals want to be like us?
There is no research suggesting your points are accurate. Health, education and incarceration have zilch to do with being "wage slaves" as you put it.They are disadvantaged because they don't want to conform to our expectations and become wage slaves, yet to be equal with our outcomes in our society that is what is required, so as has been happening we try to facilitate their lifestyle choices.
And that's exactly the framework that will be provided by the Voice.If there are better ways of developing policies, they only require developing, same as any other policy.
Thanks for that.You claimed "that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians" and I correctly said this is untrue.
Way back in 2010 there was bipartisan support for indigenous recognition (not a Voice) via a referendum to alter the the Constitution, and a framework was established. Consultative process amongst ATSI peoples led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, from which the Voice was born.
On your measure, not mine which was the Federal election, not selective polling, or selective choice of self confirmation.Please read the history I linked o above, as you will see you are quite wrong
Actually that point was supported by constant polling, so your point again misses the mark.
If that were true, there would be no need to spend the money on a referendum, as you point out it is a waste of time and money.Please show how the Voice has greater access to government. I can do everything the Voice can do if I have a good idea. The Voice will not have the clout of major industry lobby groups that spend millions in funding electoral campaigns.
To have a pointless clause placed in the constitution seems to be the most ar$ed about thing being done, as you have pointed out.Except that is not true. How about you tell us all which rights change?
Correct, as it was a matter easily solved by legislation.
Constitutional recognition of our first inhabitants was as a long standing bipartisan policy on indigenous affairs. To somehow think this is all new and based on the Voice, is @rse about.
Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.Equal outcomes was what I was talking about, and is precisely what the Voice is targeting achieving. You seem to be confused, and also continue to make baseless claims.
There is no research suggesting your points are accurate. Health, education and incarceration have zilch to do with being "wage slaves" as you put it.
And that's exactly the framework that will be provided by the Voice.
Thanks for that.
Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.
So IMO keep up the good work.
It's people like @IFocus that'll make everyone vote no. So good work there, Komrade.Robs points are totally on the money the best info available anywhere actually its a shame you and others don’t understand, keep raising points that have nothing to do with the referendum or purpose or the flaming obvious.
The negative campaign will likely kill the yes vote made up of baseless claims that are regularly made here such is politics that people buy in when it suits their prejudices Terese Isaac’s talked about how she faced that her whole life.
As for the treaty the hard heads choose the voice because a treaty as per NZ has no chance I couldn’t imagine the outrage from those wetting their beds over the thought.
I never, ever, said it's a waste of money.If that were true, there would be no need to spend the money on a referendum, as you point out it is a waste of time and money.
On the contrary, I believe the opposite as indigenous recognition deserves to be part of our Constitution.To have a pointless clause placed in the constitution seems to be the most ar$ed about thing being done, as you have pointed out.
I thought you might have actually chosen to support the statements you made which I know to be false, so maybe you made the right move to avoid them. Disinformation, obfuscation, and outright lies about the Voice are running rampant and many people are being sucked in.Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.
So IMO keep up the good work.
Well he could do with the support and encouragement. ?Robs points are totally on the money the best info available anywhere actually its a shame you and others don’t understand, keep raising points that have nothing to do with the referendum or purpose or the flaming obvious.
The negative campaign will likely kill the yes vote made up of baseless claims that are regularly made here such is politics that people buy in when it suits their prejudices Terese Isaac’s talked about how she faced that her whole life.
As for the treaty the hard heads choose the voice because a treaty as per NZ has no chance I couldn’t imagine the outrage from those wetting their beds over the thought.
You said:I never, ever, said it's a waste of money.
As I showed, bipartisan support for a referendum commenced in 2010 as there is no other way of adding words to the Constitution.
For what purpose if it can only produce suggestions, that can be ignored, you are funny.On the contrary, I believe the opposite as indigenous recognition deserves to be part of our Constitution.
Oh so now you're adopting the very trait you despise in others, when all else fails play the man.?I thought you might have actually chosen to support the statements you made which I know to be false, so maybe you made the right move to avoid them. Disinformation, obfuscation, and outright lies about the Voice are running rampant and many people are being sucked in.
That is the good thing about opinions, everyone has one and currently they all carry the same weight.I personally do not believe the Voice will get up as the media has now concentrated on the negatives and is running the baseless claim that the Voice is divisive. I see this along the lines of the Republic debate, where most people were in favour until the waters were muddied by complete irrelevances. I hope I am wrong.
Well he could do with the support and encouragement. ?
Who would have guessed you would agree, most would be astounded if you ever disagreed with him.
As I said I think a treaty is something that has measurable results and obligations.
This voice nonsense as per what Rob says, is just a token gesture, to say we have listened to them, so what.
Tell them to go and sit the corner and come up with something else to talk to Parliament about? Well at least it might cut back the question time bickering. ?
I never trust polls, so I wouldnt call it until it happens.Polls are showing 50% ish under 54% ish the referendum will fail so you will get your wish so no treaty, no recognition, no public information on what is put forward for change, faceless bureaucrats will continue well done.
Meanwhile NZ have reserved seats, treaty etc who would have though eh
Weight....That is the good thing about opinions, everyone has one and currently they all carry the same weight.
You're always good for a laugh orr, you talking about books, it doesn't get funnier than that.Weight....
Help me out here trawler.... give me some weight...
On your book selves how much Australian history is there? how much have you read? got any critiques?
The truth telling import ot the Ularu Statment from the heart is what cuts to the quick for for the belligerent obsurantists because it may lead to understanding by the larger Australian population.
The Massicars the disposetion the structural racism the theft, centuries long crafted educational propaganda.
All that, you, trawler, and others, now be reduced to a 'pull up ya sox princess's'
Go on trawler give me one Book.
I'll go out on a limb and call you less than a light weight ... I'll say no weight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?