Certified Legendary Thread Covid, Life, UFOs, Food, & Wordle :(

[Kappa]

FFS. What about this amendment is extremely scary.

To address your questions - I'm assuming that you do know that with or without the voice passing a strong government could pass bills that make Indigenous delegation on a wide matters compulsory, with an enormous budget, delegates being chosen however they deem appropriate, etc...They could also stop consulting Aboriginals on a whole range of matters that most would consider appropriate - including Aboriginal communities - your fear mongering is just silly.

The voice will just ensure that some form of consultation with Aboriginal communities has to occur, even if we get a fascist government in power.

How long will that consultation take according to the constitution? Weeks? Months? Undefined? Is the voice allowed to challenge in the high court if their recommendations aren't followed? Why is this different to any of the other failed advisory groups? Why do some races get treated differently in the constitution ?

 

[sr36]

How long will that consultation take according to the constitution? Weeks? Months? Undefined? Is the voice allowed to challenge in the high court if their recommendations aren't followed? Why is this different to any of the other failed advisory groups? Why do some races get treated differently in the constitution ?

How long will that consultation take according to the constitution? Weeks? Months? Undefined?

Undefined within the constitution. Why would it be defined in the constitution? Are the length of parliament sittings or any other reviews defined within the constitution?

Is the voice allowed to challenge in the high court if their recommendations aren't followed?

No. They might have grounds if a government doesn't follow the constitution and doesn't hear a representation.

Why is this different to any of the other failed advisory groups?

The difference is that it will be mandated by the constitution. You want have governments waltzing in with decisions without any consultation at all, which has occurred regulasrly throughout the history of this nation and hasn't stopped yet.

Why do some races get treated differently in the constitution ?

It's not about race; it's about culture. Australian Aboriginal culture is unique, exists only in Australia and was nearly wiped out by colonisation. Aboriginal people deserve the right to have a say about the future of their culture rather than having decisions imposed on their culture, wihtout the right to be heard. It's a tiny step towards protecting a culture's right to have a say in their own future.

 

[Kappa]

How long will that consultation take according to the constitution? Weeks? Months? Undefined?

Undefined within the constitution. Why would it be defined in the constitution? Are the length of parliament sittings or any other reviews defined within the constitution?

Is the voice allowed to challenge in the high court if their recommendations aren't followed?

No. They might have grounds if a government doesn't follow the constitution and doesn't hear a representation.

Why is this different to any of the other failed advisory groups?

The difference is that it will be mandated by the constitution. You want have governments waltzing in with decisions without any consultation at all, which has occurred regulasrly throughout the history of this nation and hasn't stopped yet.

Why do some races get treated differently in the constitution ?

It's not about race; it's about culture. Australian Aboriginal culture is unique, exists only in Australia and was nearly wiped out by colonisation. Aboriginal people deserve the right to have a say about the future of their culture rather than having decisions imposed on their culture, wihtout the right to be heard. It's a tiny step towards protecting a culture's right to have a say in their own future.

So it'll be exactly the same as the old failed advisory groups but more compulsory?

Will the voice have to give advice to Parliament on virtually all issues as all issues affect Indigenous Australians?

 

[sr36]

So it'll be exactly the same as the old failed advisory groups but more compulsory?

If you think that, why are you going with the fear mongering approach?

In the short term, I think it will be symbolic rather than having a direct impact. But symbolism matters.

 

[Kappa]

If you think that, why are you going with the fear mongering approach?

In the short term, I think it will be symbolic rather than having a direct impact. But symbolism matters.

I'm asking questions, changing the constitution of Australia is scary, if you put something dodgy in the constitution the damage could be extreme, that's a fact.

We've been told symbolism matters for decades and done countless symbolic gestures, has that improved indigenous living conditions?

Do you think it's actually going to be different to the failed advisory groups of the past? Just saying it's compulsory is not an answer.

 

[leon123]

So it'll be exactly the same as the old failed advisory groups but more compulsory?

Will the voice have to give advice to Parliament on virtually all issues as all issues affect Indigenous Australians?

You are a man of many questions, rarely answers.

I have a question for you. Why are you always such a miserable pri. C. K

 

[Kappa]

You are a man of many questions, rarely answers.

I have a question for you. Why are you always such a miserable pri. C. K

What a mature way to discuss something, how old are you?

 

[sr36]

I'm asking questions, changing the constitution of Australia is scary, if you put something dodgy in the constitution the damage could be extreme, that's a fact.

We've been told symbolism matters for decades and done countless symbolic gestures, has that improved indigenous living conditions?

Do you think it's actually going to be different to the failed advisory groups of the past? Just saying it's compulsory is not an answer.

I'm not getting into living conditions for a whole lot of reasons.

But if you look at all the other groups whose country was invaded due to being considered Terra Nullius, the impact of colonisation is going to continue to hit Aboriginal communities for a long time. There's not going to be a quick fix. Recovery isn't fast from what we'd refer to as genocide if we were referring to the actions of China, various African Nations, Pakistan, etc... I think it's ridiculous to keep the status quo because a few minor attempts at change didn't have a noticeable immediate impact.

 

[Kappa]

I'm not getting into living conditions for a whole lot of reasons.

But if you look at all the other groups whose country was invaded due to being considered Terra Nullius, the impact of colonisation is going to continue to hit Aboriginal communities for a long time. There's not going to be a quick fix. Recovery isn't fast from what we'd refer to as genocide if we were referring to the actions of China, an African Nation, Pakistan, etc...

I think the point is, symbolism over the past 2 decades has objectively not helped anything.

advisory groups have also, not helped anything. So now we're doing a symbolic advisory group. That's very ambiguous and entrenched in the constitution...

There's also the ethical argument of specific races have extra rights in the constitution.

 

[sr36]

I think the point is, symbolism over the past 2 decades has objective not helped anything.

advisory groups have also, not helped anything. So now we're doing a symbolic advisory group. That's very ambiguous and entrenched in the constitution...

To bring it back to footy, early last season when Fly was getting praise for Collingwoods more attacking style, Bucks was a bit defensive and said something along the lines of: yeah we tried that, it didn't work. I'm glad that Fly doesn't think like you.

 

[Kappa]

Anyway, to bring it back to footy, early last season when Fly was getting praise for Collingwoods more attacking style, Bucks was a bit defensive and said something along the lines of: yeah we tried that, it didn't work. I'm glad that Fly doesn't think like you.

Was fly talking about changing the constitution ?

 

[sr36]

Was fly talking about changing the constitution ?

Constitution, game plan, what's the difference? Anyway, I'm glad you've dropped the scare mongering and have brought it back to: it's a waste of time. You might be right about that if you expect it to have a massive impact on how you measure life, you certainly were not right about the scare mongering. If nothing else, the voice will be a safeguard to ensure that Aboriginal communities are consulted before an Australian Government imposes another shit idea on them.

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Constitution, game plan, what's the difference? Anyway, I'm glad you've dropped the scare mongering and have brought it back to: it's a waste of time. You might be right about that if you expect it to have a massive impact on how you measure life, you certainly were not right about the scare mongering.

it was good that we sacked buckley
what we were doing clearly wasnt working, something had to change
and now we are all enjoying the benefits of a breath of fresh air

 

[NMBB]

Change of topic for a minute - long day's physical work - "reward" = takeaway - order 1/2 roast duck, seasonal vegetables and rice. Most excellent .
Strange thing though - vegs ($28) cost more than the duck ($24) - bu$&er me.

 

[Kappa]

Constitution, game plan, what's the difference? Anyway, I'm glad you've dropped the scare mongering and have brought it back to: it's a waste of time. You might be right about that if you expect it to have a massive impact on how you measure life, you certainly were not right about the scare mongering. If nothing else, the voice will be a safeguard to ensure that Aboriginal communities are consulted before an Australian Government imposes another s**t idea on them.

It's going into our constitution and it's ambiguous, if that's not the slightest bit concerning you to that's a worry.

Then there's the other point that, on paper, it appears to be about as effective as "Sorry Day".

It's a political stunt from Albanese that will backfire

 

[sr36]

It's going into our constitution and it's ambiguous, if that's not the slightest bit concerning you to that's a worry.

Then there's the other point that, on paper, it appears to be about as effective as "Sorry Day".

It's a political stunt from Albanese that will backfire

Are you running the no campaign? Same strategy. Ask some disingenuous questions? Get answers. Then ignore the answers and ask the same disingenuous questions. Trying to evoke fear. A fair few allusions to the fear of Aboriginal Australia that has been evoked for a couple of centuries.

Frankly if you're asking for things like the budget for the voice to be part of a constitutional change, you really are just being ridiculous. Hopefully Australian voters aren't dumb enough to get sucked in by the tactics of the no campaign, see through the bullshit, and vote yes or no on real reasons rather than on the bullshit from dishonest bullshitters.

 

[gouki88]

How can you not know 99% of the important information and still vote yes to changing the constitution? It's utterly ridiculous.

The main question is how is this different to other indigenous advisory groups? They all gave advice to the government too.

Also, what law or policy DOESN'T effect indigenous australians? How long do we need to wait for them to consider new policies or law?

You taking the RW machine fear-mongering hook, line & sinker is so incredibly unsurprising. Have you read the Constitution?

 

[gouki88]

It's going into our constitution and it's ambiguous, if that's not the slightest bit concerning you to that's a worry.

Then there's the other point that, on paper, it appears to be about as effective as "Sorry Day".

It's a political stunt from Albanese that will backfire

Unlike all the ambiguity already in the Constitution that you have no issue with, right? But because it involves Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples, it's now scary. Sound the alarm!

How true did the very same fear-peddling prove to be for Wik & Mabo? Or was that somehow different?

 

[sr36]

Unlike all the ambiguity already in the Constitution that you have no issue with, right? But because it involves Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples, it's now scary. Sound the alarm!

How true did the very same fear-peddling prove to be for Wik & Mabo? Or was that somehow different?

I'm still waiting for an Aboriginal mob to descend on and claim my suburban home as a consequence of a Governmental apology. That was the fear being evoked to try to deny a governmental apology in the sorry campaign.

 

[gouki88]

I'm still waiting for an Aboriginal mob to descend on and claim my suburban home as a consequence of a Governmental apology. That was the fear being evoked to try to deny a governmental apology in the sorry campaign.

 

[Kirby]

I'm still waiting for an Aboriginal mob to descend on and claim my suburban home as a consequence of a Governmental apology. That was the fear being evoked to try to deny a governmental apology in the sorry campaign.

Hold on mate you haven't answered the most important question of all.

How do we know that the Voice will not break down the whole space time continuum and leave the entire universe in peril?

 

[sr36]

Then there's the other point that, on paper, it appears to be about as effective as "Sorry Day".

If you're expecting the voice or were expecting Sorry Day to cure cancer, then you're right it'll be ineffective.

Sorry Day was about acknowledging governmental wrong doing and the suffering it caused. Both of which are widely viewed as important steps in helping people overcome grief. But if anyone was expecting it to have an immediate impact on life expectancy or rates of substance abuse and are judging its merits on metrics like that , they're pretty thick.

 

[Maggie5]

Fishing was never a sport I could get into.

Although it is a shame that the First Nation people are not even mentioned in the Australian constitution. For me that alone is worth voting YES for.


some people... .

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

In this 'woke' world in which many believe we are living, where sincere but lack lustre Australian government ministers fail to mount a convincing and comprehensive Yes case in the face of a fairly vocal opposition, is it any wonder the vote is doomed to fail?

Really, much of the campaign has vindicated the outcome of conflict in 'Lord of the Flies'. Mistakenly, readers and viewers reserved the largest portion of their sympathy for Piggy, the one-eyed fat figure, who paid a high price for stating emphatically that there was no such thing as a beast.

The only other boy killed, Simon, had something in common with the evil leaders of the rival gang, Jack and Roger. All three boys recognised that there was no external beast, that it was a capacity for evil that resided within all people which could be cultivated and released by fear. Simon was the boy most deserving of sympathy, for he died trying to reveal the truth of the beast to the other boys. Meanwhile Jack and Roger garnered support and became the island's own Hitler and Himmler.

Albanese is a bit like Piggy and Ralph - well intentioned and rational, but useless when it comes to seeding idealistic views and values into the minds of suspicious Australians. The eclectic group of No campaigners, which includes the likes of Sam Newman, Don Scott and mates who have a number of No Vote videos circulating, have played on the fears of fairly shallow thinking average Aussies, and their efforts will be rewarded.

Unless there's a genuinely water tight case presented, being rational and sensible is just not going to cut it anymore with the average Joe Blow in this modern world, but even more so when people suspect missing details or that they are being hoodwinked into creating something which will later be equipped with claws and teeth.

More and more Australians have turned to the No campaigners for protection from the beast, while the likes of Albanese and foreign minister of the century, Penny Wong, are being viewed as its the birth parents.

 

[sr36]

In this 'woke' world in which many believe we are living, where sincere but lack lustre Australian government ministers fail to mount a convincing and comprehensive Yes case in the face of a fairly vocal opposition, is it any wonder the vote is doomed to fail?

Really, much of the campaign has vindicated the outcome of conflict in 'Lord of the Flies'. Mistakenly, readers and viewers reserved the largest portion of their sympathy for Piggy, the one-eyed fat figure, who paid a high price for stating emphatically that there was no such thing as a beast.

The only other boy killed, Simon, had something in common with the evil leaders of the rival gang, Jack and Roger. All three boys recognised that there was no external beast, that it was a capacity for evil that resided within all people which could be cultivated and released by fear. Simon was the boy most deserving of sympathy, for he died trying to reveal the truth of the beast to the other boys. Meanwhile Jack and Roger garnered support and became the island's own Hitler and Himmler.

Albanese is a bit like Piggy and Ralph - well intentioned and rational, but useless when it comes to seeding idealistic views and values into the minds of suspicious Australians. The eclectic group of No campaigners, which includes the likes of Sam Newman, Don Scott and mates who have a number of No Vote videos circulating, have played on the fears of fairly shallow thinking average Aussies, and their efforts will be rewarded.

Unless there's a genuinely water tight case presented, being rational and sensible is just not going to cut it anymore with the average Joe Blow in this modern world, but even more so when people suspect missing details or that they are being hoodwinked into creating something which will later be equipped with claws and teeth.

More and more Australians have turned to the No campaigners for protection from the beast, while the likes of Albanese and foreign minister of the century, Penny Wong, are being viewed as its the birth parents.

I agree that is how it's looking like playing out.

A no vote without the no vote campaigners giving a single reason why not. Just a series of intentionally dumb questions about details that have absolutely no place in a discussion about whether or not the statement should be included within the constitution.

I actually don't know what the yes campaigners can do to turn the tide. It's just such a simple concept and question that people are being asked to vote on, but it's continually being diverted to whether Ernie Dingo will be part of the voice, or whatever other stupid short term, one term detail is being questioned. All designed to make it sound like those details should be part of a constitutional change and make it sound like any initial Albanese Government decision on the form the voice takes will be unchangeable for all of eternity.

Conservatives have it good - it's just so easy to drum up fear of change. Pretty astounding that the Aussie ones are generally so incompetent at the moment that they can't win an election.