Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[lionking]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

So why haven't we tried them yet since everything else has failed miserably.

Perhaps you might want to ask why other solutions, like the powerful and highly funded ATSIC failed.

You do know that some indigenous will not vote Yes because they well remember Geoff Clark and the corrupted ATSIC, don’t you?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Did I say that?

Pretty much and it is a racist sentiment. You are in effect saying that Aboriginals are so stupid that they should be allowed to be angry at any white person they see because they can't tell the difference between those who are trying to work with them and those who are against them.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I said there are angry Aboriginal people.

No you didn't.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They have no voice and are ignored.

Wow. That is unbelievably ignorant.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

Perhaps you might want to ask why other solutions, like the powerful and highly funded ATSIC failed.



You do know that some indigenous will not vote Yes because they well remember Geoff Clark and the corrupted ATSIC, don’t you?

Howard shut down ATSIC and sent in the army. How did that work out?

Reforming ATSIC would have been a better option.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Pretty much

I'll take that as a "no" then.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by lionking

Threatening a young woman with violence whose job is in part to employ aboriginal people because she is white is okay with you?

Look, if you read my post I said anger was understandable. But it’s still ****** behaviour.

Because she was white or because she was wearing mining attire?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I'll take that as a "no" then.

You can't have it both ways. Either all white people are bad or Aboriginals are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between good white people and bad white people.

Which one is it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can't have it both ways. Either all white people are bad or Aboriginals are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between good white people and bad white people.

Which one is it?

I always like a good false dichotomy.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I always like a good false dichotomy.

Of course you do.

It's the true dichotomies like the one I presented to you that have you hiding behind a wall of sarcasm.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Of course you do.



It's the true dichotomies like the one I presented to you that have you hiding behind a wall of sarcasm.

It's a false dichotomy and a really nasty one typical of the "No" case.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Some Australians seem more outraged by accusations of racism than by racism itself

Marcia Langton, one of the key architects of the voice to parliament proposal, found herself*at the centre of a fracas midweek*when comments she’d made last Sunday during a public forum at Edith Cowan University appeared on the Australian newspaper’s website shortly before question time on Tuesday.

Langton had responded (as she explained later) to a query from a woman who was “clearly considering voting no” on 14 October. Referencing messaging from the no campaign, Langton told the woman: “See, ‘Aborigines are bludgers, Aborigines steal everything, Aborigines aren’t entitled to the compensation that everybody else gets because they’re lying’. Do you see my point? Every time the no case raises one of their arguments, if you start pulling it apart you get down to base racism – I’m sorry to say it but that’s where it lands – or just sheer stupidity.”

The comment was reported first by the Bunbury Herald. That outlet’s front page carried a headline summarising the exchange accurately: “Racist or just stupid: voice author slams the no campaign”.

Snow flakes gonna melt. The Murdoch press went berserk of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...droidApp_Other

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's a false dichotomy and a really nasty one typical of the "No" case.

'tisn't.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Quote:

" .... Every time the no case raises one of their arguments, if you start pulling it apart you get down to base racism – I’m sorry to say it but that’s where it lands – or just sheer stupidity"

Quote:

“Racist or just stupid: voice author slams the no campaign”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...droidApp_Other

Insulting NO voters or labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" is the only argument that the YES campaign has. It won't work of course because we have private ballots.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Insulting NO voters or labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" is the only argument that the YES campaign has. It won't work of course because we have private ballots.

Know any good arguments as listed in the official No case? Weak arguments do not count.

Edit. Let me make it easier for you. Below is a link to the no case.


https://www.theguardian.com/australi...d-fact-checked

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Know any good arguments as listed in the official No case?

No.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Insulting NO voters or labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" is the only argument that the YES campaign has. It won't work of course because we have private ballots.

You didn't read the article, did you.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

You didn't read the article, did you.

Of course I did - and not just the parts you quoted.

Why? Is there anything in the article that contradicts what you quoted?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

The other said that she didn’t understand the workings of the Voice and she would not vote for something she could not understand.

"If you don't know, vote no"?

This line fails in this internet-connected age. If you don't know, you can find out.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Insulting NO voters or labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" is the only argument that the YES campaign has. It won't work of course because we have private ballots.

What a load of absolute tripe, and of course it is exactly what Tony Abbott said a couple of weeks ago.

[arthwollipot]

Changing the subject.

Scott Morrison is publishing a memoir, and of course it is all about how his religion has driven his politics. Oh yes, remember that old argument?

Quote:

Former prime minister Scott Morrison is set to reveal in detail how his Christian faith influenced him, in a memoir to be published in May 2024, AAP reports.

The 288-page book, Plans for Your Good - A Prime Minister’s Testimony of God’s Faithfulness, will be published by Thomas Nelson, a division of HarperCollins Christian Publishing.

The publisher’s website blurb for the book says it “offers a unique insider’s account of a Christian who was open about his faith and operated at the top level of politics for more than a decade”.

During one of the toughest periods since the Second World War, covering drought, wildfires, a global pandemic and recession, he chronicles God’s faithfulness throughout, win or lose, public criticism or public success.

Less political memoir and more pastoral encouragement, Morrison is passionate about encouraging others to discover how they can access and see the many blessings of God in their own lives, no matter their circumstances, drawing on Jeremiah 29:11, that God’s plans are for our good and not our harm, to give us a future and a hope.

The former Liberal leader, who remains in parliament as a backbencher, sets out a series of questions such as “Who am I?” and “How should I live?”

Morrison was Australia’s first Pentecostal prime minister, declaring the coalition’s 2019 election win a “miracle”, but went on to lose government at the 2022 poll.

Morrison noted on his MP interest register earlier this year he had received a royalties advance for the book.

source

[a_unique_person]

Aboriginals are not allowed to be angry. Farmers can be. Landlords can be. Sovereign citizens can be. Global warming deniers can be. Miners can be. The organisations presenting the no case can lie all they want.

The Aboriginals have to be on their best behaviour, otherwise they will frighten the snowflakes and deserve to lose the referendum.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Aboriginals are not allowed to be angry. Farmers can be. Landlords can be. Sovereign citizens can be. Global warming deniers can be. Miners can be. The organisations presenting the no case can lie all they want.

The Aboriginals have to be on their best behaviour, otherwise they will frighten the snowflakes and deserve to lose the referendum.

Well said.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What a load of absolute tripe, and of course it is exactly what Tony Abbott said a couple of weeks ago.

Tony who?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Changing the subject.

Scott Morrison . . . .

Scott who?

[arthwollipot]

I'm sorry Scott, you what?

Scott Morrison says he ‘stepped down as prime minister’ in sermon warning of ‘hostile’ world

Quote:

The member for Cook tells Perth churchgoers ‘the Christian journey is not a linear one’

Nah mate, you didn't step down. You were kicked out because you were a piece of **** and the worst prime minister in living memory.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Aboriginals are not allowed to be angry. Farmers can be. Landlords can be. Sovereign citizens can be. Global warming deniers can be. Miners can be. The organisations presenting the no case can lie all they want.

The Aboriginals have to be on their best behaviour, otherwise they will frighten the snowflakes and deserve to lose the referendum.

The nobility of indigenous people in WA threatening young women. How admirable.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The Aboriginals have to be on their best behaviour, otherwise they will frighten the snowflakes and deserve to lose the referendum.

It is little wonder that you are so desperate to poison the well. Support for the amendment is waning by the day.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

The nobility of indigenous people in WA threatening young women. How admirable.

So are you a "revolting person" or a "snowflake"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

The nobility of indigenous people in WA threatening young women. How admirable.

I wasn't responding to your post.

[The Atheist]

Queensland gotta Queensland.

Human rights? Who needs 'em?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...-more-children

[lionking]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I wasn't responding to your post.

It looked like it, but it really doesn’t matter. I’m sick of being vilified for having a different position about the referendum. Quite ironic that a referendum aimed at unifying Australians is having exactly the opposite effect.

Yes supporters will just have to come to terms with the forthcoming No vote. There is no sign of this happening.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Queensland gotta Queensland.

Human rights? Who needs 'em?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...-more-children

What the **** does this have to do with the referendum?

Not a ******* thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Insulting NO voters or labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" is the only argument that the YES campaign has. It won't work of course because we have private ballots.

https://iview.abc.net.au/video/FA2235H033S00


She called the no campaign promoters of racism racist. Not the "No" voters.


There's been plenty of that. Like calling Aboriginals traitors.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"If you don't know, vote no"?

This line fails in this internet-connected age. If you don't know, you can find out.

Fine. Show me on the internet how the Voice will be elected, how many members there will be, how much will it cost, how it will interact with other state “Voices” (like the Victorian First Nations Assembly), etc etc. You have said that the detail is not there, but there is no problem with that as it will be legislated. I think it is a critical problem, particularly with the current Senate seeking to change so many Bills.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

She called the no campaign promoters of racism racist. Not the "No" voters.

She was responding to a question from somebody who was thinking of voting NO.

Like Arthwollipot, she implied that the only reason anybody would vote NO was because the NO campaign "worked" on them - ie appealed to their racism or stupidity.

If you had read my post properly then you would have seen that it said labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" which is exactly what she did.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

Fine. Show me on the internet how the Voice will be elected, how many members there will be, how much will it cost, how it will interact with other state “Voices” (like the Victorian First Nations Assembly), etc etc. You have said that the detail is not there, but there is no problem with that as it will be legislated. I think it is a critical problem, particularly with the current Senate seeking to change so many Bills.

These details do not belong in the Constitution. They belong in the legislation which the Constitution would empower Parliament to make. Your questions will not have answers until after the referendum is passed.

We should modify the Constitution first, and then we can discuss these details. I'm sure the discussion will be vigorous and extended, and all sides will be considered. But the Constitution is absolutely not the place for these details.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

What the **** does this have to do with the referendum?

Not a ******* thing.

This thread is not about the referendum. It's about Australian politics. The referendum just happens to be the biggest discussion point we have right now.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

She was responding to a question from somebody who was thinking of voting NO.

Like Arthwollipot, she implied that the only reason anybody would vote NO was because the NO campaign "worked" on them - ie appealed to their racism or stupidity.

If you had read my post properly then you would have seen that it said labeling ALL arguments against the voice as "racist or stupid" which is exactly what she did.

She did, and she shouldn't have. I did not. What I have said is that the arguments you are making bear a strong resemblance to the arguments the No campaign is making (which have been more than adequately answered). I'm not drawing a causal relationship. If I once did, I withdraw it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What I have said is that the arguments you are making bear a strong resemblance to the arguments the No campaign is making (which have been more than adequately answered).

And that is incorrect and also dishonest as it implies that my argument is based on racism - or stupidity (because that is what the arguments in the NO campaign are based on).

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And that is incorrect and also dishonest as it implies that my argument is based on racism - or stupidity (because that is what the arguments in the NO campaign are based on).

You agree that the No campaign is based on stupidity and racism? So what arguments do you have that aren't similar to any that the No campaign has made?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You agree that the No campaign is based on stupidity and racism? So what arguments do you have that aren't similar to any that the No campaign has made?

You haven't been reading have you?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You haven't been reading have you?

Well, you are right - I haven't seen anybody from the No campaign make the argument that the proposed change to the Constitution replicates Section 51. I assume you're referring to sub-para xxvi - which states that the Parliament has the power to make laws regarding "the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". So there you go - I was wrong, and you have made an argument that I have not seen made by the No campaign.

I still don't think it is particularly compelling. Section 51 does nothing to address the Statement From The Heart (obviously, predating it by 50 years), and has obviously been insufficient in the past to address the concerns of the indigenous population.

The status quo is not working. It's time for something new.