Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "People are done with being ‘morally and emotionally blackmailed’ by the left" video.

  1. How about we let the Australian people decide on that, and a good measure of that would be the last opinion polls. Care to quote that data?
    3
  2.  @vivrowe2763  So you are factually wrong. The Newspoll I quote had the result of the last federal election exactly right weeks in advance. The current Newspoll has Albo as perfered PM at 56% to Mr Dutton at 27%. I have no idea what little echo chamber you live in but you are demonstratively wrong.
    3
  3.  @kellysouter4381  yeah baby, I have my eye on a M134 7.62 minigun.
    3
  4. Jeez I’ve never heard of basic human rights described as woke PC rubbish. Somebody’s feeling being hurt?
    3
  5. Yeah 2nd amendment rights as well, also I don’t like mowing my lawn of a weekend, put in something about making that illegal, and soy milk WTF is that nobody should have the right to soy milk.
    2
  6.  @lastjellyontheplate8828  Factually incorrect, unless you would like to point out for me which section of our constitution recognises in any way indigenous people. I’ll wait.
    2
  7.  @lastjellyontheplate8828  No just claiming they have with an unsubstantiated statement, is just nonsensical gibberish. Section 127 of the original constitution made aboriginal natives non citizens, my evidence is crystal clear. We even had a referendum to insert a preamble to the constitution to recognise indigenous Australians. Have you studied any Australian history?
    2
  8. A constitutionally enshrined voice provides no extra rights to indigenous people. It merely provides an advisory body to parliament and government. Hint, it’s an advisory body only.
    2
  9.  @lonnie224  Do you understand how polling and surveys work. Hint, they use a random sampling .
    1
  10.  @lonnie224  Why would the Australian newspaper which runs the same poll regularly which asked exactly the same questions want a result that is not truly reflective of public sentiment. Your comment is nonsensical and frankly lacks any understanding of how Newspoll conducts it surveys for the Australian newspaper.
    1
  11.  @lonnie224  OMG are you serious. The Australian newspapers editorial comments have been consistently against a voice. Why in gods name would they print a poll that says the majority are in favour of a yes vote. That is just nonsensical stupidity.
    1
  12.  @laciLaszloM  And once again the stupidity of your comments is not lost on those of us that understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition.
    1
  13. Is Dagwould going to talk to Dagwould?
    1
  14.  @laciLaszloM  nope you fundamentally misunderstand the discussion. Political representation which you are talking about is not constitutional recognition. Your comment makes no sense.
    1
  15. So you agree then the original constitution was explicitly racist and still has racist sections, and a no vote keeps it racist.
    1
  16.  @AdrianAdrian-sg2tj  No factually incorrect sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 of the original constitution were all explicitly racist. Some of those sections remain as well as there is literally no mention at all of the prior ownership of the continent by indigenous people.
    1
  17.  @AdrianAdrian-sg2tj  Who mentioned race? Why would you even raise race. A constitutionally enshrined voice is for the original owners of the land. The are a specific cultural group but we are all the same race. What level of ignorance suggests there is more than one species of humans existing on the planet?
    1
  18.  @AdrianAdrian-sg2tj  OMG you just denied the explicit racism in our original constitution. Section 127 specifically made native Australians non citizens. All you need to do is read Hansard from the first parliament or the notes from the federation debates. I can't help wilful ignorance. Your argument to deny indigenous people have not been subjected to centuries of racism is unique in its stupidity. You then denigrate our High court and its 6 to 1 decision on indigenous land rights. You then mischievously or ignorantly describe a voice as having exclusive access to the government. This statement is completely false as many organisations groups, bodies, and individuals have access to government. Are you suggesting the National Farmers federation don't lobby the Minister for agriculture. Your argument is one long fallacious nonsensical rant.
    1
  19. A completely disingenuous comment. Ask a question I will answer it.
    1
  20.  @lastjellyontheplate8828  No you fundamentally don’t understand the 67 referendum, it’s question and the result.
    1
  21.  @ozziecoops  Thankyou for emphasising my point.
    1