Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Who does that serve?’: Rita Panahi on Acknowledgement of Country" video.

How in gods name did you come up with that garbage? The voice would provide advice to the parliament ie all parties.
3
What is a voice vote? because your use of such language means you clearly don’t understand at all what you are commenting on. You then enter a racist agenda by suggesting indigenous culture is only related to genealogy ( genealogy is only one aspect of aboriginality) . What was the real point of your comment?
1
@jeffappleton926 So your first point is racist you low life grub. You immediately assume a non elected body of indigenous peoples would be prone to cronyism. In my original reply I made a perfectly legitimate point. You just confirmed it with your overt and clear racist comment. I don’t know about Richard but I know you are a racist grub.
1
@petesmitt So there has been a widely recognised test legally for many years. Genealogy, identification, and recognition. I kinda of assumed everyone knows this as it is common public knowledge.
1
@petesmitt So you clearly understand the law you just choose to remain stupid.
1
@Leftism is Cancer And in your question the complete and total inability of you to understand the difference between a legislated body that advises the executive and a constitutional body that advises the parliament is clearly beyond your understanding. I’ll leave it at that.
1
@lollypop2413 sorry how do I know what?
1
@jeffappleton926 what you described is the executive asking for advice. Not the indigenous community offering its advice. Completely different.
1
@brianmorris8045 🚷
1
@brianmorris8045 The response of a frightened little child in a thunder storm. Understandable.
1
@jeffappleton926 You refuted nothing. All you did was emphasise my point. Legislative bodies created by government can be dissolved by parliament. A constitutionally enshrined advisory body must be heard (but not heeded) This is an important and fundamental difference you fail to grasp.
1
@jeffappleton926 what a ludicrously stupid reply. The indigenous community in an overwhelming majority has asked the Australian people for exactly that. A voice. Again you utterly fail to comprehend the significance of a constitutionally enshrined voice. A seat at the table that recognises that hey we are your equal.
1
@gppsoftware Absolute rubbish and factually incorrect. The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 and has no veto power. As per the Waitangi treaty indigenous people have always had political representation. It is nonsensical to attempt to draw an equivalency between a formal treaty which New Zealand has and a constitutionally enshrined advisory body.
1
@wyattfamily8997 A completely false statement, that is not supported by the facts. Read the last federal budget papers, the actual figure is $4.2 billion. If you are going to comment at least try and appear not to be stupid.
1
@ch33psk8 Your comment is a complete and utter lie. I have previously posted a detailed explanation of why. Your continued use of these false data is only evidence of your clearly racist intent to attempt to deny indigenous people equality because you think you are superior. You are a racist grub.
1
What I have found is a common argument amongst the No campaign is on YouTube the idea that fighting against racism is being morally superior. To that I say fuck yeh!
1
@ch33psk8 Apart from enjoying the comments section on YouTube I don’t feel guilty about anything, what is a guilty pleasure is pointing out the inane comments of RWNJs.
1
@ch33psk8 OMG all you have shown and proven is you haven’t got the remotest clue about science. All you have said is that multiple different indigenous groups got it on between each other, well no shit Sherlock. What a dumdass!
1
Yes indigenous DNA and European DNA all have to varying degrees bits of Neanderthal and Denisovans in us, as they were both human species and we were able to get it on with them as we migrated out of Africa and moved around the world 250000 years ago. But welcome to country is about acknowledging the original inhabitants of Australia. There is literally no evidence any humans were here before Aboriginals were, and I’m interested as to why you would raise the issue of race when this is about ownership.
1
@mattmatty4670 I make no comment or judgement on indigenous culture. Isolation no doubt contributed to minimal advances in technology. I'm talking about recognition of prior ownership that's all.
1
@mrnobodytheuser2950 because the original comment did and constitutional recognition has absolutely nothing to do with race.
1