Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Jacinta Price urges Aussies to ‘be informed’ when voting in Voice referendum" video.

@davidbamberr Yes referendums are compulsory.
3
@graemekeeley4497 Holy shit, WTF are you doing on Sky news youtube comments? That is the most reasonable comment I have read on Skynews comments in months. I have had to sit down and steady myself I'm that shocked. Joking aside, yes I mostly agree, but I didn't argue for a bill of rights, some have, but not I. I merely support an indigenous advisory body to parliament. Our constitution was more an agreement between states to allow for economic efficiencies ie a combined defence force. There is little in it about individual rights. But there is the ability to amend it and asking the Australian people their opinion on a proposed amendment is well within the boundaries of thinking by the originators of our constitution.
2
So one Senator discounts the other 7 who are for a Voice. Doesn’t seem very logical.
2
And which particular facist organisation do you belong to?
2
I would argue a Voice does benefit all Australians as it provides for a fairer and more equitable society. If a single indigenous person is better off, we all are better off. Do you understand at all how a civilised society works or are you just concerned about yourself?
1
@kellysouter4381 Hilarious. Yeah let’s stick that into the voice referendum. May I ask at level what level of weapons would you think we should allow Australians the right to bear arms? Javelin missiles perhaps, I personally have a fondness for the 50 cal MG. You crack me up.
1
@graemekeeley4497 And then there are the Kelly’s of the world.
1
@typetersen8809 Kelly was a easy target. The original comment about a bill of rights does have some worth. What you average dimwitted RWNJ thinks when they talk of a bill of rights is they think they are being discriminated against. When the RWNJs realise that a bill of rights would actually enforce equality between indigenous people and themselves I think they would very quickly STFU.
1
Yep 8000 views that about the support you would expect.
1
@typetersen8809 No problemos.
1
@typetersen8809 So this article is at 11k views and an ABC news article on the voice where the Libs are absolutely trashed by Langton has 87k views. The RWNJs are loud and vocal and full of mischievous misinformation, and I suspect will be successful in their No campaign. Scaremongering is often successful.
1
@tlb2970 And in your reply you show your inability to understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. Any further discussion is useless.
1
@tlb2970 But it was the Australians who created the constitution that made sure there was a means to enable it to be amended. It is our sworn duty as Australians to uphold that ideal and force regular change.
1
@tlb2970 He has, and in quite explicit language. We are attempting to change the constitution to recognise indigenous people. What is hard to understand about this concept?
1
@tlb2970 No. He clearly stated the objective of the voice at the 2022 Garma festival. This was widely reported by the MSM at the time. I can’t help you stay abreast of current affairs.
1
@saintsone7877 You will have to provide evidence that indigenous people are recognised in the constitution. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated claim and dismissed as utter nonsense. Secondly I have never suggested, implied that indigenous people don’t have political representation. Every indigenous person has been able to vote since the early sixties. You then either ignorantly or mischievously miss characterise a voice as a second vote. This is totally false. An advisory body with no veto power can in no way be considered a second vote other than in somebody’s fantasy world.
1
@tlb2970 That explains everything. Thankyou I would not have expected anything else.
1
@saintsone7877 Couple of points there. Firstly it is widely acknowledged by all parties both conservative and progressive that the constitution does not recognise indigenous Australians. The Howard government acknowledged this and attempted to have a preamble inserted into the constitution. You are just factually wrong on this point and the universal legal opinion agrees with this view. The use of the word "apartheid" is an emotional one used by someone with no actual argument in an attempt to get a response from RWNJs it is completely factless. An advisory body with no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation can in no way be considered a third chamber. You clearly don't understand the difference between political power and legislative capacity. The teeth in the voice is its constitutionality, but you don't understand this. All parties have consistently expressed the fact there will be no veto power, and the referendum question and the constitutional amendment wording make this clear. Again if you don't understand how English words work when put in a sentence then there is little I can say or do in a discussion. Your reply was just a collection of mistruths and had a sense of desperation about it. I have no idea what you are so terrified of. Actual equality for indigenous people perhaps.
1
@saintsone7877 "word salad" often used as a comeback by someone as a standard response to an inability to understand words. You have made up the idea about the Voice having any input into independent government bodies. It is factually incorrect and there is literally no legal opinion that says it could. A voice to parliament/executive could for instance recommend a indigenous position be created on the board of the RBA and the government could say yes or no. Once again the wording of the amendment is quite specific "may make representations " you clearly don't understand how words work in english. In any average year the High court hears arguments/cases on the constitution to the tune of approximately 70. That's what it is for, suggesting that the voice may take decisions to the high court is part of our legal system, are you suggesting indigenous people not have equality under our law because it certainly sounds like it. I am fully aware a voice may request High court decisions on laws effecting indigenous people. Clearly you wish to deny them this right. You have no idea what the solicitor General advice to government is. It remains confidential. You are responding to Facebook articles. All you have done is reveal the shallowness of your argument., as you seem terrified of a argument initiated by indigenous people.
1
@saintsone7877 And once again you clearly state you are not comfortable with indigenous people having affordable access to the High court. I on the other hand don’t give a rats arse. Their argument will rest on its validity in front on the court. Same as everyone one else.
1
@saintsone7877 provide your evidence for the claim 99.9% of people do not have access to funding for legal cases to the high court. Also provide the evidence any potential legal challenges will be paid for by the taxpayer. Provide the evidence all the voice members will be appointed. All you have done is through out a whole heap of unsubstantiated claims none of which are true. You have just made shit up to support your argument, and then throw in a baseless claim of racism. I have no idea why you so terrified of an indigenous advisory body, perhaps because it will provide true equality.
1