Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Indigenous Voice to Parliament is 'just wrong': Tony Abbott" video.

Could you please give an example or provide some evidence for this statement. Thankyou.
4
RWNJ
1
Your comment displays an utter ignorance of what a voice is. You clearly have taken no time to understand or gain any knowledge of the issue whatsoever. To compare ATSIC with a voice is so unbelievably stupid is to defy belief.
1
You fundamentally don’t understand the nature of a country’s constitution to ask such a question.
1
Have you read Nikki Sava’s book on Abbotts time as PM. A complete goatfuck.
1
You don’t need specific details as these can be sorted out by legislation in parliament. Each political party can then decide how to structure the voice. This is just understanding how a constitution works 101.
1
@Stew-D1987 Answers which are already public knowledge to your questions. 1. A voice is only an advisory body. It has no power to enact laws. 2. No, there is a process you need to go through to be accepted as an indigenous person. 3. Yes this is already in place. It is part of the process in identifying as aboriginal.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 Well we will let the Australian people decide if the constitution needs change. Your emotive language is simply an attempt to hide the lack of a coherent argument.
1
@Stew-D1987 All the detail has been released your comment is deliberately misleading or just ignorant misinformation. What is your next question on the structure of a voice?
1
@advanceaustralia3321 What an idiotic statement. I openly and honestly invited any questions on the voice and answered in detail all questions posed so far. Your inability to mount a logical coherent argument speaks for itself.
1
@Stew-D1987 Again you a factually wrong. Ask me a question about the proposed structure of the voice. There was a detailed 250 page attached document to the Uluru statement that explains the voice. If you are to lazy to read it and then claim ignorance, that to says you are being wilfully ignorant.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 Finally a good and reasonable point or argument. Well done. I personally think most Australians are concerned with wasteful government expenditure. Bridget McKenzie allocating public money to her gun club comes to mind, but I digress. The exact budget would be set by parliament via legislation, but as a guide you could compare it to a similar size government advisory body like the Productivity Commission. It is a good question. What do you think would be a reasonable budget for a voice?
1
@advanceaustralia3321 As to regards the second point about racism. I have not heard a single proponent of the voice claim opposition to it is racist, on the contrary almost every opposition opinion to a voice has claimed it is racist. So far I have addressed all your concerns logically and with facts. It is you that has raised emotive language and racism. Your hypocrisy slip is showing I'm afraid.
1
@dfor50 No factually incorrect. Only the parliament can enact legislation to make laws. It can't pass that power along to a regulatory authority. I don't think you understand how the Westminster parliamentary system works.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 so you argument is completely emotional and nonsensical. Your stupidity make a mockery of your own legitimate question by providing a childish emotional answer of zero dollars. So once again you prove your inability to produce a coherent and logical argument and rely only on emotive childish rhetoric.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 I was not comparing exactly to the PC only suggesting it's budget would be similar to any comparable sized federal advisory bodies, many of which currently exsist. Your childish answer of zero dollars is that of how a 7 year old child talks.
1
@dfor50 Yes to regulations no to laws. I have no problems with your reply. Now you have expressed yourself exactly I completely agree with you. In the event this did happen, which it certainly isn't planned to, but if it did then parliament can adjust and amend as required. That could happen tomorrow it requires no constitutional change, so I fail to fathom why you consider it an issue as it is an issue without a constitutional voice. It is more a strawman, which is a logical fallacy.
1
@dfor50 Like the High Court, the structure of the executive level of government or any other part of the constitution. Multiple constitutional experts have explained in detail why a constitution should only be a guiding policy document not a detailed operational manual like you suggest. Sorry you are just wrong. The last thing we need is a fixed unalterable clause in the constitution. I mean just think about it for minute, what about in 500 years having to deal with something fixed that no longer suits its purpose. Sorry your argument is illogical.
1
@dfor50 Your level of narcissism is troubling.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 Your last reply is just a non sequitur which is a logical fallacy in argumentation and nonsensical.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 Just the standard RWNJ talking points at last. No actual arguments just mindless factless rhetoric. Have you any sensible arguments to make? Otherwise best leave it there.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 A vacuous comment that is child like in its manner.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 The referendum can't fail you moron. The legislation will pass the parliament. What you stupidly meant to say was you hope a no vote will get up. I will let the Australian people decide.
1
@advanceaustralia3321 As I said I will be happy with the decision of the Australian public, whichever way they vote. Unlike you I make no value judgement on the Australian people
1
@advanceaustralia3321 Thankyou, sanctimonious is my middle name, however you are factually wrong on your second description as I said nothing hypocritical at all. I merely logically put forward my argument. You however failed to raise one logical point only a series of fallacious arguments and emotive language as I highlighted.
1
Yes exactly, and in 5 to 10 years Tim people will say what was all that scaremongering and fuss all about.
1