Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament is an 'attack on our democracy’" video.

  1.  @mtscott  You understand nothing of the constitution. The constitution is not designed to include the detail. That is what parliament and laws are for. The constitution already is racist. It was designed and written explicitly to be racist. Sections 25, 51, and 127 prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Every constitutional expert agrees on this. I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Have you any knowledge of the Australian constitution and its history, because it appears you don't.
    2
  2. 123 comments and I doubt a single one has a clue how a constitution works. Ask any of these dimwits how many judges the constitution says will sit on the high court and listen to their idiotic answers.
    1
  3. You are talking about political representation not constitutional recognition. They are completely different. Do some research before commenting.
    1
  4.  @PJRayment  A voice without veto power, legislative capacity, or financial delegation cannot in any be anything more than it is. You are deliberately fear mongering. A voice recognises the original inhabitants it has absolutely nothing to to with race. Race is being raised only as an issue by racists like yourself who are Christian fundamentalist white supremacists.
    1
  5.  @PJRayment  Your whole argument is based on an argument from ignorance, but explicitly in your case personally one from wilful Christian fundamental white supremacy.
    1
  6.  @PJRayment  An accurate description of you is not an Ad hominem fallacy it is merely an accurate description of you. The fact you accept it as a personal slur is not my problem.
    1
  7.  @PJRayment  No an accurate description of your character is not in any way an ad hominem of your argument. Deal with it. Now what we're you saying?
    1
  8.  @PJRayment  Yes christian fundamentalist white supremacy will make you believe that.
    1
  9. Sections 25, 51 (xxiv), and 125 of the constitution already created that schism. You haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.
    1
  10. Sections 25, 51 (xxiv), and 125 when written explicitly made it racist. It has always been racist WTF are you talking about?
    1
  11. You clearly know nothing. A voice will have no veto power, no legislative capacity, and no financial delegation. You are 100% factually incorrect. It will have no executive power whatsoever.
    1
  12.  @mtscott  I clearly explained the detail is for parliament to decide as the different sides adjust the voice the suite there political perspectives.
    1
  13.  @PJRayment  No completely factually wrong. The constitution was written specifically to be racist. To prevent ownership of mining leases in WA from Asians and other races that were deemed inferior. It as if you are being deliberately ignorant. The inherent racist constitution was then used immediately by the parliament to introduce racist legislation in the form of the white Australia policy. It is as if in your white supremacist bubble you just ignore the common public knowledge of Australia's constitution.
    1
  14.  @PJRayment  You revel in your Christian fundamental white supremacy, why you would consider an accurate assessment of yourself as a slur I can't fathom.
    1
  15. No, an acknowledgement of your Christian fundamentalist white supremacy views is not an invention merely an observation.
    1
  16.  @PJRayment  It's pretty bloody obvious to me.
    1
  17.  @PJRayment  You don't need me, a mere atheist to point out your christian fundamentalist white supremacist values, self reflection will achieve that.
    1