Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Latest arguments by the ‘no’ advocates of the Voice are the ‘most absurd’" video.

@johnwoodrow8769 Yes your reply makes perfect sense in relation to my last comment. Thankyou for clearing that up. I didn’t think you understood the difference in my original comment and your confirmation of this is most helpful. No need to say anything more.
2
Factually incorrect. Treaties in the US and Canada have not effected their national sovereignty. You are just demonstrably wrong.
1
No it isn’t. You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. You need to read a book.
1
@johnwoodrow8769 You do understand there are more men named Andrew in parliament than LNP women or indigenous people in total. Your comment is so bizarre and and lacking in reality it is hard to fathom. Just as an experiment please provide for me the total number of white Males as a percentage of the federal parliament both house of reps and senate. I honestly can’t believe you have been stupid enough to go down this line of argument. Please continue.
1
@johnwoodrow8769 You crack me up. If you include women 96% of the current federal parliament are white. You comment is so totally bizarre it borders on the delusional. Is there a comedy club where you do a routine, your stuff is gold.
1
@johnwoodrow8769 A completely vacuous comment that totally avoided the issue or subject, but is however in keeping with your previous comments.
1
@sloopjohnb7271 My personal circumstances are irrelevant to any argument and is an attempt at a anecdotal argument which is fallacious. You then launch into a mostly undecipherable "gish gallop" that is completely fallacious. My original point still stands you said nothing to refute it. Do you know the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. Sections 25, 51(xxvi), and 127 of our original constitution specifically denied indigenous people recognition. Address those points, don't tell me what happened in South America 700 years ago that is a red herring fallacy. Try again and this time stay on subject and be succinct
1
They already do. It is called the constitution. Than you for making such a resounding argument for a constitutionally enshrined voice. Well done.
1
@irrideemablenon-elite3783 Once again thankyou for endorsing and convincingly making the argument for constitutional recognition. You are however just factually mistaken about how how the political representation works in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. Candidates are elected to represent their electorates not any specific ethnic/cultural group. Is Peter Dutton representing and advocating for white males? Of course not. Your argument in this regard is illogical nonsense. Indigenous members of parliament may bring there lived indigenous experience to parliament but they are not representing indigenous people. Did you study or learn about how our democracy works. You don’t appear to have.
1
The lawyer would explain to the client go and read, learn, read the reports handed to government, read the detailed document attached to the Uluṟu statement. Read the Final report delivered to the LNP government. The lawyer would explain to his client in a polite manner wilful ignorance is not an excuse.
1
Factually incorrect. An advisory body to parliament in absolutely no way effects sovereignty or the ability to treatise. I have numerous constitutional lawyers, experts, and scholars who have all publicly declared this fact. It is so much of a fact it can be demonstrably proven by the legal experience in the US and Canada. What have you got your opinion? We all have one of those as the saying goes.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Your entire response is legal fiction. It is totally without any merit and strikingly displays a complete lack of any knowledge on sovereignty and its meaning or even how it works.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 oh no you are correct Thorpe is certifiable. That unfortunately has got nothing to do with constitutional recognition for indigenous people and a voice to parliament. Why would you think any individual’s opinions would effect factual reality?
1
@advanceaustralia4861 As explained Thorpe is off in her own little world. You seem fixated on her, again I don't know why she is just one lone politician. The vast majority of indigenous people signed the Uluru statement and that is what is being proposed. Not what Thorpe is suggesting. You even managed to distort her view which is "treaty" first, so it is you that is being deliberately deceptive and dishonest.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Over 250 elders and representatives from all indigenous groups and regions signed the Uluru statement. There were about a dozen dissenting and some of them walked out of the signing ceremony. So overwhelming support/consent. So again you are factually wrong and clearly do not understand how representative democracy works.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 You finally crossed over into unsubstantiated wild conspiracy theory. You have displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the process undertaken to arrive at the Uluru statement from the heart. You have consistently either lied or shown a breathtaking level of ignorance. And you have the chutzpah to ask me to be honest. All I have stated is the truth.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 An indigenous advisory body to parliament with no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation has as much ability to influence the government on a change to our democracy as you do. The government has already has a Minister for a Republic. Your argument is a non sequitur and illogical nonsense. Both might happen or either one may happen without effecting the other. All you are doing is fear mongering.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Just complete conspiratorial nonsense. Once again, a treaty recognising indigenous sovereignty in no way effects the sovereignty of the Australian peoples. It is just something you have made up in your head. Numerous legal experts and constitutional scholars all agree on this. It even has been demonstratively proven. In the US the US government has negotiated multiple sovereignty agreements with native Americans. You just don't understand the meaning of sovereignty. If a treaty does eventuate from the Uluru statement as it asks for which there is no gaunatee it will it will have absolutely nil effect on Australian sovereignty. A voice may or may not happen but it most certainly doesn't follow that it a voice is enshrined in the constitution a treaty would immediately follow. They are completely separate processes. You need to read up about the law and sovereignty.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Whenever did I say I didn't want a Republic. The current government even has a Minister for it and is publicly open in its advocacy for it. Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Voice and treaty are inexplicable linked as once again this is open public knowledge as explicitly explained in minute detail in the Uluru statement, and I previously explained in detail that Labor are open about their support for a Republic. I support both but completely fail to see how one follows the other. ie if a voice does fail at the referendum then The government is still going to go ahead and push for a Republic. The reverse is also possible, a voice may get up at a referendum but the Australian people may once again vote against another referendum on a Republic. Once again WTF are you talking about, do you have any evidence of your claims.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 You need to read up and learn what sovereignty is and means. It is abundantly clear in your replies that you don't. Your argument is nonsensical as you don't understand literally what sovereignty is and that it can coexist.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Then what are you worried about?
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Do you know how paranoid delusional you sound when you talk of Marxists overthrowing the Australian government. You are either literally deluded or trying to be comical, so I’ll go with being a really poor comedian.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 The single largest socialist government since WWII was the LNP Morrison government with its 2020 and 2021 fiscal stimulus budgets making the previous Gillard/Rudd government's looking like amateurs. Again I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Sorry I don't have clue what you are talking about, dissembling what?
1
@advanceaustralia4861 Your future predictions maybe accurate, so what.
1
Exactly. Read our original constitution. Native Aboriginals were explicitly excluded. Section 127. Plain and simple clear as a bell. Thankyou for making the argument for a “voice”.
1
@ronan4681 Perfect. You have just made an excellent case for a bill or rights to be included in our constitution. If you actually read our constitution it says little to nothing about who we are and individuals rights. It was in actual fact more concerned about commerce and trading rights in a federation of colonial states. Again thankyou for supporting providing a convincingly good argument for constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament.
1
Tell me how was the Australian Military established? Explain to me how hard it was to establish an Air Force., then explain to me how we manage to amend our Defence Force. Your argument is illogical nonsense.
1
@Roach22 So your response clearly indicates you have not read Section 51(vi) of the constitution. It is the clause which as I remember is a couple of sentences that allows the government to create a defence force. It contains absolutely no detail whatsoever on how our defence force be created. In fact it doesn't even mention an Air force. Now are you telling me an advisory body to government isore complex than designing and running the ADF. Your argument is illogical. A voice would be formed exactly the same way. I few lines in the constitution then legislation in the parliament. Exactly the same way the ADF works. Your argument about detail is demonstratively and factually without any merit whatsoever.
1
@Roach22 No. what I clearly demonstrated is that a simple couple of lines in the constitution be inserted explaining that a indigenous voice be established as an advisory body to parliament. Exactly the same way the defence force and the high court were established. The detail of how it then operates is legislated in the parliament where the people can have their say. Exactly how the defence force and the high court are run today. I projected nothing only provided a working functioning example of how our constitution works and compared it to exactly how a voice would function
1
Your argument is illogical nonsense. Explain to me how the constitution which authorised the formation of our defence force manages to equip our fighter aircraft with missiles?
1
You fundamentally misunderstand constitutional recognition and individual ownership of private property. It beggars belief that you would display this level of ignorance by commenting publicly.
1
@Busy right now yep that sums up nicely your intellectual capacity.
1
@Lee-cc9jf Are you calling for the complete socialisation of all property, because the single largest individual property owner in the country (Gina Rinehart) could afford to rehouse more indigenous families in a day than poor old Albo could personally manage in a lifetime.
1
@Lee-cc9jf Right so your comment has nothing to do with social justice or fairness for indigenous it is just a petty comment about revenge because you mistakenly believe a social policy you disagree with and weird fixation on a politicians personal wealth. Right got it.
1
Read the original constitution, because no they don’t. Thankyou for making an argument for an indigenous voice.
1
Those race privileges you talk of, ever read sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 of the original constitution. Thanks for making such a resounding argument for a constitutionally enshrined voice. On a side note can you explain to me as a white male what is genetically different to me than an indigenous male?
1
@anthonybeaton9823 Reintroduce race WTF are you talking about. Read the current section 25 then get back to me. Our constitution is still explicitly racist. How can you have a discussion when you deny a basic fact.
1
@anthonybeaton9823 Again thankyou for acknowledging that you were factually incorrect. So wrong in fact that to nullify the inherent racism in our original constitution we have had to create significant legislation, as you mentioned the Racial discrimination act. Again what more can I say. Thanks for making the argument for constitutional change.
1
@anthonybeaton9823 A complete misunderstanding of section 25 and the history behind it in relation to the then racist laws in WA at Federation and the debates around it in 1897 and 1898. Section 25 is so explicitly racist we needed a whole act. The racial discrimination act to nullify it. This is accepted as fact by every constitutional expert/scholar in Australia.
1