Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Newspoll shows majority of Australians support Voice to Parliament" video.

  1. So you are perfectly happy with sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 of the original constitution. Section 25 remains intact and is explicitly racist. Have you even a clue about what you are commenting on?
    6
  2.  @rapscallion9333  Absolute rubbish. All you are doing is parroting right wing talking points. There is bucketloads of detail. Just read the reports to government that are online. A 30 sec search on the internet is all the effort you need to put in. Or remain ignorant. Your choice.
    5
  3.  @johnwoodrow8769  Section 25 is fully intact. It is why the Racial discrimination act is vitally necessary.
    4
  4.  @jamiechippett1566  Not according to our original constitution nor the immigration act 1901 or to a simple understanding of our history.
    4
  5.  @DO_NOT_COMPLY-e2z  Ahh the old sovereign citizen argument. Lost in every court in the land on numerous attempts. Laughed out of most. We have a perfectly legal constitutionally legitimate parliamentary democracy and we will leave it there.
    2
  6. That’s right shoot the messenger. Classic RWNJ playbook.
    1
  7. And you know this how?
    1
  8.  @stephanmaric6796  And you know this how?
    1
  9.  @stephanmaric6796  Our original constitution supported segregation in sections 25, 51(xxiv) and 127. Our 1901 immigration act that was apartheid. Our constitution is so racist we needed legislation (racial discrimination act) to limit its inherent racism. This country has never been all equal under one law. Your words are just emotional fanciful meaningless vacuouses.
    1
  10.  @stephanmaric6796  You raised race by describing an advisory body to parliament with no veto power, no legislative ability, and no financial delegation as Apartheid. It is you who is being deliberately disingenuous and spreading bile disinformation. Hypocrisy at its finest you grub.
    1
  11.  @stephanmaric6796  And with that vacuous comment we will leave it.
    1
  12.  @Want0nS0up  I quoted accurately from the original constitution you dimwit and asked if the poster was in favour of those clearly racist sections of our original constitution, seeing how concerned they seemed to be with racism. Your vacuous comment is what is irrelevant.
    1
  13.  @DO_NOT_COMPLY-e2z  You completely misunderstand the fundamental difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. Do an internet search and learn the difference.
    1
  14.  @jamiechippett1566  WTF. What covenant? I honestly haven't got a clue what utter claptrap you are talking about.
    1
  15.  @jamiechippett1566  Yeah a satellite map of stupidity.
    1
  16.  @Want0nS0up  No I have an very good idea of how condescending I am to dimwits.
    1
  17.  @DO_NOT_COMPLY-e2z  It's best then you stay out of the debate and don't vote. Seems like a good idea.
    1
  18.  @LukeXMV  WTF are you talking about. The Uluru statement from the heart which called for a voice was 100% indigenous.
    1
  19.  @daveo3122  Yes it does, making it explicitly racist. It has of course been completely nullified by the Racial discrimination act. That is because our constitution was and still is explicitly racist. That needs to be fixed. Not by legislation but by constitutional reform.
    1
  20.  @DO_NOT_COMPLY-e2z  I was of course being factitious. Everyone is welcome to the debate and discussion on an indigenous voice to Parliament, no matter which side they are on.
    1
  21.  @LukeXMV  A voice in no way shape or matter in any legal or constitutional way effects sovereignty. It is an argument to distract and misinform. Sovereignty and a voice are two completely separate and different issues.
    1
  22.  @daveo3122  Wonderful, so you are the one crying racist saying I'm racist making you the total hypocrite. Typical, complain that arguing for a no to the voice will lead to calls of racism from the yes campaign and you immediately call me a racist you pathetic lowlife hypocritical grub.
    1
  23.  @Want0nS0up  Referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect in a youtube discussion where you are unable to compete on the facts and then suggest I am not a clever as I think I am when I had already taken the piss out if myself by declaring my condescending tone just shows what a complete lack of understanding you have of the Dunning-Kruger effect which plays to both the stupid and the clever. Nobody is immune you dimwit. Although clearly you think it doesn't apply to you. I know it effects me.
    1
  24.  @Want0nS0up  Lose the chip is not a coherent argument. Make a coherent argument. Whether I have a chip on my shoulder or not is irrelevant to the issue. Make an argument on the facts.
    1
  25. You have made an excellent argument for a bill of rights to be inserted into our constitution. Well done. However you are ignorant to the inherent racism explicit to our constitution. If you are truely against tribalism then why are you for a racist constitution? Are you aware no indigenous representation was sort or allowed in the debates, conventions, and referendums that contributed to the formation of our constitution. In fact it was specifically written to prevent Africans obtaining gold mining leases in WA as you were considered sub human. This is all documented and a quick reading of Hansard in 1901 proves it.
    1
  26.  @kellysouter4381  How is an advisory body to parliament with no veto power, no legislative capacity, and no financial delegation apartheid. You have just parroted that word from some RWNJ talking point. It is mischievous and deliberately misinformed. Actually read up about Apartheid in South Africa and you will realise what a stupid comment you have made.
    1
  27. Shoot the messenger, classic conservatives playbook.
    1