some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..

1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
country?
2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
on race. THAT is racist
3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
health, roads, etc.,
4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
then possibly, reparations and compensation.
this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
about it.
6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 8/10/2023 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>
> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> country?

Because it's an emotive populist issue driven by the loony left.

> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
> on race. THAT is racist

Indeed it is.

Our Constitution works fine in that it currently treats everyone equally
without distinction or prejudice. It is *already* inclusive. Changing it
to recognise a particular race in isolation is *not* inclusive at all,
but rather *divisive*. It does nothing but create an "us and them"
environment.

> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
> are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
> health, roads, etc.,

This is happening because Albanese is a mad left wing soft cock who's
wanted to do this since he was 14 years old. Despite going to the polls
making the usual promises of improving the lives of all Australians and
reduce cost of living pressures he has done nothing other than appear
all over the world as if he's a fucking movie star (and I'm sure in most
of those cases no one knew who the fuck he was :), and pushes his own
personal agenda with this "Voice" bullshit.

> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic

At the moment the details of precisely what the "Voice" will entail are
unknown, which makes it impossible to make an informed choice on the
issue. In fact, the details of exactly what it will entail are *so*
sketchy that it makes me wonder how anyone can actually be in favour of
it when they have absolutely no fucking idea what it actually *is*.

> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
> then possibly, reparations and compensation.
> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
> the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
> about it.

I don't recall Albanese making any such comments. In fact he's been
cautious about the wider effects and has played his cards very close to
his chest in that regard. But nevertheless this is precisely why the
*only* vote that makes sense at the moment is to say "No".

Purely because *none* of us have been told where this will take us.

> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.

There is probably a fair element of this that was created with good
intentions, but like so many government plans it has the potential to go
pear shaped and be something we live to regret. That's not something you
want to find out *after* it's been approved and the Constitution has
been changed. For the life of me I cannot fathom how we, the general
public, can be expected to think that this is the right thing to do,
when there are prominent Indigenous Australians on both sides of this
argument. I mean, if they can't agree that it's a necessary change, then
what hope have we "commoners" got?

My view when voting for *anything* is that there are three key points
you need to be at peace with in order to support any idea:

Concept.
Process.
Objective.

Concept: What is the proposal about, why do we need it, and how much
will it cost?

Process: How will the policy be implemented, what effects will it have
on existing policies, and how long will it take to get up and running.

Objective: How will this policy benefit anyone in a way that currently
doesn't exist, and at what point would it be deemed to have failed if it
doesn't meet it's expected goals?

As I said these three basic questions apply to any proposal, and in this
case there is not a single one of them that has been adequately
addressed by the "Yes" camp in my opinion which is precisely why I have
already voted "No" by postal vote a week ago.

It has nothing to do with being a "racist", and if I was I wouldn't be
married to a Woman of Colour. It's about whether or not the idea has
enough merrit to stand on it's own feet without any emotive bullshit
propping it up, and I'm sorry to say that while it may do at some future
point at present it does not.

It's that simple.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/10/2023 10:20 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>
> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> country?

A lot of Aboriginals don't support 'Yes' either so... if they aren't
united, why should all Australians get to decide which side is right for
them?

It just comes across as an exercise in virtue signalling and I don't
think there should even be a referendum but hey, that horse has bolted.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

Noddy wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>>
>> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small.
>> why do they get so much attention as if they're half the population
>> of the country?
>
> Because it's an emotive populist issue driven by the loony left.
>
>> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other
>> way round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens
>> based on race. THAT is racist
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> Our Constitution works fine in that it currently treats everyone
> equally without distinction or prejudice. It is *already* inclusive.
> Changing it to recognise a particular race in isolation is *not*
> inclusive at all, but rather *divisive*. It does nothing but create an
> "us and them" environment.
>

exactly. and there's no reason why the govt cannot do anything it wants
to, or anything that is necessary to benefit aborigines, without there
being anything specific about 'first nation's people' in the constitution.

>> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when
>> there are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living,
>> housing, health, roads, etc.,
>
> This is happening because Albanese is a mad left wing soft cock who's
> wanted to do this since he was 14 years old. Despite going to the
> polls making the usual promises of improving the lives of all
> Australians and reduce cost of living pressures he has done nothing
> other than appear all over the world as if he's a fucking movie star
> (and I'm sure in most of those cases no one knew who the fuck he was
> :), and pushes his own personal agenda with this "Voice" bullshit.
>
>> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
>> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
>
> At the moment the details of precisely what the "Voice" will entail
> are unknown, which makes it impossible to make an informed choice on
> the issue. In fact, the details of exactly what it will entail are
> *so* sketchy that it makes me wonder how anyone can actually be in
> favour of it when they have absolutely no fucking idea what it
> actually *is*.
>
>> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a
>> treaty, then possibly, reparations and compensation.
>> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for
>> what the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel
>> guilty about it.
>
> I don't recall Albanese making any such comments. In fact he's been
> cautious about the wider effects and has played his cards very close
> to his chest in that regard.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fpartypol%2F8638543%22

An Albanese Labor Government is determined to walk with First Nations
people on this path. If elected, we will move quickly on a referendum to
enshrine a Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. And we will
establish a Makarrata Commission to progress Treaty and Truth-Telling.

Fulfilling the promise of Uluru. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was
the ultimate act of generosity - the offer of a genuine partnership, and
a real chance for us to create a reconciled Australia. It calls for
three things - Voice, Treaty and Truth. Labor is the only political
party committed to implementing the Uluru Statement in full.

> But nevertheless this is precisely why the *only* vote that makes
> sense at the moment is to say "No".
>
> Purely because *none* of us have been told where this will take us.
>
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>
> There is probably a fair element of this that was created with good
> intentions, but like so many government plans it has the potential to
> go pear shaped and be something we live to regret. That's not
> something you want to find out *after* it's been approved and the
> Constitution has been changed. For the life of me I cannot fathom how
> we, the general public, can be expected to think that this is the
> right thing to do, when there are prominent Indigenous Australians on
> both sides of this argument. I mean, if they can't agree that it's a
> necessary change, then what hope have we "commoners" got?
>
> My view when voting for *anything* is that there are three key points
> you need to be at peace with in order to support any idea:
>
> Concept.
> Process.
> Objective.
>
> Concept: What is the proposal about, why do we need it, and how much
> will it cost?
>
> Process: How will the policy be implemented, what effects will it have
> on existing policies, and how long will it take to get up and running.
>
> Objective: How will this policy benefit anyone in a way that currently
> doesn't exist, and at what point would it be deemed to have failed if
> it doesn't meet it's expected goals?
>
> As I said these three basic questions apply to any proposal, and in
> this case there is not a single one of them that has been adequately
> addressed by the "Yes" camp in my opinion which is precisely why I
> have already voted "No" by postal vote a week ago.
>
> It has nothing to do with being a "racist", and if I was I wouldn't be
> married to a Woman of Colour. It's about whether or not the idea has
> enough merrit to stand on it's own feet without any emotive bullshit
> propping it up, and I'm sorry to say that while it may do at some
> future point at present it does not.
>
> It's that simple.
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 8/10/2023 4:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> Our Constitution works fine in that it currently treats everyone
>> equally without distinction or prejudice. It is *already* inclusive.
>> Changing it to recognise a particular race in isolation is *not*
>> inclusive at all, but rather *divisive*. It does nothing but create an
>> "us and them" environment.
>>
>
> exactly. and there's no reason why the govt cannot do anything it wants
> to, or anything that is necessary to benefit aborigines, without there
> being anything specific about 'first nation's people' in the constitution.

As you say, you don't need to make a change to the constitution to
appoint a panel of "advisors". We have specific ministerial and
government departments dedicated to Aboriginal affairs now, and I fail
to see how a constitutional change will make any difference to how they
operate.

At the end of the day, as fancy as the "Voice" all sounds it's really
little more than tokenism.

>> I don't recall Albanese making any such comments. In fact he's been
>> cautious about the wider effects and has played his cards very close
>> to his chest in that regard.
>
> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fpartypol%2F8638543%22

That may have been part of their overall pre election policy statement
Felix, but it wasn't widely publicised and given that most parties
purposely wait until a few days before the election to release their
full suite of policy proposals as a deliberate act to avoid massive
scrutiny I'd tip that most weren't aware of it going into the last election.

The point I was making earlier is that during the whole media focus of
the Voice debate Albanese has been very guarded in his answers with
regards to exactly what the Voice will mean and how wide ranging the
consequences will be. And it is exactly *because* of that that people
should be nervous. He has done his very best to introduce one of the
*vaguest* government policies this country has ever known, and that's
been a deliberate act.

He is essentially asking for permission to do what he wants *without*
telling anyone precisely what that is, and when you're talking about a
left wing soft cock with delusions of grandeur like we currently have
for a Prime Minister that is a recipe for disaster.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 13:20:37 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>
> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> country?
> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
> on race. THAT is racist
> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
> are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
> health, roads, etc.,
> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
> then possibly, reparations and compensation.
> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
> the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
> about it.
> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well surprise, surprise, I completely agree with you!. Ive been following this *very* closely and to use that old cliche, "This is just the tip of the iceberg".
Ppl are being asked to vote on a future-changing agenda, whilst being told *say yes, we`ll get back to you on the detail*..UH-HUH.
Treaty/Makarata next, *then* the invoice.......

Govco talks *OUTCOMES*...Sure, there are *billions* spent every year on Koori's!. Where has that gone?. There are a *lot* of ppl asking that question.
(Might start with Noel Pearson and the *Cape York Partnership*)

Wondering *why nothing* can be seen to be happening in the remote settlements where Incest, rape, D/V, murder, assaults etc. are *every day* occurrences!!!!!!!

Koori's (already) have their own:
Medical services.
Legal services.
Housing services.
Counselling services.
Abstudy.
Check out NIAA......More there.
Housing loans.
Business loans.
Mostly duplication of *existing* services.
And More!..
*OUTCOMES*? All without *any* of the bullshit ppl are being subjected to at the moment!. :(

About the only positive (for mine) from all this is Jacinta Price rising above it all!!!!!!


>
> --
> Have a nice day!..

jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 13:20:37 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>>
>> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
>> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
>> country?
>> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
>> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
>> on race. THAT is racist
>> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
>> are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
>> health, roads, etc.,
>> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
>> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
>> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
>> then possibly, reparations and compensation.
>> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
>> the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
>> about it.
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
>> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Well surprise, surprise, I completely agree with you!.

well you're not as stupid as you look then..

> Ive been following this *very* closely and to use that old cliche, "This is just the tip of the iceberg".

yep!

> Ppl are being asked to vote on a future-changing agenda, whilst being told *say yes, we`ll get back to you on the detail*..UH-HUH.
> Treaty/Makarata next, *then* the invoice.......
>
> Govco talks *OUTCOMES*...Sure, there are *billions* spent every year on Koori's!. Where has that gone?. There are a *lot* of ppl asking that question.
> (Might start with Noel Pearson and the *Cape York Partnership*)

it gets swallowed up by the ppl 'distributing' it, in 'administration'
etc.,

>
> Wondering *why nothing* can be seen to be happening in the remote settlements where Incest, rape, D/V, murder, assaults etc. are *every day* occurrences!!!!!!!

with all the money (billions) spent so far they should all be living in
luxury!

>
>
> Koori's (already) have their own:
> Medical services.
> Legal services.
> Housing services.
> Counselling services.
> Abstudy.
> Check out NIAA......More there.
> Housing loans.
> Business loans.
> Mostly duplication of *existing* services.
> And More!..
> *OUTCOMES*? All without *any* of the bullshit ppl are being subjected to at the moment!. :(
>

and their own courts. it's all so divisive

> About the only positive (for mine) from all this is Jacinta Price rising above it all!!!!!!
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:

> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>

More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite another.

Sylvia.

On 9/10/2023 12:19 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
>> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>
>
> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
> is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
> After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite
> another.

What a load of bullshit.

All the government is asking for at present is the authority to "do",
without telling anyone exactly what that "do" will involve. They have
been *remarkably* vague with any detail, and in fact have insisted that
all they want now is permission, and they'll "work it out later". I
don't know what that involves and neither do you. But your inference
that giving up power is difficult is a complete and utter nonsense.

All that's required is for them to legislate, and you can bet any money
you like that the Greens will be totally on side to get any "pro Voice"
bill through the upper house.

It's not difficult at all. It's a formality. The only hard bit will be
to see if we, as a people, have the intelligence to stop them next Saturday.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>
>
> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will
> work is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at
> all. After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is
> quite another.

you think all the effort and money expended to install a Voice is
without some purpose other than virtue signaling?

>
> Sylvia.

--
Have a nice day!..

On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 12:16:03 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 13:20:37 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
> >>
> >> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> >> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> >> country?
> >> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
> >> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
> >> on race. THAT is racist
> >> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
> >> are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
> >> health, roads, etc.,
> >> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
> >> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
> >> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
> >> then possibly, reparations and compensation.
> >> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
> >> the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
> >> about it.
> >> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> >> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Well surprise, surprise, I completely agree with you!.
> well you're not as stupid as you look then..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UH-HUH. ;)...
> > Ive been following this *very* closely and to use that old cliche, "This is just the tip of the iceberg".
> yep!
> > Ppl are being asked to vote on a future-changing agenda, whilst being told *say yes, we`ll get back to you on the detail*..UH-HUH.
> > Treaty/Makarata next, *then* the invoice.......
> >
> > Govco talks *OUTCOMES*...Sure, there are *billions* spent every year on Koori's!. Where has that gone?. There are a *lot* of ppl asking that question.
> > (Might start with Noel Pearson and the *Cape York Partnership*)
> it gets swallowed up by the ppl 'distributing' it, in 'administration'
> etc.,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cape York partnership is a *special* case.. But yes, its the administration syphoning the dosh hither and yon..The *grassroots* ppl will never win.
However this proposed *voice* can/will do fuck all to address thievery!.
> >
> > Wondering *why nothing* can be seen to be happening in the remote settlements where Incest, rape, D/V, murder, assaults etc. are *every day* occurrences!!!!!!!
> with all the money (billions) spent so far they should all be living in
> luxury!

> >
> >
> > Koori's (already) have their own:
> > Medical services.
> > Legal services.
> > Housing services.
> > Counselling services.
> > Abstudy.
> > Check out NIAA......More there.
> > Housing loans.
> > Business loans.
> > Mostly duplication of *existing* services.
> > And More!..
> > *OUTCOMES*? All without *any* of the bullshit ppl are being subjected to at the moment!. :(
> >
> and their own courts. it's all so divisive
> > About the only positive (for mine) from all this is Jacinta Price rising above it all!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Have a nice day!..

On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 12:19:29 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> > 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> > authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
> >
> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
> is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
> After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HAH, rose coloured glasses, or stupidity Sylvia.
>
> Sylvia.

On 9/10/2023 9:19 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
>> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>
>
> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
> is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
> After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite
> another.
>

I don't think virtue signalling alone justifies the cost and all the
hoo-ha so you can't blame people for being suspicious.

Why can't Aboriginals have a token voice to parliament without having it
put in the constitution (and you could argue that they are already
represented in parliament anyway) if it's just a feel good virtue
signaling advisory board, has no teeth and can just be ignored anyway?

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 16:44:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/10/2023 9:19 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >
> >> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> >> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
> >>
> >
> > More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
> > is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
> > After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite
> > another.
> >
> I don't think virtue signalling alone justifies the cost and all the
> hoo-ha so you can't blame people for being suspicious.
>
> Why can't Aboriginals have a token voice to parliament without having it
> put in the constitution (and you could argue that they are already
> represented in parliament anyway) if it's just a feel good virtue
> signaling advisory board, has no teeth and can just be ignored anyway?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They *already* have Eleven duly elected representatives across *both houses*. The *voice* is simply the thin end of the wedge, and *division* by race. A *very* bad idea!!.
The only plus i can see, is Jacinta Price being brought to the fore. A very *good* thing!.
> --
> In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
> Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
> proven liar."
>
> On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 9/10/2023 7:57 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 16:44:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/10/2023 9:19 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
>>>> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will work
>>> is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at all.
>>> After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is quite
>>> another.
>>>
>> I don't think virtue signalling alone justifies the cost and all the
>> hoo-ha so you can't blame people for being suspicious.
>>
>> Why can't Aboriginals have a token voice to parliament without having it
>> put in the constitution (and you could argue that they are already
>> represented in parliament anyway) if it's just a feel good virtue
>> signaling advisory board, has no teeth and can just be ignored anyway?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> They *already* have Eleven duly elected representatives across *both houses*. The *voice* is simply the thin end of the wedge, and *division* by race. A *very* bad idea!!.
> The only plus i can see, is Jacinta Price being brought to the fore. A very *good* thing!.

The best anti the voice argument I've heard was from Warren Mundine,
very concise and well thought out arguments against it.
The yes case has no hope when a prominent Aboriginal like Mundine is
against it.

--
Daryl

On 9/10/2023 10:19 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/10/2023 7:57 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   They *already* have Eleven duly elected representatives across *both
>> houses*.  The *voice* is simply the thin end of the wedge, and
>> *division* by race. A *very* bad idea!!.
>>    The only plus i can see, is Jacinta Price being brought to the
>> fore. A very *good* thing!.
>
> The best anti the voice argument I've heard was from Warren Mundine,
> very concise and well thought out arguments against it.
> The yes case has no hope when a prominent Aboriginal like Mundine is
> against it.

Jacinta Price is also very good. They both make concise and lucid
arguments without the emotional rhetoric that the Yes camp employs.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/2023 12:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/10/2023 12:19 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>>
>>
>> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will
>> work is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at
>> all. After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is
>> quite another.
>
> What a load of bullshit.
>
> All the government is asking for at present is the authority to "do",
> without telling anyone exactly what that "do" will involve. They have
> been *remarkably* vague with any detail, and in fact have insisted that
> all they want now is permission, and they'll "work it out later". I
> don't know what that involves and neither do you. But your inference
> that giving up power is difficult is a complete and utter nonsense.
>
> All that's required is for them to legislate, and you can bet any money
> you like that the Greens will be totally on side to get any "pro Voice"
> bill through the upper house.
>
> It's not difficult at all. It's a formality. The only hard bit will be
> to see if we, as a people, have the intelligence to stop them next
> Saturday.

Why wait? I've already voted.:-D Cant wait to see the outpouring of
grief, the wailings of the wannabes, and the carry on when the
aborigines/koories/first peoples/whatever they call themselves this week
realise it was all nothing but a waste of taxpayers money, and time.

Want a "voice" to parliament? Become a pollie. Or have a chat with the
11 already in place...

And whilst people like abo* lidia thorpe act like the banshees they are,
they'll get no support from me. Someone should give lidia a superglue
sandwich. And hide the acetone.

* I used the abbreviation "abo" on facebook, and went to jail for 24
hours. :-)

On 10/10/2023 7:36 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 9/10/2023 12:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/10/2023 12:19 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>>>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will
>>> work is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at
>>> all. After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is
>>> quite another.
>>
>> What a load of bullshit.
>>
>> All the government is asking for at present is the authority to "do",
>> without telling anyone exactly what that "do" will involve. They have
>> been *remarkably* vague with any detail, and in fact have insisted
>> that all they want now is permission, and they'll "work it out later".
>> I don't know what that involves and neither do you. But your inference
>> that giving up power is difficult is a complete and utter nonsense.
>>
>> All that's required is for them to legislate, and you can bet any
>> money you like that the Greens will be totally on side to get any "pro
>> Voice" bill through the upper house.
>>
>> It's not difficult at all. It's a formality. The only hard bit will be
>> to see if we, as a people, have the intelligence to stop them next
>> Saturday.
>
> Why wait? I've already voted.:-D

Yeah, me too :)

Cant wait to see the outpouring of
> grief, the wailings of the wannabes, and the carry on when the
> aborigines/koories/first peoples/whatever they call themselves this week
> realise it was all nothing but a waste of taxpayers money, and time.

Absolutely.

I'm all for change for the better, but this is nothing but tokenism that
will achieve nothing, and cost millions of dollars to implement. Money
that could be better spent in other areas.

> Want a "voice" to parliament? Become a pollie. Or have a chat with the
> 11 already in place...

Indeed.

> And whilst people like abo* lidia thorpe act like the banshees they are,
> they'll get no support from me. Someone should give lidia a superglue
> sandwich. And hide the acetone.

Lol :)

She's a fucking *idiot*, and she does absolutely *nothing* for her cause
other than alienate people against it.

> * I used the abbreviation "abo" on facebook, and went to jail for 24
> hours. :-)

You got off light. I got three days. Maybe it's because I used the word
"cunt" in conjunction with it and some snowflake felt physically hurt by
it :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/10/2023 7:36 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 9/10/2023 12:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/10/2023 12:19 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>>>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will
>>> work is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at
>>> all. After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is
>>> quite another.
>>
>> What a load of bullshit.
>>
>> All the government is asking for at present is the authority to "do",
>> without telling anyone exactly what that "do" will involve. They have
>> been *remarkably* vague with any detail, and in fact have insisted
>> that all they want now is permission, and they'll "work it out later".
>> I don't know what that involves and neither do you. But your inference
>> that giving up power is difficult is a complete and utter nonsense.
>>
>> All that's required is for them to legislate, and you can bet any
>> money you like that the Greens will be totally on side to get any "pro
>> Voice" bill through the upper house.
>>
>> It's not difficult at all. It's a formality. The only hard bit will be
>> to see if we, as a people, have the intelligence to stop them next
>> Saturday.
>
> Why wait? I've already voted.:-D Cant wait to see the outpouring of
> grief, the wailings of the wannabes, and the carry on when the
> aborigines/koories/first peoples/whatever they call themselves this week
> realise it was all nothing but a waste of taxpayers money, and time.
>
> Want a "voice" to parliament? Become a pollie. Or have a chat with the
> 11 already in place...

That's the thing that a lot of people are missing, they are approx 3% of
the population yet they have 4.85% (11 out of 151 MP's and 76 Senators)
of the representatives in Federal Parliament so they already have a
strong "voice".
>
> And whilst people like abo* lidia thorpe act like the banshees they are,
> they'll get no support from me. Someone should give lidia a superglue
> sandwich. And hide the acetone.
>
> * I used the abbreviation "abo" on facebook, and went to jail for 24
> hours. :-)
>
LOL, you are a very naughty boy:-)

--
Daryl

On 10/10/2023 10:00 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 7:36 am, lindsay wrote:
>> On 9/10/2023 12:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2023 12:19 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 08-Oct-23 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving
>>>>> such authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More likely the reason for not detailing exactly how the Voice will
>>>> work is that there is no intent to legislate to give it any power at
>>>> all. After all, signalling virtue is one thing, giving up power is
>>>> quite another.
>>>
>>> What a load of bullshit.
>>>
>>> All the government is asking for at present is the authority to "do",
>>> without telling anyone exactly what that "do" will involve. They have
>>> been *remarkably* vague with any detail, and in fact have insisted
>>> that all they want now is permission, and they'll "work it out
>>> later". I don't know what that involves and neither do you. But your
>>> inference that giving up power is difficult is a complete and utter
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>> All that's required is for them to legislate, and you can bet any
>>> money you like that the Greens will be totally on side to get any
>>> "pro Voice" bill through the upper house.
>>>
>>> It's not difficult at all. It's a formality. The only hard bit will
>>> be to see if we, as a people, have the intelligence to stop them next
>>> Saturday.
>>
>> Why wait? I've already voted.:-D
>
> Yeah, me too :)

We went on Saturday to vote, there was a music event on at the RSL so
there was a group of hotrods and old cars parked out front including an
F truck similar to yours, did you see those?
Being the first day that early voting was open in our area I expected it
to be very busy but it wasn't, voting took less than 10 minutes.

--
Daryl

On 10/10/2023 10:16 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 10:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/10/2023 7:36 am, lindsay wrote:

>>> Why wait? I've already voted.:-D
>>
>> Yeah, me too :)
>
> We went on Saturday to vote, there was a music event on at the RSL so
> there was a group of hotrods and old cars parked out front including an
> F truck similar to yours, did you see those?

I did indeed. The wife went into town for a boozy lunch and I picked her
up from the train station around 5'ish. Took the truck for a drive into
town and saw them as I went past.

The green 32 Ford coupe there was delicious :)

> Being the first day that early voting was open in our area I expected it
> to be very busy but it wasn't, voting took less than 10 minutes.

The wife and I voted by postal vote.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/10/2023 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>
> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> country?
> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
> on race. THAT is racist
> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
> are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
> health, roads, etc.,
> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
> then possibly, reparations and compensation.
> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
> the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
> about it.
> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>

**None of the above matters in the slightest. I voted 'yes' for two reasons:

1) Voting 'no' will ensure that NOTHING will change for Aboriginals. For
at least a generation. Maybe much longer. Voting 'yes' may change
nothing, or it may change something for Aboriginals.
2) The following people want me to vote 'no':

Tony Abbott
Peter Dutton
Pauline Hanson
Alan Jones

Those liars have never been correct about anything, ever. That is a good
enough reason to vote 'yes'.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 10/10/2023 11:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
>>
>> 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
>> do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
>> country?
>> 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
>> round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
>> on race. THAT is racist
>> 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when
>> there are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living,
>> housing, health, roads, etc.,
>> 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
>> non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
>> 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a
>> treaty, then possibly, reparations and compensation.
>> this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for
>> what the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel
>> guilty about it.
>> 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
>> authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
>>
>
> **None of the above matters in the slightest. I voted 'yes' for two
> reasons:
>
> 1) Voting 'no' will ensure that NOTHING will change for Aboriginals. For
> at least a generation. Maybe much longer. Voting 'yes' may change
> nothing, or it may change something for Aboriginals.
> 2) The following people want me to vote 'no':
>
> Tony Abbott
> Peter Dutton
> Pauline Hanson
> Alan Jones
>
> Those liars have never been correct about anything, ever. That is a good
> enough reason to vote 'yes'.

And *that* is probably *the* most ridiculous logic behind voting in
favour of anything that I've ever heard in my life.

Well done :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/10/2023 11:31 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 10:16 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 10/10/2023 10:00 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2023 7:36 am, lindsay wrote:
>
>>>> Why wait? I've already voted.:-D
>>>
>>> Yeah, me too :)
>>
>> We went on Saturday to vote, there was a music event on at the RSL so
>> there was a group of hotrods and old cars parked out front including
>> an F truck similar to yours, did you see those?
>
> I did indeed. The wife went into town for a boozy lunch and I picked her
> up from the train station around 5'ish. Took the truck for a drive into
> town and saw them as I went past.
>
> The green 32 Ford coupe there was delicious :)

Very nice, the Customline ?? being a 2 door was interesting.

--
Daryl

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 11:38:00 UTC+11, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 1:20 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >
> > some thoughts on the Voice and Aboriginal issues..
> >
> > 1. the percentage of 'real' Aborigines in Australia is very small. why
> > do they get so much attention as if they're half the population of the
> > country?
> > 2. 'NO' voters get accused of being racist. but i see it the other way
> > round. the govt is hell bent on creating two classes of citizens based
> > on race. THAT is racist
> > 3. why is the Albo govt making such a big issue of the Voice when there
> > are so many other more pressing issues such as cost of living, housing,
> > health, roads, etc.,
> > 4. the Voice will be composed of non-elected persons. giving a
> > non-elected group special access to govt seems un-democratic
> > 5. Albo has said if the Voice succeeds the next thing will be a treaty,
> > then possibly, reparations and compensation.
> > this is unjust since present day Australians aren't responsible for what
> > the British did centuries ago, and why should we be made to feel guilty
> > about it.
> > 6. I smell a rat. I suspect there's a strong agenda behind giving such
> > authority and power to a small percentage of Australians.
> >
> **None of the above matters in the slightest. I voted 'yes' for two reasons:
>
> 1) Voting 'no' will ensure that NOTHING will change for Aboriginals. For
> at least a generation. Maybe much longer. Voting 'yes' may change
> nothing, or it may change something for Aboriginals.
> 2) The following people want me to vote 'no':
>
> Tony Abbott
> Peter Dutton
> Pauline Hanson
> Alan Jones
>
> Those liars have never been correct about anything, ever. That is a good
> enough reason to vote 'yes'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, you haven`t a *clue* what this is about.
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com