Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
AmericanHistoryX said:
Im voting Yes for you. I cannot disagree with your life. Your choices. Hope it all works out Thats all. In the end - we all want to sleep tight irrespective of colour or denomination. Wasn't that how it was supposed to be in the beginning.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

One thing that I'll state is I can't stand the what about me argument. What happened to helping each other out. I'm privileged. I have a great life. I want very little from from society for myself above what I've already received. I definitely don't want special treatment.

I do want to help people.

The problem is I can't tell you or anyone else how to live their life. I have a mate who is a raging alcoholic and he smokes a tonne of pot. It's not good for him. I smoke pot and drink alcohol but not too excess (in my opinion). He is still my mate.

I have mates that are cookers. They are still my mates.
 
TillLindemann said:
You're just randomly throwing around phrases like 'all lives matter' that have nothing to do with the comment you responded to, and then having a sook when I say you're off your chops. Actually read what you're responding to, then respond to it coherently.
Click to expand...

I went back and checked it and it makes complete sense. You don't want to see the point I'm making which is cool but then the ranting ad-hominen attacks reflect on yourself and not me.

If you don't understand what I am stating I can repeat it again but I don't see the point. I suggest you firstly try and understand the point and type back to me what I'm stating. It's a rational point. It's not emotional.

We can agree to disagree but only if you understand what I'm stating.
 
earl said:
Thanks.

One thing that I'll state is I can't stand the what about me argument. What happened to helping each other out. I'm privileged. I have a great life. I want very little from from society for myself above what I've already received. I definitely don't want special treatment.

I do want to help people.

The problem is I can't tell you or anyone else how to live their life. I have a mate who is a raging alcoholic and he smokes a tonne of pot. It's not good for him. I smoke pot and drink alcohol but not too excess (in my opinion). He is still my mate.

I have mates that are cookers. They are still my mates.
Click to expand...
And they are probably white? Not aboriginal. Maybe wrong thread?
 
AmericanHistoryX said:
And they are probably white? Not aboriginal. Maybe wrong thread?
Click to expand...

Threads meander. I'm not a mod and I don't care.

They are all white. I know two aboriginal people and I don't know them well. One is a guy from the gym I go too. I asked him about the voice and he was definitely pro yes. My mate has married an Indigenous woman and I hardly ever see or talk to her. I wouldn't judge Indigenous people on what I think of her though because that wouldn't be good. I'm not a fan.

My mate who is a alcoholic comes from massive privilege.

My cooker mates don't come from massive privilege but they are doing well.
 
earl said:
Threads meander. I'm not a mod and I don't care.

They are all white. I know two aboriginal people and I don't know them well. One is a guy from the gym I go too. I asked him about the voice and he was definitely pro yes. My mate has married an Indigenous woman and I hardly ever see or talk to her. I wouldn't judge Indigenous people on what I think of her though because that wouldn't be good. I'm not a fan.

My mate who is a alcoholic comes from massive privilege.

My cooker mates don't come from massive privilege but they are doing well.
Click to expand...
I hear you. Take care of them. If any one can. You can Earl. You sound like a pretty smart guy.
 
earl said:
I'm privileged. I have a great life.
Click to expand...
It's typically the privileged millionaires who get right behind these kinds of campaigns. Vocal support for fashionable progressive identity politics causes is almost a status symbol now, to show you're above the uncouth bogans out west more concerned with cost of living etc
 
earl said:
I went back and checked it and it makes complete sense. You don't want to see the point I'm making which is cool but then the ranting ad-hominen attacks reflect on yourself and not me.

If you don't understand what I am stating I can repeat it again but I don't see the point. I suggest you firstly try and understand the point and type back to me what I'm stating. It's a rational point. It's not emotional.

We can agree to disagree but only if you understand what I'm stating.
Click to expand...
My point was giving particular offenders harsher sentences for the same crime, based on their skin pigmentation and ancestry alone, is a perfect recipe for fuelling racism.

Anyway all good. When I said you were spiralling down a chasm of insanity I never said that I wasn't also down that chasm myself.
 
earl said:
I was going to call out the cookers again but I deliberately didn't. The emotional ranting is definitely a cooker behavior.

Facts and calm logical discussions are the only thing worth participating in.
Click to expand...
And yet you are prepared to throw around derogatory terms like 'cooker' and 'cooker behaviour' - whatever that is. And I've read many of your posts quoting figures as 'facts' without you acknowledging your sources.
 
TillLindemann said:
It's typically the privileged millionaires who get right behind these kinds of campaigns. Vocal support for fashionable progressive identity politics causes is almost a status symbol now, to show you're above the uncouth bogans out west more concerned with cost of living etc
Click to expand...

I don't usually make critical comments of what other people think but that really is a terrible patronising attitude and well below your usual contributions
 
TillLindemann said:
My point was giving particular offenders harsher sentences for the same crime, based on their skin pigmentation and ancestry alone, is a perfect recipe for fuelling racism.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. It's the what about me argument which in my opinion is ridiculous.

It isn't a zero sum game.

It's also all warped. My alcoholic friend I mentioned above recently was charged with assault. It was a tiny thing. He got lawyers and had the case dropped. It cost him $8k. If he didn't have the money he gets found guilty.

There are different rules for different people all the time typically based on money.

The what about me argument annoys me. My brother does this and so does my brother in law. The funny thing is my brother in law asks me how my brother is doing so well and yet I've seen my brother have a tantrum about the unfair treatment he receives in society. My brother in law is the same.

I guarantee both of them would be against an inheritance tax though since they will inherit millions. They also earn good dollars in good jobs and have lots of fancy stuff.

TillLindemann said:
Anyway all good. When I said you were spiralling down a chasm of insanity I never said that I wasn't also down that chasm myself.
Click to expand...

It;s cool but I'm not there at all. I'm calm and rational.
 
yeti said:
And yet you are prepared to throw around derogatory terms like 'cooker' and 'cooker behaviour' - whatever that is. And I've read many of your posts quoting figures as 'facts' without you acknowledging your sources.
Click to expand...

Show me and I'll respond to those ones. I use the term cooker because it enables me to see extremist views and just ignore them.
 
earl said:
There are different rules for different people all the time typically based on money.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
And your solution to rich toffs from Mosman getting lawyered out of trouble, is to give poor white eshays from Penriff harsher sentences than their Aboriginal equivalents, based on their skin pigmentation.
 
watersider said:
With this black sovereignty argument, I don't understand why a change to a constitution they don't recognise as lawful would make any difference to them? Whatever it says, isn't it still illegitimate until they've recognised it? While the voice will be a representative body of indigenous people that does not in itself sanction the constitution. She would know much more about indigenous issues and the constitution so I must be missing something. But I'd summarise my understanding as follows:

black sovereignty movement without voice does not recognise constitution and continues to fight for sovereignty.

Black sovereignty movement with a voice to parliament in constitution is still not recognised and they continue to fight for sovereignty.

How does a voice change their situation? Thank you to those for assisting me to understand.
Click to expand...
It changes their situation - permanently. Currently the 'Riginals still hold Sovereignty as they have never ceded it. If the Voice gets up, the Constitution will be re-written to include them under the Constitution thereby irrevocably removing them as Sovereigns over this land. It will matter not whether they 'recognise' the Constitution or not. They will be under it and subject to it.
The thing I find shameful in all of this, which again underpins just how untrustworthy, grubby, sneaky and corrupt the politicians are, is that there has been no mention of what the changed Constitution will say. We are just expected to 'trust' these lowlifes to do the 'right' thing. I would rather trust a banker to look after my $20 note for safe keeping!
This is a land grab. Pure and simple.
 
jadtiger said:
I don't usually make critical comments of what other people think but that really is a terrible patronising attitude and well below your usual contributions
Click to expand...
Why is his statement patronising, because us Aussie who don’t have a say if ur voice gets up and we are hurting because Albo and the Labour Party are more interested in the voice , than fixing the cost of living and power prices and giving 3 % of the people more rights than the rest of us , ur why must should vote No
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 829 (members: 3, guests: 826)
Back
Top