It's funny how most blokes don't like being told what to do, but when a ML says "ok darling, please turn over", then everything goes out the window.
This is a Real Estate agents take on it that I received by email the other day
Well, I had a very interesting conversation with Elbow Easy this afternoon.
I rang him and asked him if he would like to buy some ground in the Kilcoy Paradise area.
This is how the convo went:-
ELBOW: Hello Elbow speaking
Me: Hello, it's Harold from Kilcoy Paradise here.
ELBOW: What can I do for you Harold.
Me: I have some land I thought you might be interested in but if you buy it there is no cooling off period. Once you sign the contract there is no going back or changing your mind.
ELBOW: how much land do you have ?
Me: I can't tell you that until you sign the contract.
Elbow: well how much do you want for it ?
Me: no, can't tell you that until you sign the contract.
ELBOW: Well how do I know what I'm getting or how much it's costing me ?
Me:Well you sign the contract and then I will tell you.
ELBOW: surely you don't expect me to sign something that I don't know what I am getting or how much it's going to cost me.
Your call!
It's funny how most blokes don't like being told what to do, but when a ML says "ok darling, please turn over", then everything goes out the window.
It’s a NO from me. Voting Yes will cost us more money in taxes for reparations no doubt. And with the cost of living these days it’s taxes we don’t need. Why should people not involved in the “invasion” be paying money to people that were also not involved in the “invasion” ?
This has been covered before and is a totally inaccurate representation, please stop spreading bullshit. Does it concern you that the details governing defence, currency and more are lacking, and are gilled in later through legislation? This is how it works, constitution provides the framework only, legislation fills in the details. If we worked as this moronic example above suggests by having all details first, we'd have no air force because flight wasn't invented when the constitution was written.Originally Posted by Onehunglo
There will be no land grabs, the voice will have no power of its own, legislation will STILL work as it has previously, it is there to ensure that indigenous population can advise govt on matters that affect them. It's advice is non-binding BUT it ensures that it can't be disbanded like ATSIC was. It also ensures that the races power is s51 (I forget the subsection) can't be interpreted by the federal court to discriminate against indigenous people as it can currently.
If you don't know, donkey vote, simply voting no because you don't know what a yes means is stupid.
We have prominent Indigenous people voicing their dissatisfaction about this referendum. The surprisingly lack of information provided to the voters is also a joke . And some much tax payers money is going into organising this ?
I am not losing sleep over it either way.
Yes is the most obvious answer - it's just a bit of recognition and housekeeping and an advisory body only.
But the no vote will definitely win.
As soon as Dutton and the Liberals said to vote No it was all over. The only way the Yes vote could win was with support from both parties.
Plus as soon as Aborigines were divided on the issue that was the final nail in the Yes coffin.
On the left you have got people like Lydia Thorpe who are just mad extremists with unrealistic goals. Then on the right you have privileged Aborigines like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price who like their position as the the top blackfellas in White society. The status quo suits them and they will fight any change.
So when we wake up on October 15 and the No vote wins it will still be the same Australia.
But if by some miracle the Yes vote wins it will still be the same Australia. It will still be the best country on the planet to live in.
So don't stress. On October 14 go and vote whatever way you think is right, and then on the way back stop at your favourite shop for a punt, and tell the wife there was a long queue at the polling station
Enjoy!
Rooter .....A calm and lucid take on it.
You should stop listening to Peta and Sky News. The Uluru statement is one page and it always has been.
https://www.niaa.gov.au/foi/agency-foi-disclosure-logs
https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au...nal_Report.pdf
It's a YES for me. It's limited to making 'representations' to parliament, so does not have any veto powers over laws.
"There are no details..." well, there are, but that's not the purpose of changing the constitution anyway. Laws are introduced via legislation, not the constitution.
I can only see it as a positive step towards closing the gap.
Unfortunately, the people who pushed for a "Voice" are the city-slicker power brokers who live in cities, not the poor and massively disadvantaged Aborigines living in the outback and in poor circumstances in small towns across Australia. The Uluru statement was developed by the power brokers.
If they really wanted Australians to "listen" they could have done things about it that do not require a change in the Constitution.
Then there is the dishonesty of refusing to talk about anything other than "Voice" when their own Uluru Statement talks about "Truth" and "Treaty".
Very difficult to trust such people. I am voting "NO". I don't want to be treated like an idiot and live on a drip-feed of information they control.
I have so little knowledge about the impact of this, nor do I have any vested interest in this racial debate, that I will probably just flip a coin to decide which way I go.
I think this would be a "poetic" way to decide. I get to keep that coin and not have use it to pay the FINE for not voting.
If a so called voice can tackle fundamental problems plaguing the aboriginal community, then sure.
But the pollies never talk about solid metrics - if i vote yes, does this:
1. Lower aboriginal incarceration rates. And if so by how much
2. What health outcomes will it have
3. How does it solve the drug and alcohol abuse problems
4. How does it solve the violent youth problems
Etc
All of the important metrics they chose to ignore but come up with the self back patting voice in which is purely political brownie points.
Voting no.
Plenty of ethnic groups that have migrated to Australia, were disadvantaged in the first generation and are successful by the second. It’s of the back of strong family values and hard work.
Race and skin colour have nothing to do with success. It’s about culture.
I also don’t agree with the idea that our constitution enshrines an advisory body to the government on the basis of race.
Reminds me of why Singapore exists and is so much more successful than Malaysia.
I would like to see the constitution recognise Aboriginal people as the first people of this country, and the gaps closed in standards of living between indigenous and non indigenous people. I just don’t think a race based voice is the right way to go about it. There’s an elitist mindset from the architects of the voice as well.
People can oppose things on the basis of principle, and not “racism and sheer stupidity”.
Its a no from me.
I don't pretend to understand politics at all but I feel if something was replicated similar to NZ then I would be all for it. Every time I go to NZ, I feel their indigenous have better opportunities. How often have you seen an aboriginal work in a cafe or an office in Sydney? In my whole 20yrs of corporate life, I've only seen one that worked in an office environment. I've actually seen more maoris in corporate life here in Oz.
Donkey vote for me I'm on neither side of Yes or No
Who’d have thought there’d be so much misinformation and ignorance on a punting forum!
I find it amazing how quickly people can make a simple decision more complicated than they have the capacity to understand.
Blackfellas are a distinct minority in this country so despite representation in a democratic parliament they will never receive appropriate representation given their history on this land.
For this reason alone they deserve a slightly louder 'voice' than they have now.
Constitutional change is justified based on the need for longer term stability, we don't want polarised politics flip flopping on this.
According to data from the Productivity Commission's Indigenous Expenditure Report, which is a government report, the total government expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people per year is close to $40 billion. 40 BILLION DOLLARS!!
All from taxpayers!
So much of that money I’m sure is just wasted on drugs, alcohol and tobacco. It’s very sad. I grew up in housing commission and whilst most families did their best to provide for their kids and take care of their homes, the most neglected homes were almost always those of aboriginal families. It’s sad because the children don’t have a chance, growing up with the wrong crowd and neglected by their parents which leads to a cycle of generational welfare dependency. Look at Alice Springs how bad things got when the alcohol ban was lifted. Call me racist and ignorant but I know what I saw growing up. The most vulnerable don’t need a voice to parliament headed up by the indigenous elites, they need a loving home, a good education and a meaningful job.
Amazing, isn't it?
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|
