The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[Rooster1908]

Why don't you move on and quit heckling people then?

I think the difference with 'yes' voters is that we invested in something. We wanted change and saw decent benefits in it.

This wasn't a standard political contest of 'Albo versus Dutton' (those I see this is the driving factor for some of the Albo haters in here), it was a question of social conscience.

Yes voters have a right to unpack what just happened without being heckled / aggravated IMO. Doesn't take a genius to realise there's sensitivities at play here. If it were a footy game then it'd be a 'winners and losers' situation but we'd still be entitled to unpack the outcome as to why our 'better team' didn't win on the day (whether it be the refs/bunker, coaching, injuries, luck with 1%'ers, lack of concentration during a clutch moment...etc).

A tone I'm noticing here is that there's a lot of active no campaigners as opposed to just voters (i.e. people who took the effort to spread misinformation online & were walking around with no banners... likely because they belong to a conservative political party that gave them the said banners) are intentionally showing zero empathy /understanding and acting as if it was a contest.

IMO a level of empathy would be appreciated at such times. I'm not throwing daggers at anybody who voted no, but I do have a right to unpack what just happened, which includes resentment for things such as the misinformation that fouled who started out as a bipartisan effort to give Indigenous Australians constitutional recognition. For WHATEVER reason... Dutton changed the Libs' policy position to 'no we don't support the Uluru Statement' and actively campaigned against it (including by spreading misinformation about it) when it began its life as Liberal Party policy (with bipartisan support).

IMO it was a nasty (desperate) political stunt from Dutton aimed at winning points for himself as a leader of the Liberal Party as he's still on VERY shaky ground. I accept that people voted no and have made my peace with that. However, I remain disappointed that Dutton chose the path he did and that more robust discussions were avoided as the result of an elaborate misinformation campaign.

You called them sheepie ya loser

[mightyrooster]

I'll be right.
They always let me off when I'm not up to voting.

Hope all is going well for you Eddie.

[Andrew Walker]

Why don't you move on and quit heckling people then?

I think the difference with 'yes' voters is that we invested in something. We wanted change and saw decent benefits in it.

This wasn't a standard political contest of 'Albo versus Dutton' (those I see this is the driving factor for some of the Albo haters in here), it was a question of social conscience.

Yes voters have a right to unpack what just happened without being heckled / aggravated IMO. Doesn't take a genius to realise there's sensitivities at play here. If it were a footy game then it'd be a 'winners and losers' situation but we'd still be entitled to unpack the outcome as to why our 'better team' didn't win on the day (whether it be the refs/bunker, coaching, injuries, luck with 1%'ers, lack of concentration during a clutch moment...etc).

A tone I'm noticing here is that there's a lot of active no campaigners as opposed to just voters (i.e. people who took the effort to spread misinformation online & were walking around with no banners... likely because they belong to a conservative political party that gave them the said banners) are intentionally showing zero empathy /understanding and acting as if it was a contest.

IMO a level of empathy would be appreciated at such times. I'm not throwing daggers at anybody who voted no, but I do have a right to unpack what just happened, which includes resentment for things such as the misinformation that fouled who started out as a bipartisan effort to give Indigenous Australians constitutional recognition. For WHATEVER reason... Dutton changed the Libs' policy position to 'no we don't support the Uluru Statement' and actively campaigned against it (including by spreading misinformation about it) when it began its life as Liberal Party policy (with bipartisan support).

IMO it was a nasty (desperate) political stunt from Dutton aimed at winning points for himself as a leader of the Liberal Party as he's still on VERY shaky ground. I accept that people voted no and have made my peace with that. However, I remain disappointed that Dutton chose the path he did and that more robust discussions were avoided as the result of an elaborate misinformation campaign.

This is virtue signaling in its purest form

[mightyrooster]

This is virtue signaling in its purest form

Lol, I thought you might pick up on that.

[ism22]

This is virtue signaling [sic] in its purest form

Curious, what's your definition of virtue signalling and what negative connotations are you implying by using the term? I'm a simp... spell it out for me

[ism22]

Naughty naughty. That will be a fine for you! Well I think that's what happens when you're naughty?

Oh no... hope they don't hit him with a $20 administrative penalty

[mightyrooster]

Curious, what's your definition of virtue signalling and what negative connotations are you implying by using the term? I'm a simp... spell it out for me

He posted it quite a few pages back. Pay attention lol!

[Rooster1908]

Curious, what's your definition of virtue signalling and what negative connotations are you implying by using the term? I'm a simp... spell it out for me

He did ya loser

[Andrew Walker]

Curious, what's your definition of virtue signalling and what negative connotations are you implying by using the term? I'm a simp... spell it out for me

It’s not my definition I append the Oxford Dictionary definition for you

https://www.google.com/search?q=virt...obile&ie=UTF-8

[rented tracksuit]

Why don't you move on and quit heckling people then?

I think the difference with 'yes' voters is that we invested in something. We wanted change and saw decent benefits in it.

This wasn't a standard political contest of 'Albo versus Dutton' (those I see this is the driving factor for some of the Albo haters in here), it was a question of social conscience.

Yes voters have a right to unpack what just happened without being heckled / aggravated IMO. Doesn't take a genius to realise there's sensitivities at play here. If it were a footy game then it'd be a 'winners and losers' situation but we'd still be entitled to unpack the outcome as to why our 'better team' didn't win on the day (whether it be the refs/bunker, coaching, injuries, luck with 1%'ers, lack of concentration during a clutch moment...etc).

A tone I'm noticing here is that there's a lot of active no campaigners as opposed to just voters (i.e. people who took the effort to spread misinformation online & were walking around with no banners... likely because they belong to a conservative political party that gave them the said banners) are intentionally showing zero empathy /understanding and acting as if it was a contest.

IMO a level of empathy would be appreciated at such times. I'm not throwing daggers at anybody who voted no, but I do have a right to unpack what just happened, which includes resentment for things such as the misinformation that fouled who started out as a bipartisan effort to give Indigenous Australians constitutional recognition. For WHATEVER reason... Dutton changed the Libs' policy position to 'no we don't support the Uluru Statement' and actively campaigned against it (including by spreading misinformation about it) when it began its life as Liberal Party policy (with bipartisan support).

IMO it was a nasty (desperate) political stunt from Dutton aimed at winning points for himself as a leader of the Liberal Party as he's still on VERY shaky ground. I accept that people voted no and have made my peace with that. However, I remain disappointed that Dutton chose the path he did and that more robust discussions were avoided as the result of an elaborate misinformation campaign.

I read your first sentence but really couldn’t care to read the rest.

I never came on here and heckled anyone for whichever way they voted. If you actually read back through, you would see that but so I think you are one who is doing the heckling. Heckling because might be still butthurt at the result maybe?

As I said, it’s over, NO won. Move on but you refuse to do so. The issues are coming the yes voters who fail to accept that they lost.

The sad fact is tho that no one actually wins out of this as the whole sorry thing has caused more division than before it was even a question.

[ism22]

It’s not my definition I append the Oxford Dictionary definition for you

https://www.google.com/search?q=virt...obile&ie=UTF-8

Very good, now read it and answer my question.

[Andrew Walker]

Very good, now read it and answer my question.

Your anger is affecting your brain. Ive highlighted that in my initial response to you Keep up with the pace

[King Salvo]

LOL...U are orange tan man FAKE news Salvotard.

Stick to ur stupid boring baseball because u clearly have ZERO idea about anything political or anything common sense related.

Yeah maybe we should only allow the shooters party to get mandatory ownership of guns in our constitution...lol

The voice was anything but an advisory group, "Voice, Treaty, Truth" is what it was about....and the Truth part being about reparations i.e payments, taxes etc etc.

High Court cannot overturn laws made??? lol...complete BS...that is the purpose of the high court, to judge matters of the law.

Peeps of all educational backgrounds said "No" to the voice...likewise complete banana's like ur self said yes.



Yeah Nah...perhaps u might wanna Sally Google if States can pass treaties etc....what u so upset u forgot to Google?

State, territory, and local governments have no power under the Commonwealth Constitution to enter into treaties. The High Court of Australia has made clear that the sole power to enter into treaties rests with the Commonwealth government.

So all that Qld treaties by Palachook nonsense was nothing but fake news.

So yeah, head back to dreamland if u think a failed Referendum is gonna come back again.

Name one failed Referendum that returned?

Australia failed to become a republic referendum in 1999? 24 years on and counting

Unfortunately for u, neither of these things will happen in ur lifetime. No Voice, no republic.

Did you celebrate by purchasing some more white sheets?

You are far from the sharpest tool in the shed, but you are a tool, never the less.

It was never ever about reparations of any sort, and just more examples of the Bollocks and misinformation spread by the No Campaign, which was believed hook line and sinker by the less educated like you.

Obviously, you have absolutely no idea about the functions of either Parliament or the High Court or what is meant by the term separation of powers when it relates to the law.

To simplify it for you in the simplest way possible, Parliament makes the laws, and the High Court interprets and applies the laws. 101 Australian Constitution Law

The State, territory, and local governments have no power under the Commonwealth Constitution to enter into treaties you mention relates to international treaties and not domestic treaties - 101 Australian Constitutional Law

States and territories can legally enter into domestic treaties with FNP (First Nation Peoples).

It should worry everyone that people like you have the vote.

[ism22]

I read your first sentence but really couldn’t cstevfurvthe rest.
...
As I said, it’s over, NO won. Move on but you refuse to do so. The issues are coming the yes voters who fail to accept that they lost.

The sad fact is tho that no one actually wins out of this as the whole sorry thing has caused more division than before it was even a question.

1. Nobody's arguing the result, they're unpacking it. If it's done and dusted from your perspective, why don't you move on? Oh wait, because you're here to heckle people with your line that people 'lost' and 'fail to accept that they lost'. But that's not heckling and you've already moved on... apparently

2. So you're saying we should never have referendums? IMO this is a self-fulfilling argument for your side of politics as the left are social progressives (i.e. look to progress social policies of this nature) and the right are conservatives (i.e. resist changes to social policies of this nature). We saw this with John Howard intentionally changing the marriage act so that nobody could go and register a gay marriage with a celebrant. The Libs then divided the community through a 'plebiscite' when they didn't even need a referendum to change the law back to what it was before they changed it. So... we shouldn't have any political parties that push for social progression because conscience votes are always 'divisive'? Get real, mate.

[mightyrooster]

Did you celebrate by purchasing some more white sheets?

You are far from the sharpest tool in the shed, but you are a tool, never the less.

It was never ever about reparations of any sort, and just more examples of the Bollocks and misinformation spread by the No Campaign, which was believed hook line and sinker by the less educated like you.

Obviously, you have absolutely no idea about the functions of either Parliament or the High Court or what is meant by the term separation of powers when it relates to the law.

To simplify it for you in the simplest way possible, Parliament makes the laws, and the High Court interprets and applies the laws. 101 Australian Constitution Law

The State, territory, and local governments have no power under the Commonwealth Constitution to enter into treaties you mention relates to international treaties and not domestic treaties - 101 Australian Constitutional Law

States and territories can legally enter into domestic treaties with FNP (First Nation Peoples).

It should worry everyone that people like you have the vote.

Sorry Salvo, I’m on your side but speaking in such a condescending tone to people does not help matters.