soggydog wrote:

Indo, as far as the cash being splashed. Look at the list of Australia’s wealthiest people who are IPA members opposing the voice. I’m not sure but I’d hazard a guess that the No campaign is not under-funded by comparison to the Yes campaign.

From everything ive read and heard i dont believe thats true, but i guess we will wait and see if they both have the money we will see a similar ratio of advertising which will be ramping up now the dates been announced.

My question is different to AW , my question is what do no voters believe they are going to lose if the yes vote gets up ?

Supafreak wrote:

My question is different to AW , my question is what do no voters believe they are going to lose if the yes vote gets up ?

No voters do not know what will happen. Nobody does. This is why you should vote no

@burleigh , what do you believe you could potentially lose ?

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

indo-dreaming wrote:

gsco wrote:

I know it’s a serious debate but how’s the bragging rights ID will have if the Voice doesn’t get up

Honestly i dont care about that factor.

Personally i actually think its going to very hard for the No camp to win only chance they have is the yes camp dont get the numbers in the states.

This really is a battle of David and Goliath, the Yes camp have huge huge money they quite literally pay people and organisations to push the Yes vote (about $15K a pop )

The money that will flood into advertising soon for the Yes camp will be huge and advertising will be disingenuous and misleading it will focus on recognition and peddle complete falsehoods like Aboriginal people dont have a say on affairs or a voice and many people will just believe these things.

It will play on peoples heart's instead of their heads, and most people sadly wont do the further research needed, if they did the No vote would easily get up.

And by research im not saying taking any notice of anything the No camp say, but just listening to what those on the Yes side have been saying in the past and read the documents and wants of the Yes camp, all those things are much more damming than anything the No camp can ever say.

That said if the No camp does somehow win it will be a real win for democracy because it will show people wont be swayed by big money and advertising and big corporation or sports backing things.

BTW. The Yes camp never actually lose in this, they never lose anything they dont already have, and even in the case of a no vote they will still get the Voice put in policy just like it should be and we can see exactly how great it is or isnt, they just wont get the over the top political power and political disruption the Yes camp activist crave.

Aah, you try and take a break, but I guess I'm like Dennis the Menace, I just can't help from pushing the button on some of the gems in this little piece

"It will play on peoples heart's instead of their heads,"
Which is easy when you have a heart, like FNP had when they wrote the 'Uluru Statement from the Heart", but difficult when you are a heartless racist concerned with making sure FNP don't get a say but only get told by white people what they need and already have.

"... and most people sadly wont do the further research needed, if they did the No vote would easily get up."
Hahaha. 'Resurch', like the kind Indo dipshit does. Sky News, Murdoch Newspapers, Andrew Bolt on youtube, Pauline Hanson's website, stuff like that. You can also go to the library, there's a book called "Racism for Dummies" you could borrow, you'd swear Indo wrote it but there aren't enough spelling errors in it for him to be the author. But remember, you have to pay a small fee to join the library, something I doubt Indo would ever do, anathema, and you can't make a lot of noise which is something Indo likes to do, but he gets to do it here for free so don't expect to see him there, doing his "research".

"And by research im not saying taking any notice of anything the No camp say, but just listening to what those on the Yes side have been saying in the past and read the documents and wants of the Yes camp, all those things are much more damming than anything the No camp can ever say."
Careful there, that's not the script.
"If you don't know vote No".
You will get in trouble for that, Warren and Jacinta and Dutts and the rest of the motley crew of opportunists don't want the punters finding out anything on the Yes side. They want them dumb and ill informed like you. And those '"damning" things they say, like wanting constitutional recognition thru a Voice to Parliament which can be ignored, are just so much more damning than saying something like "it's the city elite Aboriginals who are just using the bush Aboriginals to get money and power and revenge" like you say, or that it's going to mean the Voice will take freehold titles, or interfere with the Reserve Bank or stop you from going to the beach or mean we have to pay reparations or any of the innumerable lies and bullshit spun out of the No side.

"BTW. The Yes camp never actually lose in this, they never lose anything they dont already have, and even in the case of a no vote they will still get the Voice put in policy just like it should be and we can see exactly how great it is or isnt, they just wont get the over the top political power and political disruption the Yes camp activist crave."

Er, the "voice" you claim they already have " put in policy just like it should be and we can see exactly how great it is or isnt,", is the exact reason they want their own enshrined Voice, because the one "put in policy" they "already have" has sucked as far as they are concerned and would continue to suck, particularly if the LNP and Dutton ever got into power again....( had to pause for a minute to laugh at that idea)...but what has been put in policy, particularly by the right side of politics, but in essence by every Parliament going back to federation and by the colonies prior to that, has not emanated from FNP themselves but was white man's policy and it hasn't and isn't working for them. So it's their turn to devise it, in the hope it can work for them.
Lastly, this little gem "This really is a battle of David and Goliath, the Yes camp have huge huge money they quite literally pay people and organisations to push the Yes vote (about $15K a pop )"
Mmmm, okay, few questions. Who funds the IPA, the Center for Independent Studies, the Minerals Council, Advance Australia, Fair Australia The LNP, Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine-who is funding them?
And who is Gina Rinehart, Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Stokes and are they, David or Goliath?
Who is the US based International Value Advisors group? Who is fund manager Simon Fenwick, who is Whitestone Strategic?, who is RJ Dunham & Co.? Who owns Blackmores and what is his net worth?
Who is making repeated, many multiple donations of $ 14.500 to Advance which falls just short of the declaration threshold on the AEC's transparency register of Significant Third Parties. I could go on, because I have done the "research", but you are not worth any more of my time.
Anyway, I said I was done with this shit for a while so I will go now, but I do note Indo that you are in Indonesia at the moment yet still clinging on to your little racist soap box here, which I can't tell you how borked I think that is.
And if the No vote wins, you won't be bragging will you, because "Honestly i dont care about that factor." Find it hard to believe that, so we'll see.
Personally, I'm over debating this shit, it' s so tedious, (thanks for that Albo), just bring on the vote and let's see what this country is made of.

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , what do you believe you could potentially lose ?

I don't know. That's why i'm voting no. Nobody knows what will happen. Only a fool would vote yes to that.

Can anyone spot who supports the no to the voice on this list ? Hard to believe the No campaign doesn’t have significant funding . https://www.forbes.com/lists/australia-billionaires/. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/07/10/voice-to-parliament-no-campaign-el…

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

What part of their lives needs improving? and how will voting yes improve these issues?

Next avenue of hope? are you serious.

burleigh wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , what do you believe you could potentially lose ?

I don't know. That's why i'm voting no. Nobody knows what will happen. Only a fool would vote yes to that.

Ok , what do you fear you may lose ?

Supafreak wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , what do you believe you could potentially lose ?

I don't know. That's why i'm voting no. Nobody knows what will happen. Only a fool would vote yes to that.

Ok , what do you fear you may lose ?

No idea. I do not trust the government, Especially spending 360 million dollars on this. And paying 15K to people to promote the yes vote smells like Con Vid all over again.

Because of this, i will be voting NO.

@burleigh , so do you believe the voice to parliament is a labor government plan and that the uluru statement from the heart is just a decoy for the governments real agenda which is what exactly ? And how will the government benefit from this ?

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , so do you believe the voice to parliament is a labor government plan and that the uluru statement from the heart is just a decoy for the governments real agenda which is what exactly ? And how will the government benefit from this ?

Possibly, I don’t know. Do you 100% know that it’s not?

burleigh wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

What part of their lives needs improving? and how will voting yes improve these issues?

Next avenue of hope? are you serious.

Do you seriously think that the lives of Aboriginal people don’t need improving? Are you aware of the disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, especially in the areas of education and health? The policies that have been created by non-Aboriginal politicians haven’t been effective, so it would make sense to get Aboriginal people involved in policy-making processes.

Supafreak wrote:

My question is different to AW , my question is what do no voters believe they are going to lose if the yes vote gets up ?

I don't think ive really heard people say we will lose anything, its more the possible beast that we are creating thats is the issue. (putting the moral aspects aside)

But i guess we lose constitutional equality and i guess technically we even lose being a proper democracy as one person= one vote=one influence will no longer be the case.

overthefalls wrote:

burleigh wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

What part of their lives needs improving? and how will voting yes improve these issues?

Next avenue of hope? are you serious.

Do you seriously think that the lives of Aboriginal people don’t need improving? Are you aware of the disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, especially in the areas of education and health? The policies that have been created by non-Aboriginal politicians haven’t been effective, so it would make sense to get Aboriginal people involved in policy-making processes.

No, I asked YOU what part of their lives need improving. I’m assuming you’re white.

From what you listed do you believe a yes vote will help with these issues?

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

Even if the no vote wins, the Voice will be put in policy and we will actually be able to test it and see if its the magic wand thats been suggested.

The only avenue of hope people who need it should have is themselves, because change doesn't happen un ess you make it yourself, if you expect others to make change for you or the government to make change then your never going to get it.

I just told you; education and health are priorities. Yes, I think a yes vote will be a step forward.

Vote Yes for education.
Here's just one good reason to vote yes. First 20mins specifically.
https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2248706115795
I've been banging on about education being a pivotal part of change since this forum began.
Stoked to hear that The Voice could have such a positive flow on effect enhancing the education of indigenous Australians. Imagine how that could change the amount of young kids from turning to crime because they have no other prospects. Imagine the flow on effects from that! Insane to picture where that could go for indigenous crew.
(if the link doesn't work just go to SBS and subscribe, it's the Road to the Referendum on NITV, ep8, the Great Australian Silence.. fantastic series that everyone who has questions should be watching)

Jeez Burls, it's all "leave the kids alone, it's in their best interests" when it comes to vaxxing but when there's a possibility of really helping them, you're running a mile.

indo-dreaming wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

Even if the no vote wins, the Voice will be put in policy and we will actually be able to test it and see if its the magic wand thats been suggested.

Why/how will it still be implemented if the no vote wins?

@burleigh , I believe the voice is a very simple request for recognition and a deep desire to have their own ideas and possible solutions to problems that directly impact their lives since colonisation , heard by the government now and in future generations . This isn’t a quick fix solution and it will take generations to undo the shit they are up against . They understand more than anyone the problems they face on a daily basis. Unfortunately this campaign from the no camp has people like yourself believing it’s something other than what it is . I know nothing I say will change your opinion or vote and that’s ok . Hope we get some wave’s soon, forecast looks dismal .

And how do we lose “constitutional equality”?

AndyM wrote:

Jeez Burls, it's all "leave the kids alone, it's in their best interests" when it comes to vaxxing but when there's a possibility of really helping them, you're running a mile.

You’re acting like this can’t be done without a yes vote.
You’ve been fooled yet again.

Overthefalls crying it’s their last hope, etc.

Are you blokes really this gullible?

overthefalls wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

How will voting no to maintain the status quo improve the lives of Aboriginal people? If the no vote wins, what’s the next avenue of hope for them?

Even if the no vote wins, the Voice will be put in policy and we will actually be able to test it and see if its the magic wand thats been suggested.

Why/how will it still be implemented if the no vote wins?

We are voting for the voice to be enshrined in the constitution, if its a No, it can and you would expect will still be put in as policy.

LNP wont oppose it as policy, as in years to come when it changes little they will be able to say, see we made the right decision to not put it in. the constitution. .

Over the last 50 years we have had 5 governments, so as much as id hate to think about it Labor could be in for a while, so if implemented as policy it will get a good run to be tested and when LNP get voted back in, they would be smart to just leave the voice as policy, so the activist like Marcia cant whinge and say we told you we needed it in the constitution .

Basically the Yes camp dont lose whatever happens, they will get their voice either way.

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , I believe the voice is a very simple request for recognition and a deep desire to have their own ideas and possible solutions to problems that directly impact their lives since colonisation , heard by the government now and in future generations . This isn’t a quick fix solution and it will take generations to undo the shit they are up against . They understand more than anyone the problems they face on a daily basis. Unfortunately this campaign from the no camp has people like yourself believing it’s something other than what it is . I know nothing I say will change your opinion or vote and that’s ok . Hope we get some wave’s soon, forecast looks dismal .

I believe the the yea campaign has you all believing it’s something that it’s not.

At the end of the day the indigenous Australians don’t need a yea vote. They are being used as pawns right now.

You’re right, I will never vote yes. I don’t trust the government, I’m amazed that you have such blind trust for them after the covid bullshit to be honest.

@indo , it’s like you want FNP to fail and then you can say hahaha told ya so , fark man what is wrong with you .

Crying gullible fools, are we? Try to keep the debate civilised and do some informed research about historical and current Aboriginal disadvantage so that you’ve got something of substance to contribute.

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , it’s like you want FNP to fail and then you can say hahaha told ya so , fark man what is wrong with you .

Its not that i want anyone to fail, im just realistic of the problems and not living in fantasy land, change doesn't happen unless individuals make it and the key elements(education, employment/services) for anyone to prosper in remote communities where the biggest issues are will never happen as just not realistic from a practical/logistic point of view.

Accentuate the Positive...Eliminate the negative,
Latch on to the Affirmative and don't mess with Mr In-Between.

Voice Rejoice (Commemorative Rendition)

[Yes] 23 can have a cup a tea!
tbb's hot tease will Please!
Oh! [Yes] Please.. put as at Ease.

Don't Worry there's No Hurry...
45 Days to Voice yer Praise
6 Weeks until The Voice Speaks

Like whose Afraid of being Swayed
Don't be Shy there's nuthin' Sly
Nuthin' Suss, no need to Fuss!

If ya still don't know...Just hav'a go!
See! No concern, now it's your Turn!
Be sure to Shout, without a Doubt!

Dedicated to swellnet [YES] crew from us Middle of The Roadies!

overthefalls wrote:

Crying gullible fools, are we? Try to keep the debate civilised and do some informed research about historical and current Aboriginal disadvantage so that you’ve got something of substance to contribute.

I’m well aware of Aboriginal disadvantage. You believing a yes vote is the only option is pretty wild.
I guess you are a gullible fool. You have no idea what a yes vote will mean. None. Nobody does.

Why would you vote yes to something you know nothing about?

I know enough about it to believe it will make a positive difference. What do you think is the best way to address the issue of Aboriginal disadvantage?

@burleigh , if Albo and the labor party were voting no , does that mean you would then be voting yes ?

overthefalls wrote:

I know enough about it to believe it will make a positive difference. What do you think is the best way to address the issue of Aboriginal disadvantage?

A positive difference? You said before it’s their last hope…….
I don’t know what the best way to address it is.

That’s why im voting no

overthefalls wrote:

And how do we lose “constitutional equality”?

Because the Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry.

This whole aspect was talked about here in depth about two weeks ago, some guy i think called Michael (not me) made some really good post about this aspect.

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , if Albo and the labor party were voting no , does that mean you would then be voting yes ?

A weird hypothetical.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , it’s like you want FNP to fail and then you can say hahaha told ya so , fark man what is wrong with you .

Its not that i want anyone to fail, im just realistic of the problems and not living in fantasy land, change doesn't happen unless individuals make it and the key elements(education, employment/services) for anyone to prosper in remote communities where the biggest issues are will never happen as just not realistic from a practical/logistic point of view.

So have you heard what FNP ideas are on addressing this ? I haven’t but I sure would love to , why do you underestimate FNP on what they are capable of ? Do you believe they are just hopeless and useless and won’t amount to anything unless they do as white man says ? You right them off before even giving them a chance at helping themselves by being involved . Unfuckingbelievable

burleigh wrote:

AndyM wrote:

Jeez Burls, it's all "leave the kids alone, it's in their best interests" when it comes to vaxxing but when there's a possibility of really helping them, you're running a mile.

You’re acting like this can’t be done without a yes vote.

You’ve been fooled yet again.

Overthefalls crying it’s their last hope, etc.

Are you blokes really this gullible?

Especially with the LNP in power, I'd say it can't be done.
And I've never voted Labor.

burleigh wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , if Albo and the labor party were voting no , does that mean you would then be voting yes ?

A weird hypothetical.

Well it’s clearly the government you don’t trust and want to do the opposite of what they’re doing . So if the labor government who is presently in power , voted no , wouldn’t you vote yes ?

burleigh wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

I know enough about it to believe it will make a positive difference. What do you think is the best way to address the issue of Aboriginal disadvantage?

A positive difference? You said before it’s their last hope…….

I don’t know what the best way to address it is.

That’s why im voting no

When I said it’s their last hope, I was alluding to comments by Noel Pearson, whose point was that it will be a very long time before there is another monumental opportunity like this. I’d hardly call him a crying gullible fool. I’d be happy to have just a fraction of that bloke’s intellect.

indo-dreaming wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

And how do we lose “constitutional equality”?

Because the Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry.

This whole aspect was talked about here in depth about two weeks ago, some guy i think called Michael (not me) made some really good post about this aspect.

What constitutional rights will Aboriginal people have that we won’t have? Do you mean they will have exclusive rights to influence the creation of policies that affect them? My understanding is that having a voice in parliament will enable them to be involved in policy-making alongside non-Aboriginal policy-makers. I don’t think the voice will grant them any exclusivity, just some involvement. What’s wrong with that?

Supafreak wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , it’s like you want FNP to fail and then you can say hahaha told ya so , fark man what is wrong with you .

Its not that i want anyone to fail, im just realistic of the problems and not living in fantasy land, change doesn't happen unless individuals make it and the key elements(education, employment/services) for anyone to prosper in remote communities where the biggest issues are will never happen as just not realistic from a practical/logistic point of view.

So have you heard what FNP ideas are on addressing this ? I haven’t but I sure would love to , why do you underestimate FNP on what they are capable of ? Do you believe they are just hopeless and useless and won’t amount to anything unless they do as white man says ? You right them off before even giving them a chance at helping themselves by being involved . Unfuckingbelievable

There your words not mine.

Im certain there is individuals that lift themselves up and break bad cycles but overall we know that little is changing and in some cases even getting worse, so why would you expect positive personal change to suddenly happen on a larger scale?

Making personal change is hard, but its becomes much much harder when people don't expect it and give you reasons or excuses not to change, and tell you its up to governments etc to make the changes for you.

overthefalls wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

And how do we lose “constitutional equality”?

Because the Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry.

This whole aspect was talked about here in depth about two weeks ago, some guy i think called Michael (not me) made some really good post about this aspect.

What constitutional rights will Aboriginal people have that we won’t have? Do you mean they will have exclusive rights to influence the creation of policies that affect them? My understanding is that having a voice in parliament will enable them to be involved in policy-making alongside non-Aboriginal policy-makers. I don’t think the voice will grant them any exclusivity, just some involvement. What’s wrong with that?

You answered your own question, one of the major problems with the voice is what it can and cant influence, wheres this line of what is Aboriginal matters or policy and what isnt?

Its rare for these things to not cross over into non indigenous matters or policy which affects everyone.

BTW. Aboriginals already influence and have a say in policy and things that affect them, the idea they dont is just complete garbage.

Supafreak wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@burleigh , if Albo and the labor party were voting no , does that mean you would then be voting yes ?

A weird hypothetical.

Well it’s clearly the government you don’t trust and want to do the opposite of what they’re doing . So if the labor government who is presently in power , voted no , wouldn’t you vote yes ?

I would vote no for anything any government wants you to cote yess for without actually telling you the changes or will make.

You blokes are voting yes in the hope that something will change. In hope. Do you realise how crazy that is. The yes campaigners have made you believe this is the only hope. The same campaigners getting paid 15k to say this.

overthefalls wrote:

burleigh wrote:

overthefalls wrote:

I know enough about it to believe it will make a positive difference. What do you think is the best way to address the issue of Aboriginal disadvantage?

A positive difference? You said before it’s their last hope…….

I don’t know what the best way to address it is.

That’s why im voting no

When I said it’s their last hope, I was alluding to comments by Noel Pearson, whose point was that it will be a very long time before there is another monumental opportunity like this. I’d hardly call him a crying gullible fool. I’d be happy to have just a fraction of that bloke’s intellect.

So you don’t actually know what if any changes will be implemented but you’re still going to vote yes in hope. While not knowing any other agendas the government may have with this vote.

The change is obvious: guaranteed recognition and involvement in parliament.

Burleigh, did you watch the vid i posted? There's plenty of sources other than the government and mainstream media to get your information from. Thought you'd be onto that.

overthefalls wrote:

The change is obvious: guaranteed recognition and involvement in parliament.

What kind of involvement and at what cost? you don't know, the government won't tell you. Only a fool would vote yes to something they know nothing about.

southernraw wrote:

Burleigh, did you watch the vid i posted? There's plenty of sources other than the government and mainstream media to get your information from. Thought you'd be onto that.

I didn't see it sorry.

Are these sources claiming the 15k grants the government so kindly offered to pay?