Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Random Chat Thread VII

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
For example, I honestly don’t know (probably due to my own lack of looking into it) what the indigenous voice referendum will do.

I had an argument with my cousin on the weekend because he didn’t know either but says he’s voting no based on what he’s heard from other people.

I’ll vote yes, but I don’t know what that means.

Is it my ignorance, probably, but there’s a lot of muddy water around it. I don’t think the government has done a good job of telling people exactly what the role is and what changes it will bring.
 
Ok. 2 second Wikipedia search

The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum will ask voters to approve an alteration to the Australian Constitution, creating a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that "may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government ... on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".[4] The referendum, prepared by the National Indigenous Australians Agency and conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, will be held sometime between October and December 2023.[5][6][1]

To me that’s nothing for people to be afraid of. Basically asking their opinion.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

For example, I honestly don’t know (probably due to my own lack of looking into it) what the indigenous voice referendum will do.

I had an argument with my cousin on the weekend because he didn’t know either but says he’s voting no based on what he’s heard from other people.

I’ll vote yes, but I don’t know what that means.

Is it my ignorance, probably, but there’s a lot of muddy water around it. I don’t think the government has done a good job of telling people exactly what the role is and what changes it will bring.
And this is the root of the problem, too many people think it’s powers suddenly extrapolate into every area when in reality, it’s just another committee
 
For example, I honestly don’t know (probably due to my own lack of looking into it) what the indigenous voice referendum will do.

I had an argument with my cousin on the weekend because he didn’t know either but says he’s voting no based on what he’s heard from other people.

I’ll vote yes, but I don’t know what that means.

Is it my ignorance, probably, but there’s a lot of muddy water around it. I don’t think the government has done a good job of telling people exactly what the role is and what changes it will bring.
Sadly most people are in the same boat - don't really care so vote no. I'm a likely yes right now but the whole 'campaign' by the Albo team has been dreadful. Their inability to answer questions on funding, how the voice folk would be chosen, what they can have a say on (everything that affects them which is everything) - if they don't start answering soon it will fail. Will not be surprised if they defer the vote 12 months tbh.
 
Sadly most people are in the same boat - don't really care so vote no. I'm a likely yes right now but the whole 'campaign' by the Albo team has been dreadful. Their inability to answer questions on funding, how the voice folk would be chosen, what they can have a say on (everything that affects them which is everything) - if they don't start answering soon it will fail. Will not be surprised if they defer the vote 12 months tbh.

Have they thought? The Albo team, or is there simply just more opposition opinions in the mainstream Murdoch media?

Personally, I switch off when I hear Albo talk because he’s fake as a 2 strip adidas track suit, though most politicians are.
 
So my 3 year old just locked himself in his room and broke the shitty doorknob in the process.

I spent the next hour experimenting with various different way of destroying the doorknob, all the while trying to calm him down.

By the time he was out, it felt like I was part hostage negotiator, part champion woodchopper.
 
Have they thought? The Albo team, or is there simply just more opposition opinions in the mainstream Murdoch media?

Personally, I switch off when I hear Albo talk because he’s fake as a 2 strip adidas track suit, though most politicians are.
I suppose there is a mix. There are the racist/redneck Aussies who will vote no regardless of any logic. There are the labor or liberal rusted ons who will vote yes or no on party lines. Then there are the rest who might actually consider the facts. I'm just saying that if team red do not change the way they are answering media questions it is doomed. Linda Burney is out of her depth in terms of trying to 'sell' the whole deal - and I think that is a major reason it is struggling. When asked for facts they have been so slippery. I still think Aldo will panic and push it back 6 or 12 months. As of today I just don't see it getting over the line.
 
Last edited:
I suppose there is a mix. There are the racist/redneck Aussies who will vote no regardless of any logic. There are the labor or liberal rusted ons who will vote yes or no on party lines. Then there are the rest who might actually consider the facts. I'm just saying that if team red do not change the way they are answering media questions it is doomed. Linda Barney is out of her depth in terms of trying to 'sell' the whole deal - and I think that is a major reason it is struggling. When asked for facts they have been so slippery. I still think Aldo will panic and push it back 6 or 12 months. As of today I just don't see it getting over the line.
Can’t see it being delayed, he will push and it will get rejected
Rightly or wrongly
 
I suppose there is a mix. There are the racist/redneck Aussies who will vote no regardless of any logic. There are the labor or liberal rusted ons who will vote yes or no on party lines. Then there are the rest who might actually consider the facts. I'm just saying that if team red do not change the way they are answering media questions it is doomed. Linda Barney is out of her depth in terms of trying to 'sell' the whole deal - and I think that is a major reason it is struggling. When asked for facts they have been so slippery. I still think Aldo will panic and push it back 6 or 12 months. As of today I just don't see it getting over the line.

I wish they could have just made it simple.

Like this is what you’re voting for and this is the power the voice will have.

Instead we have both parties playing to their base, virtual signalling on one side and fear mongering on the other.

That’s what i was getting at before, most regular people don’t pay attention to politics and only go by what they hear in their friend\family group.
 
I suppose there is a mix. There are the racist/redneck Aussies who will vote no regardless of any logic. There are the labor or liberal rusted ons who will vote yes or no on party lines. Then there are the rest who might actually consider the facts. I'm just saying that if team red do not change the way they are answering media questions it is doomed. Linda Barney is out of her depth in terms of trying to 'sell' the whole deal - and I think that is a major reason it is struggling. When asked for facts they have been so slippery. I still think Aldo will panic and push it back 6 or 12 months. As of today I just don't see it getting over the line.

I agree, but I also think that it’s ****ed how it’s partisan. It shouldn’t be.

If only they could just lay out the facts and let people vote.

But I spose I’m not that naive to think that there aren’t other forces like the Murdoch media empire muddying the waters and his opponents (though Iirc Murdoch owns over 75% of our media).
 
So my 3 year old just locked himself in his room and broke the shitty doorknob in the process.

I spent the next hour experimenting with various different way of destroying the doorknob, all the while trying to calm him down.

By the time he was out, it felt like I was part hostage negotiator, part champion woodchopper.
I hope you didn’t drop the opportunity for:
IMG_3167.gif
 

Remove this Banner Ad

There is no functional policy beyond a performance of repelling invaders and the manufacture of suspicion that Starmer would welcome them ashore. This technique is not restricted to the Home Office. Conservative environmental policy has been stripped down to the idea that Labour is the puppet of eco-fanatics, determined to price hardworking drivers off the road. Tory economic policy is a game of running public services into the ground and waiting for Starmer to commit to investment so he can be accused of planning tax rises.

Amazing how UK politics is Australia in 2019. Obviously the fact Isaac Levido ran both Morrison and now Sunak's campaigns means the messaging is similar, but jeezo.

 
That's not the same as unprovoked, mate.

i.e. it can still be labelled an unprovoked invasion (which I tend to agree with) even if they invaded in a 'careful' manner to avoid civilian casualties. Though even the latter didn't last long if you look at actual civilian casualties.

Have you done that, especially in comparison with Iraq?
 
Sadly most people are in the same boat - don't really care so vote no. I'm a likely yes right now but the whole 'campaign' by the Albo team has been dreadful. Their inability to answer questions on funding, how the voice folk would be chosen, what they can have a say on (everything that affects them which is everything) - if they don't start answering soon it will fail. Will not be surprised if they defer the vote 12 months tbh.

Its already dead, gone, defeated.

If Albo defers it or pulls it, he'll get knifed by his own side.
 
It's a relatively low number, but that shouldn't be acceptable just because it isn't of the magnitude arising from the disgraceful US invasion of Iraq.

I think your phraseology of arose organically before is so good.

Iraq was entirely unprovoked, and the US went a long way (physically and intellectually) there.

That the numbers in Ukraine are so low and that Russia STILL hasn't undertaken the kind of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure that woukd be BAU in a US attack demonstrates - perhaps perversely - that it was a provoked invasion.

It is a family feud. The Russians don't want to destroy or occupy Ukraine, they just don't want a neighbour that's an open threat.

There is no such thing as unprovoked family fight or feud, because there's so much history and so much emotion that both/all parties can feel genuinely aggrieved or provoked.

It's interesting how desperately hard the Ukranian nationalists work to "other" the Russians ... orcs etc.

The Anericans didn't need to other the Iraqis, thats why they could so easily justify a brutal and unprovoked war of conquest to themselves.

The real question on Ukraine is why we're choosing sides in a family feud.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I think your phraseology of arose organically before is so good.

Iraq was entirely unprovoked, and the US went a long way (physically and intellectually) there.

That the numbers in Ukraine are so low and that Russia STILL hasn't undertaken the kind of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure that woukd be BAU in a US attack demonstrates - perhaps perversely - that it was a provoked invasion.

It is a family feud. The Russians don't want to destroy or occupy Ukraine, they just don't want a neighbour that's an open threat.

There is no such thing as unprovoked family fight or feud, because there's so much history and so much emotion that both/all parties can feel genuinely aggrieved or provoked.

It's interesting how desperately hard the Ukranian nationalists work to "other" the Russians ... orcs etc.

The Anericans didn't need to other the Iraqis, thats why they could so easily justify a brutal and unprovoked war of conquest to themselves.

The real question on Ukraine is why we're choosing sides in a family feud.

I think the answer is that the straight out invasion breached the boundaries of acceptability. No doubt the rest of the world was aware the ongoing regional animosity, and wouldn't have interfered if it stayed at "skirmishes" level. But the invasion and effective declaration of war was a bridge too far (possibly a poor idiom to use in the circumstances).
 
An often overlooked fact is that last time Russia did this to Ukraine the rest of the world turned a blind eye, this time Ukraine has been supported to fight. The question is why now, why this time.

The obvious answer is to weaken Russia, I know it’s more complicated than that, but putting my cynical hat on, and listening to western military analysts predicting that Russia will get bogged down in a 10~20 year war in Ukraine, it does seem that’s the goal. Especially considering that early days Russia & Ukraine were going to meet to negotiate a deal until the west intervened.

Just keep feeding enough weapons so Ukraine can continue to fight, but they won’t put boots on the ground and engage directly.
 
View attachment 1769508


One of my great younger day albums and the subject of one of the best award winning music documentaries.

Seen him and archie roach the last time he came back in 2016, was a ripping and very memorable show let him with Archie rest in piece.

Had to cancel his last proposed tour and was quite fragile for a while.
 
Last edited:
I think the answer is that the straight out invasion breached the boundaries of acceptability. No doubt the rest of the world was aware the ongoing regional animosity, and wouldn't have interfered if it stayed at "skirmishes" level. But the invasion and effective declaration of war was a bridge too far (possibly a poor idiom to use in the circumstances).

That's literally the problem - the rest of the world had no issue with daily shelling of the Russiaphone Donetsk regions that had broken away for example.

As always, it comes down to who is valued as more important by our imperium. The silly Ukranians think they are highly valued because they are white Europeans lol.

They think the US will turn them into Israel when their fate is Kurdistan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top