Sky News - Stream The Voice Debate Channel for Free

His_Holiness on 14/08/2023 - 10:44
Last edited 14/08/2023 - 10:46 by 1 other user

As the nation leads up to the historic referendum later this year, Sky News The Voice Debate channel covers all aspects of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news updates, delivering coverage and content across all sides of the debate can be streamed right here on 'Sky News The Voice Debate'.

Mod: "Live channel: Sky News The Voice Debate" is a limited release channel, released as free last month and will be always free until the end of it's broadcast/existance. See guidelines.

Free Software/Websites

Related Stores

Sky News Australia

Comments

- - - - RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 12:57
        
        +3
        
        @Protractor: Don’t confuse racial with racist. Discussing the voice which is a race based committee isn’t racism however by definition it’s racial.
        
        Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 13:25
        
        +1
        
        @RockyRaccoon: Don't confuse motive with motivation
        
        jv on 14/08/2023 - 15:33
        
        +4
        
        @RockyRaccoon:
        
        Discussing the voice which is a race based committee isn’t racism however by definition it’s racial.
        
        Except many of woke who are brainwashed by Albo cannot accept a democratic debate and retort to calling people who have a different point of view as racist…
        
        Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 21:37
        
        +2
        
        @RockyRaccoon: An entity that is comprised solely of people of one race, whose raison d'etre is entirely focussed on one race, and which comprises an additional lobbying organisation for government exclusively for one race isn't racist to you, just 'racial'???
        So, what exactly is racist to you then?
        
        RockyRaccoon on 17/08/2023 - 08:45
        
        @Almost Banned: Calm down son, I was making a point that sometimes people use Racist when someone makes any reference to race, when its not.
        
        When you make a comment that includes a reference to race, eg White Black Asian Euro …. then its not racism unless it reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of their race.
        
        Of course reasonable may depend on the attitude the person being impacted.
        
        Some take it if you even mention a specific race.
        Others if you dont (sin of omission)
        
        Since I have mention the R word here 4 times, plus derivatives of that word twice and another 4 specific examples to some that makes this post a 10X racial comment. ((oops thats now 11)
        
        jv on 14/08/2023 - 15:31
        
        +5
        
        @Protractor:
        
        "How is it racist?" you asked that question.
        
        And obviously it is not a question you can answer… Proves my point.
      - Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 21:36
        
        +2
        
        @ginormousgiraffe: So The Voice(tm) is a form of reparations???
        Presumably you agree that it is only the start of that process?
        So, where does it end for you?
        
        ginormousgiraffe on 15/08/2023 - 08:25
        
        +3
        
        @Almost Banned: No the voice will first and foremost about recognising indigenous Australians as the first people to inhabit this country. Secondarily, it will facilitate better decision making on issues that impact Indigenous Australians.
        
        Where it ends is when Indigenous Australians have similar education, health, financial, incarceration and life outcome statistics to the non-indigenous Australian population.
        
        I know that as a country we are much more equitable that what we were when the government was taking babies from their parents, but due to the inequity experienced generations ago, there is obviously not an even playing field today.
        
        Almost Banned on 15/08/2023 - 09:57
        
        @ginormousgiraffe: The Voice does not recognise indigenous Australians as the first people to inhabit this country - including a statement to that effect in the preamble is an entirely secondary issue to this referendum and probably would have been passed with bipartisan support.
        There have already been multiple indigenous consultative entities that existed to provide indigenous input to government - and they have all failed. No rational person believes this one will be magically different.
        Governments have been working on closing the gap for decades now. How's it working out?
        
        mattyman on 15/08/2023 - 10:13
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned: It might have passed but would be repealed by the Liberal Party as soon as they got back in. Voting via referendum ensures that the next government can't just repeal it without another vote from the people.
        
        Almost Banned on 15/08/2023 - 10:48
        
        @mattyman: The Liberal Party supports the preamble option, just not another pointless and wasteful commonwealth bureaucracy.
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/how-does-the-liberal-…
        and a change to the constitution requires a referendum, not mere legislation.
        
        jv on 15/08/2023 - 11:44
        
        @mattyman:
        
        Voting via referendum ensures that the next government can't just repeal it
        
        Albo's indigenous affairs minister has dismally failed in fixing the problems in Alice Springs.
        
        How will 'The Voice' change the performance of his minister?
        
        ginormousgiraffe on 15/08/2023 - 10:22
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: In what way has the IAC failed? Indigenous Australians are currently doing the best they have ever done in terms of health, child mortality and education since the stats have been collected. Obviously there is a large gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on a lot of these figures. Though, I am willing to bet you have not even heard of a single piece of legislation that they have advised on.
        
        Almost Banned on 15/08/2023 - 10:50
        
        @ginormousgiraffe: Do you mean the NIAA???
        If it is so successful, why do we need the Voice?
        If it is a failure, how will the Voice be any better?
        
        ginormousgiraffe on 15/08/2023 - 11:12
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        Do you mean the NIAA???
        
        I'm sure that you know the NIAA is not an advisory board and that the IAC is the advisory board to the federal government, right?
        
        If it is so successful, why do we need the Voice?
        
        To protect politicians for (profanity) with people's lives for political gain.
        
        If it is a failure, how will the Voice be any better?
        
        It is not a failure, I asked you how it is a failure and you still have not provided anything.
        
        jv on 15/08/2023 - 11:47
        
        -2
        
        @ginormousgiraffe:
        
        Obviously there is a large gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on a lot of these figures.
        
        That also applies to pretty much everyone else living in poverty in Australia. Where is their voice? Why are they being ignored by this government. Why are we only concerned about Australians with an Indigenous background.
        Do they matter more than other people born her ????
        
        ginormousgiraffe on 15/08/2023 - 12:14
        
        +2
        
        @jv: Do any other ethnic groups have a decade less life span than other Australians? What about higher infant mortality? What about a significant higher chance of dying due to cardiac arrest? What about significantly lower education rates?
        
        I know that you are being deliberately obtuse, so I am no longer going to reply to the person that thinks that Italian Australians should be recognised as the first Australians in our constitution.
        
        jv on 15/08/2023 - 12:22
        
        -2
        
        @ginormousgiraffe:
        
        Do any other ethnic groups have a decade less life span than other Australians?
        
        Again, a deflection…
        
        All people living in poverty have a lower life expectancy, it is not a race issue.
- Lord Fart Bucket on 14/08/2023 - 11:44
  
  +5
  
  No. They haven't made the last few world cups.
  
  Also, they didn't live here for thousands of years and they weren't hunted down by white people.
  - jv on 14/08/2023 - 11:56
    
    +1
    
    Also, they didn't live here for thousands of years
    
    Nobody living in Australia today has lived here for thousands of years.
    - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 12:41
      
      +4
      
      Culturally you are wrong.
      Legally the High Court and First Australians don't care what you think.
  - Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 21:40
    
    +2
    
    No - but estimates suggest that between 2-5k white settlers were killed by indigenous people in the frontier wars…
    Do their descendents get anything?
    - turbochris on 15/08/2023 - 08:28
      
      +1
      
      Do you own a strawman farm or what?
      - Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 12:18
        
        @turbochris: Buffel grass farm, well fertilised (bovine)
- Jake D on 14/08/2023 - 12:22
  
  +3
  
  I vote no
- Mechz on 14/08/2023 - 13:04
  
  Were they born here or Italy?
- OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 15/08/2023 - 11:24
  
  No because they are white people and white people are bad.
Pigey on 14/08/2023 - 11:36

+1

For anyone with a fairly recent Samsung TV, you can get Sky News for free on one of the Samsung TV Plus channels.
- Drakesy on 14/08/2023 - 11:37
  
  +15
  
  *Throws Samsung TV in bin
- fatpizza on 14/08/2023 - 11:58
  
  Subtraction by addition.
dylo on 14/08/2023 - 12:04

+9

Good old Sky News where all the right wing sheep go to be told how to maintain faux outrage about a range of subjects. It's a sad state of affairs that so many Australians rely on mainstream media without thinking for themselves. I don't need Murdoch or Costello propaganda to tell me how to vote on an issue affecting indigenous Australians.
- RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 13:28
  
  Our favorite General Sun Tzu has said
  
  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 15/08/2023 - 11:26
  
  +1
  
  Youre still just a sheep who watches different TV channels dude.
JimmyF on 14/08/2023 - 12:09

+4

Watch or read anything on SkyTrash? No thank you.
Bid Sniper on 14/08/2023 - 12:16

+7

Sky News is cancer
Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 12:35

+2

Meh. Same festering off bait as last time, but left to rot in the sun,a bit more, like the minds of those who feed off this stuff

I notice the usual suspects now dropping in as per the script.
ozhunter on 14/08/2023 - 12:41

+2

Is there much point watching anything about the voice. It's an easy No vote.
- vodamerc on 14/08/2023 - 13:09
  
  +2
  
  Careful saying that around here. Ozb is as bad as Reddit
  - RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 13:15
    
    +1
    
    I think Ozhunter would know that, they have been here much longer than you or me.
    - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 13:28
      
      +1
      
      And 'real' Oz hunters have been around 60000 more years,again.
      :0
CtrlAltSpoods on 14/08/2023 - 13:24

+2

Will this 'voice' thing stop the racial-oriented verbal abuse I receive from aboriginals while minding my own business when I visit the city via public transport?

Not everyone's experience, but it certainly is mine and many others experience. Doesn't exactly make me/many others want to vote in favor.
- Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 15:57
  
  +2
  
  Do those aboriginals = all aboriginals?
  Does 'many others' experience = all non indig ppls experience?
  And do you speak for the all the 'many others'?
  If so I'd say you guys already have a voice. The dominant one at that
  - brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 16:20
    
    +2
    
    You've likely never lived outside of a major city in your life.
    - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:22
      
      -1
      
      Not relevant.
      Pretty sure it was the other persons questions to answer.
      - brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 16:33
        
        +7
        
        @Protractor: Haha it's completely relevant.
        
        I went to school with Aboriginal kids, had Aboriginal friends, have a couple of original guys who are not blood relation, but I class as cousins. I've been called a white dog, white can't, threatened with bashings, followed, had stuff thrown at me etc because of my race. You know where the people doing those things are today? Still doing nothing with their lives, living off welfare and blaming everyone else for their problems. You know what the others are doing, friends and cousins? They have their own families, jobs, houses etc and are doing great. They didn't need a "voice", they just chose not to be shitheads, and had families that had the same values.
        
        The voice is just another virtue signalling joke, that won't do anything to help the problem, and will simply be more people sucking at the government teat while contributing nothing.
        
        Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:51
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm: Is 'woke' or 'virtue signalling' the right wings pseudo garlic to slay opinions or principles they don't like?
        
        brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 16:54
        
        +5
        
        @Protractor: Haha, nice work, don't have anything to say but cry about the use of the phrase virtue signalling 😂
        
        Eeples on 24/08/2023 - 18:19
        
        @brendanm: I think the theory is that the no-hopers in your experience will be inspired by the Voice.
        
        That happening will be determined by its implementation; which I think will be more or less effective depending on which political party is in power at the time.
        
        brendanm on 24/08/2023 - 18:54
        
        -3
        
        @Eeples: The only thing the voice will accomplish, is to pay a bunch of people (number as yet undecided), who are chosen by whoever happens to be in power (these people are also as yet undecided), who will get a tonne of taxpayer money (we don't know how much, as we don't know how many people, what they will be paid etc etc), to provide a "voice" that can be completely ignored. Going by past results, the people chosen will be relatives/friends/ of politicians, or ex politicians who want a nice cruisy job at the taxpayers expense.
        
        Perhaps I'm too cynical, but when it's the result we get from pretty much anything government does, I don't think it's too far off the mark.
        
        Eeples on 27/08/2023 - 05:05
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: I think it’s pretty clear that the Voice already means something positive to many Australians regardless of their culture.
        
        If a change is made in the constitution to recognise the Voice even if the implementation is weak by the government that change in itself imo is likely to produce more positive things.
        
        Inspiration is one of things your no-hopers lacked in your story.
        
        brendanm on 27/08/2023 - 10:27
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: That's what is said every time an idea like this is floated. Oops, didn't work, but this "new thing" will be the one that fixes everything, you'll see.
        
        Eeples on 27/08/2023 - 11:27
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm: I don’t think it’s ever been claimed that the Voice will fix everything.
        
        I certainly didn’t claim that.
        
        More often it is put as a small (but important) step.
        
        I think your argument is a strawman.
        
        brendanm on 27/08/2023 - 11:46
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: It's an important small step? Changing the constitution is a small step? What else is going to need to be done to fix things? Why haven't any of the previous things they said would fix things, fixed anything?
        
        Eeples on 27/08/2023 - 20:40
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: Yes, a small step is to change the constitution in a relatively small way.
        
        It's a Voice not a Treaty.
        
        Throwing ones arms into the air because it is all too hard certainly won't improve the conditions of indigenous communities.
        
        [I think many would consider my personal opinion to be radical. My opinion is that small communities regardless of their cultural identities be encouraged into bigger communities so that better services can be provided. What those 'encouragements' might be would be a highly charged debate. I mean positive, non-compulsory encouragements. However, moving communities regardless of the implementation has a terrible history in this country and in others, so most likely, it is a non-starter.]
        
        Do you have any genuine suggestions on how to improve the lot of indigenous people in this country?
        
        brendanm on 29/08/2023 - 13:26
        
        @Eeples:
        
        Do you have any genuine suggestions on how to improve the lot of indigenous people in this country?
        
        I sure do, it's the same thing I'd do with all the other no hopers, race doesn't really come into it for me.
        
        Stop incentivising drop kicks and losers to have kids. Give them an incentive not to. Incentivise responsible members of society to have kids. Remove kids from crap homes, stop the cycle of poverty, uselessness and scumbaggery. Strangely enough doing the same thing over and over never really changes the outcome.
        
        turbochris on 30/08/2023 - 07:54
        
        @brendanm: Sounds like a wish list. Any policy suggestions?
        
        ozhunter on 30/08/2023 - 19:18
        
        -1
        
        @turbochris: Lower their welfare. Lower income tax.
        
        Can't help those who refuse to help themselves.
  - CtrlAltSpoods on 14/08/2023 - 16:42
    
    So your answer is no? You've responded to a question with more questions instead of answering it.
    
    Also, answering no to your questions takes away any strength you thought you had to your "caucasian voice?" conclusion.
  - Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 22:00
    
    +4
    
    You mean the exact same voice that every citizen of this country has regardless of their race?
    The voice of the ballot box and to petition their elected representatives?
    Those rights are currently colour-blind.
    Why would anyone vote to make them unequal?
    - Eeples on 27/08/2023 - 21:02
      
      To believe rights in this country are colour-blind is a delusion.
      
      However,
      
      It is so very encouraging the lifting of indigenous enrolment rates.
      
      https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/per…
      - Almost Banned on 27/08/2023 - 23:54
        
        @Eeples: Please tell me how the right to vote and petition members of parliament discriminates on the basis of race???
        
        Eeples on 28/08/2023 - 00:30
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: If you really think individuals of aboriginal communities are on equal footing as farmers when approaching their NATS member you are delusional.
        
        As I linked aboriginal electoral enrolments has made great strides in recent years. The history on that informs how the right to vote discriminated by race. But, not so much now.
        
        Almost Banned on 28/08/2023 - 12:41
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: If you think that the RIGHT to do something, and the chances of obtaining a positive outcome from that thing are the same, you are delusional.
        The fact is that I am never going to have the same clout with my local member of parliament as a member of the ALP Federal Council. It is also the case that a new migrant with poor english, lacking education and understanding of the system may well have less access than an educated native english speaker who understands politics..
        Neither of those things change the fact that each have the same rights to do so and that right being independent of the race of the individuals involved.
        
        Eeples on 28/08/2023 - 17:32
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: You don’t get it.
        
        The racism is inherent in the system.
        
        Almost Banned on 28/08/2023 - 18:00
        
        -2
        
        @Eeples: Right - its that magical 'systemic racism' I keep hearing about.
        You know, the type that means that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race - UNLESS it is in favour of certain minority or disadvantaged races.
        That type of 'systemic' racism… The ONLY lawful discrimination on the basis of race in this country HELPS indigenous people.
        Sounds like a bad deal for everyone but the special minority races.
        
        Eeples on 28/08/2023 - 20:18
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: Then you tell me why on almost every well-being measure whether it be health, income, wealth, life expectancy, infant mortality, alcohol and drug dependency, incarcerations, domestic violence…. Aboriginal people do the worse.
        
        You are suggesting the system as it relates to Aboriginal communities isn’t broken? What a nonsense.
        
        Nom on 28/08/2023 - 20:43
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        Right - its that magical 'systemic racism' I keep hearing about.
        
        Now we're getting somewhere.
        There's a pretty gigantic difference between racism against a minority and "racism" against the majority - one of these is not racism, the other further suppresses the minority.
        
        You know, the type that means that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race - UNLESS it is in favour of certain minority or disadvantaged races.
        
        Precisely. A benefit to a disadvantaged minority cannot be "racism". They're the minority !
        
        The ONLY lawful discrimination on the basis of race in this country HELPS indigenous people.
        
        Bingo.
        
        Sounds like a bad deal for everyone but the special minority races.
        
        As per your preceding sentence, this "HELPS indigenous people" - we all benefit from the disadvantaged becoming less so. If you have some reason that you think this is a bad deal, then let's hear it ! It's a damn sight better than the existing deal, by your own admission 🤷🏼‍♂️
        
        Almost Banned on 28/08/2023 - 23:43
        
        -2
        
        @Nom: You are completely wrong.
        Racism is differential treatment based on race. It doesn't matter if its beneficial - the fact is that by benefitting one race, you are causing a detriment to another.
        That is what you wacky leftists want - new racism to cure old racism.
        
        Nom on 29/08/2023 - 00:23
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        Racism is differential treatment based on race.
        
        Where are you getting that definition from ?
        
        The definition I'm using is :
        "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
        
        and this is precisely what the referendum is attempting to address.
        
        the fact is that by benefitting one race, you are causing a detriment to another.
        
        That's a pretty wild claim - do you have anything to substantiate it ? The pool of benefit is not a fixed size - we don't need to take anything away from Group A in order to make improvements for Group B, and neither does the referendum suggest doing so. There's absolutely nothing on the table here that is going to remove anything from Group A.
        
        wacky leftists
        
        Apologies, i realise now that I'm wasting my time here. Bye.
        
        Almost Banned on 29/08/2023 - 11:09
        
        -2
        
        @Nom: Even your own definition does not support your claim. Your own definition does not require the act disadvantage a minority - just that it typically does.
        When you are offering goods or services - including university places or employment - based on race, you are necessarily disadvantaging those not of that race.
        As for the Voice, giving a right to some people inherently means denying that same right to other people. That is a disadvantage.
        
        Eeples on 30/08/2023 - 09:32
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: In what way would Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders Voice by making representations to Government concerning issues effecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples deny some right of others to do the same?
        
        In fact aren’t governments already lobbied by many voices already. That isn’t going to be curtailed by the Voice.
        
        Almost Banned on 30/08/2023 - 10:58
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: The answer is obvious and is based on differential treatment.
        
        Eeples on 30/08/2023 - 21:07
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: That is no answer.
        
        Yes, the Voice allows representations by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders on issues effecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders…… who is disadvantaged by this specifically?
        
        Don't others already make representations to the government?
        
        The Voice will not stop or limit those representations.
        
        Almost Banned on 30/08/2023 - 21:32
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: You are repeating the same discrimination and pretending it is not discrimination.
        If you treat people differently because of their race, you are discriminating and it is called racism.
        You may think it is positive racism - but racism it remains.
        Everyone currently has exactly the same rights to make representations to government. The referendum intends to change that to give special extra rights to a certain race. That is the very definition of racism. Everyone is disadvantaged by that.
        However, the real question is whether it will accomplish what is intended - and the history of indigenous consultative entities strongly suggests it won't.
        
        Eeples on 31/08/2023 - 01:03
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: So, in your mind, giving additional support to a marginalised group that continually measures worse in almost every wellbeing category from infant mortality to incarceration rates to domestic violence to poverty to life expectancy…. Is a bad thing because giving that support is based on race?
        
        Does that really make sense to you?
        
        It isn’t really hard to see, in my mind, that supporting marginalised groups supports everyone.
        
        Almost Banned on 31/08/2023 - 10:56
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: No - I'm not saying that at all.
        I am saying that differential treatment based on race is racism. This is clearly racism.
        I am also saying that there is absolutely no basis to believe that establishing a Voice will change any of the key problems our indigenous community face and more than the previous advisory bodies have done - and even less reason to believe that somehow putting it in the constitution will magically make it more effective than any of the other prior iterations..
        
        Eeples on 31/08/2023 - 17:41
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: You are saying that.
        
        You are saying it is a bad thing because you use the word ‘racism’ which is a loaded word and is used to denegrate.
        
        Let me ask you then….
        
        Is giving additional support to a marginalised group that continually measures worse in almost every wellbeing category from infant mortality to incarceration rates to domestic violence to poverty to life expectancy…… a bad thing?
        
        Almost Banned on 31/08/2023 - 17:54
        
        -1
        
        @Eeples: Absolutely not.
        Measures properly targetted at groups that need assistance and are calculated to achieve that thing are not a bad thing. We give pensions to the aged and to the unemployed. We give educational support to those that need it, and health measures for those that need it.
        But we do not simply say - you are black, so you need help. You are white so you do not need help.
        Doing so would be racist - a word that is perfectly apt, has an obvious meaning, and is not remotely derogatory when used correctly.
        Not all black people are silenced. Not all white people have every advantage.
        Target need - not skin colour.
        
        Eeples on 01/09/2023 - 00:42
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        We give pensions to the aged
        
        So this is being ageist according to you.
        
        Target need - not skin colour.
        
        It isn’t one or the other. It can be both.
        
        Target need
        
        And how is that working out for domestic violence or male incarceration rates or lifting people out of poverty?
        
        According to you we shouldn’t bother targeting need either as those things have persisted.
        
        and is not remotely derogatory when used correctly.
        
        It’s a dog whistle and you know it.
Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 13:26

+3

Yes very easy. Vote NO.

To racism
- jv on 14/08/2023 - 15:40
  
  +6
  
  Vote NO.
  
  Voting NO in the referendum is literally a vote against racism…
  - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 17:53
    
    +2
    
    The smartest legal minds in Straya have looked at the Voice. None found it to be it's racist as the NO gang claims. Those professionals looked high and low, and all gave the advice to both sides of govt/opposition. The LNP actually abused their privilege and used one Professors words to claim he supported their lies.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/18/indig…
    Sky News repeated the filthy lies. That's how low the right are. They hate the idea of facing the truth
    
    So I hate to (do I ? ) tell you, there's nothing racist about about the Voice. It's in your head. Right near Dan
    - Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 22:02
      
      +3
      
      No, there's absolutely NOTHING racist about setting up an agency to be led exclusively by people of one race, and voted on exclusively by people of one race, and whose sole purpose is to lobby for people of one race to government - and which will be funded by the entire country regardless of race, and will be guaranteed in the constitution.
      Sure - there's nothing remotely racist about any of that…
      - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 22:06
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: Oops!
        Terra nulius is BS . The HC said so. Everyone but racists have moved on.
        
        It's someone else's country, in the first place. Officially
        
        "Ceremony in the sand, doesn't conquer a whole land"
        
        Almost Banned on 14/08/2023 - 22:12
        
        +4
        
        @Protractor: Not only is that nonsense and completely misunderstands the impact of the Mabo and subsequent decisions, it is also entirely irrelevant to the issue. No-one said anything about terra nulius. Where the hell are you getting this from, other than your own fever dreams.
        If it were 'someone else's country', the High Court would have no authority anyway, and nor would the Australian Parliament.
        If you want to hand over your land, go right ahead.
Gdsamp on 14/08/2023 - 14:37

+1

this might be free but it will cost albo the next election …
- Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:00
  
  +2
  
  Agree. The racist argument will define us way beyond our failure to be adult enough to accept the complete watrts and all history of this country. Dutton is a dog on a racist bone , and will tear Australia apart to get the top job. It's how they roll. He has never ever had any legit empathy for indig Australia,anyway.
jv on 14/08/2023 - 15:38

+4

Well surprise, surprise…

Qantas, as a company will now be publicly supporting the voice, and give free flights to the voice activists.

… and not long after the Albo government ensured Qantas will be given a greater monopoly… resulting in Albo's son getting special treatment at the Qantas Chairman's Lounge…

https://www.afr.com/rear-window/alan-joyce-puts-albo-s-son-i…

A bit of Pork barrelling going on here???
- Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:01
  
  +1
  
  How do these free flights impact on you and your life and bank account?
  - jv on 14/08/2023 - 16:06
    
    +3
    
    How do these free flights impact on you and your life and bank account?
    
    Same way the Sky News stream impacts on you and your life and bank account? (except that I'm a shareholder of Qantas and can't wait to see the end of Joyce the clown)
  - jv on 14/08/2023 - 16:07
    
    +2
    
    You do realise that Pork barrelling is illegal, right?
    - Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:14
      
      +2
      
      Is it just?
      The LNP must have missed the memo.
      
      Agree Joyce is a (profanity). Also agree with the decision to support the Voice. Maybe he is waking up to humanity at last?
      
      Racist propaganda does impact on every-bodies life.Now and forever.Dispossession and the ongoing waves of genocidal impacts has already cost all Australia too much for too long. The voice will address that. As a shareholder in Australia I support it. Get onboard
      - jv on 14/08/2023 - 16:17
        
        +2
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Is it just?
        
        yes
        
        Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:17
        
        @jv: Tell the golden girl>
        https://www.9news.com.au/national/ethics-and-legality-of-por…
      - jv on 14/08/2023 - 16:18
        
        +3
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Racist propaganda does impact on every-bodies life.
        
        and Albo is trying it introduce racism into our constitution.
        
        Rather that treat people equally, some races will get privileges that others don't.
        
        Lord Fart Bucket on 14/08/2023 - 16:35
        
        +2
        
        @jv: What privileges that you currently enjoy are you scared to lose, jv?
        
        brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 16:55
        
        +2
        
        @Lord Fart Bucket: Where did jv say that they were going to lose privileges?
        
        Lord Fart Bucket on 14/08/2023 - 18:13
        
        @brendanm:
        
        Where did jv say that they were going to lose privileges?
        
        Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
        
        If everyone has it, it's no longer a special right. So… As everyone else gains the same privilege, it might feel like he's losing a privilege.
        
        brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 18:20
        
        +2
        
        @Lord Fart Bucket: So he didn't say he's losing any privileges?
        
        Lord Fart Bucket on 14/08/2023 - 18:35
        
        @brendanm: Correct. I asked a question.

Sky News - Stream The Voice Debate Channel for Free

Related Stores

Comments

New Forum Topics