.

Dear Galen ,

.

You wrote :

« … slavery was never a consideration, the entire premis of the war was in relation to taxes… »

Here is a reply from Wikipedia :

« The causes of secession [the American Civil War] were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

.

Dear Toni Lavis,

You wrote :

« We have freedom of association in this country, and anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives. If Indigenous Australians want to get together and form an organisation for the purpose of advising Parliamentarians, can't they go right ahead and do that? … Why would they need the blessing of the Government? »

Our Indigenous peoples want Constitutional recognition.

It is not the blessing of Government that is important, it is the blessing of the sovereign people through a national referendum to modify the Constitution that is important.

Also, while, as you say, “anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives”, the parliament, as a collective body, has no obligation to consult “anybody”, nor to “consider his or her requests, proposals and comments … in a concerted effort of mutual agreement”.

By including this disposition in the preamble of the Constitution, the Parliament would have a moral obligation to honour it.

.

Sorry Banjo Paterson/Rodney

Sometimes I overly attack the person, rather than their positions, however specious.

Regards

Pete

BP,

Wikipedia? Really? I will give you a 2 out of 10 for that effort!

Please try this link, read it fully to grasp the truth re your unfactual grasp of our discussion, it’s not too long and well worth the read, ignore the first few paragraphs if you wish:

http//www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

Geoff

Hi Galen

As the Young Einstein would say

http//www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

is an incomplete link. You'll note it has not changed colour.

It needs an :

Guess where

How rude of me, Try this:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts

Thanks P

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

You wrote :

« Sorry … sometimes I overly attack the person, rather than their positions, however specious »

No harm done, plantagenet. We all have our problems and difficulties and sometimes we project them on others.

I’m sure you have many other qualities.

Some of us a so fine-tuned, we easily lose equilibrium.

.

Dear Galen,

.

Thanks for the link which, btw, should read as follows :

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

I am aware of most of the facts and arguments mentioned in Paul Craig Roberts' article.

Unfortunately, I'm pressed for time right now and shall have to come back to you on this.

Things are not quite as straight forward as Roberts would have us believe.

Allow me to simply observe, for the time being, that his reputation is slightly tarnished by the fact that he has also written articles promoting theories that the 9/11 attacks and the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris were false flag operations.

It is not the first time Roberts makes dramatic revelations that important historical events were, in fact, covert operations and not what they are generally held to be.

.