Maybe the poor old chap sitting under the gum-tree
would get more if he had a Voice to Parliament?
If someone actually asked him what he wanted?

I didn't actually consider Maverick one of the extremists- there you go- bit early to tell- but it's notable that they often put up their own hands. I liked the list of First Nations Voices to Parliament. I'll have to parse the thread for commun-ism's.

Yeah you Fox you :)

After 10 earlier Voice like bodies advising government in Canberra since the 1970s...

Maybe yet another Voice of mostly white blood Voice politicians, living in Canberra

can:

Send an SMS or Tweet promising change,

via Aboriginal Corporations, staffed by the same old group of mainly white blood fly-in/fly-out officials

to that "poor old chap sitting under the gum-tree"

An interesting Guardian article of 20th Feb http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/20/voice-referendum-whos-behind-the-yes-and-no-campaigns-and-how-do-they-plan-to-convince-australia

TITLE: "Voice referendum: who’s behind the yes and no campaigns and how do they plan to convince Australia?"

As for Maverick's comment about "peaceful OLO commenters"- since when is pointing out ideological violence a violent act? Is this victim blaming by implication?

Taking the generous interpretation...

There are those seeking the middle ground that find themselves dragged further to the far left- but that's just what I've learned from hard experience. The Left label Traditionalist views as far right or extremist- when they were the original moderate position held even by the ALP before the split. It's a framing trick designed to bias the debate in favour of the far left. But not everyone is smart enough to recognize it or they have a perceived vested interest in the bias. Read up on the Overton Window and Negotiating Tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/10-hardball-tactics-in-negotiation/

One common Communist tactic appears to be "possibility is probability"- this seems to have been used in the gay marriage "debate"- which wasn't a debate because one side wasn't allowed to express their viewpoint. In business it's considered important for all stakeholders to be able to express their opinion. Governments and businesses that fail to recognize the underlying interests of the stakeholders are likely to experience later failures.

In my view Aboriginals are never going to be happy. It's a no win scenario. Already Aboriginal's get more than British Australian's and other out groups. Aboriginal's don't seem to want self governed territories (this would be my preference) and they don't seem capable of sustaining such an autonomous territory. It seems it's simply a shakedown so that they can drink themselves to death at British Australian expense and then blame it all on the British Australian's. We don't force Aboriginals to drink the alcohol and sniff petrol- we don't force Aboriginal's to engage in the behavior that we find appalling.

The left seem to be exploiting this situation for their own benefit- proxy war. At least some of these lefties have some Aboriginal genetics and are showing some entrepreneurial acumen. But I wouldn't compare Lidia Thorpe with Ernie Dingo.

The Aboriginal's should pay the British a number of debt's too- personally I feel that most of the debt is on the Aboriginal side- but it's complicated.

One way to win in politics I suppose is to find landscape too extreme for the opposition to follow- then call the opposition extreme.