Dear Paul,

I'm sorry that this woman upset you.
As the old adage tells us:

The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on.

Or as Bruce Robinson stated:

If you're a junkyard dog,
you assume that's what life is -
all chained up, barking all day.

People who have actually read the Uluru Statement from the Heart say that if the document was to be renamed 'The Uluru Manifesto', like the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, it would be quite appropriate because "it is a document declaring a revolutionary political plan of action."

There are fourteen documents totalling 112 pages.

Aboriginal activism had its "genesis" in the Communist Party: revealed in two books, Geoff McDonald’s 'Red over Black' (1982), and 'The Evidence' (1983).

An article, 'The Hidden Documents Behind the Uluru Voice', by Chris Battle and Keith Windschuttle in Quadrant Online 23/9/33 (FREE READ) deals with:-

Chris Battle - Document 14 of 26 pages containing the "the essential bones, muscles, nerves, organs, blood and guts that animate the whole."

Battle believes that Document 14 is essential reading before voting, "particularly when Prime Minister Albanese just waves the page one Statement around …".

The 13 other documents that record the meeting records of the thirteen Regional Dialogues that "dispel any illusions that the Referendum is just about establishing a non-binding advisory body to Parliament concerning proposed laws that might affect Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, as the Yes campaigners would have us believe."

Keith Windschuttle also reveals information that wasn't meant to be made public, but which was procured via FOI.

It is a long article requiring concentration. I doubt that many posters will take the trouble to read it; but there is information. You just won't get it from Albanese and his gang.

"Farnham Gives You're the Voice song to the Voice to Parliament YES Campaign."

I wonder if that was his idea or if others approached him and pressured him to do it, not that it matters either way.

'Farnam refuses song use. Farnam hates indigenous'
Would headlines to that effect have been posted all over social media if he said no?
He seems like a pretty decent person, but I'm not sure he had much choice once asked, honestly.
But I guess his song will get a new lease on life.

Refusal could well be considered racist, by some.
"Farnam, you side with the racists!"

I bring it up, because it would be just like the Yes campaign to apply pressure the same way they've been doing so to everyone else.

They're quick to try to push their point of view with their own manipulation.
"This is one chance in a generation, it's the right thing to do", they say.
(That's manipulation btw, twice)
- "But don't listen to the No campaign, they sell fear and lies" they also say.

The government Yes campaign engages in the exact same kind of poor coercive behavior they are complaining the other side is supposedly doing.
- But it's no different than the coercive behavior the other government did during COVID.

The whole referendum is a pretty stupid waste of money if you ask me.
They made it too complicated for people to support it, and the message whatever it is has been poorly rolled out
-n but really what more should we ever expect from the incompetent political class.
Just a new breed of snouts wanting to get a share of the trough.

Dear Josephus,

You vomit up: "Foxy adores Marcia Langton for her Communist views to overthrow the Westminster Government [a colonial institution] and replace it with an Unelected Aboriginal Republic."

What is wrong with you people? How do you function normally? I mean you must engage with others in your day to day dealings. Or is this something you reserve for the anonymity of the forum, when you can squeeze your berserk little bile ducts to your heart's content?

What utter nonsense. Most people would be embarrassed thinking this much less writing it. How do you reconcile this internally?

Just so you know from here it just comes off as deranged idiocy. Rethink your life choices for gods sake.

The Institute of Public Affairs has received legal advice that the Voice question could be unconstitutional and misleads the voters, has a serious deficiency and could put the referendum itself in doubt.
https://youtu.be/nrBEQCRRxaQ?si=YGyyjvxrjASEvMsk

A far right mouth piece, The Institute of Public Affairs has received legal advice from one of their own legal eagles that the Voice question could be unconstitutional. The answer is simple, if they believe that, then why not test it in the High Court.