Is Mise,

I tend to go with the historical facts.
Which I've quoted for you from reputable sources.

We're all entitled to our opinions of course,
as I indicated earlier - but not our own facts.
And as Mr Turnbull will attest - there was
one referendum that was lost in his time - otherwise
we would be a republic today.

But hey, as I told you - of course your opinions
matter.

Just not to me.

Foxy,

Read and learn, a Referendum is held to ascertain the will of the electors and whatever the outcome in relation to the question asked/proposals the will of the voters is shewn in the result; thus all Referendums are successful.

The Referendum to which you refer was not lost, it didn't belong exclusively to the Republican element and their perjured MPs, but belonged to all Australians and the people, in a successful vote decided that they wanted nought to do with a Republic as proposed by the elitist "we will decide what is best for you" brigade.

Turnbull lost the first big step in his campaign to become President, but that was the a gain for Australia.

Is Mise,

Since 1901 - 19 referendums have proposed 44 changes to
the Constitution. Only 8 have been agreed to.

These are recorded facts.

As for your opinion on Mr Turnbull? It's your opinion.
Just as you think the Queen is Australian, guns are
necessary, and violence is OK.

Take care and stay safe.

Foxy,

"Since 1901 - 19 referendums have proposed 44 changes to
the Constitution. Only 8 have been agreed to.

These are recorded facts."

Another fact is that Referendums cannot fail or be lost because they are not a competition but a means of finding out the peoples' will in a recognized and secure manner and this they always do.

All Australian referendums have been successful, 100% of them.

Is Mise,

You're arguing with yourself.

Give it a rest.

Foxy,

"Just as you think the Queen is Australian, guns are
necessary, and violence is OK."

and I'm right.

Don't you think that guns are necessary?

Violence when it is necessary is OK as you have demonstrated.
Unless, of course, you think that war is not violent, that policemen never have to restrain violent people by using appropriate violence.

What you do demonstrate is a complete unwillingness to recognize reality,
I took your advice and consulted two WWII veterans as to whether the New Guinea campaign was violent.
They both said, "You gotta be kiddin'" and one added that the Desert campaign was a picnic by comparassion.

How're you going on Weary Dunlop's pistols?

Still in denial?