same sex marriage survey

[Max]

79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.

Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
majority.

I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.

[news16]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max wrote:

> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>
> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
> majority.

Tough, it like elections for pollies. It is decided by legitimate votes.
>
> I think

Really
?

[Ned Latham]

Max wrote:
>
> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>
> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.
> That is less than a majority.

It's a mojority of those who votedx.

> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.

That's not the way it works, Max, even in *real* democracies.

(Nor that there *are* any, but there used to be, and they defined
a majiruty as being of those who participated.)

[Petzl]

In Australia to change the constitution 66% or more are required for
change
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html


http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to:

Commonwealth;
(xxi) marriage;
(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto,
parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents
and if married it must be to an Australian
http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html

[de chucka]

On 15/11/2017 1:37 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:27:09 -0600, Ned Latham
> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>
>> Max wrote:
>>>
>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>
>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.
>>> That is less than a majority.
>>
>> It's a mojority of those who votedx.
>>
>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>
>> That's not the way it works, Max, even in *real* democracies.
>>
>> (Nor that there *are* any, but there used to be, and they defined
>> a majiruty as being of those who participated.)
>
> In Australia to change the constitution 66% or more are required for
> change
> http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html

Wrong

>
>
> http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
> Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
> The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
> make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
> Commonwealth with respect to:
>
> Commonwealth;
> (xxi) marriage;
> (xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto,
> parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;

You are wrong it is not a constitutional matter
>

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:46:51 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Not according to "our" Christian High Court
In October 2013, same-sex marriage was legalised in the ACT. The ACT
legislation was overturned by the High Court for being
constitutionally invalid.
This was due to the definition of the term 'marriage' in the Marriage
Act, which excludes all types of marriage other than that between one
man and one woman
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html

[de chucka]

and now the Act will change

[Pelican]

The High Court held that the ACT law was inconsistent with the federal
law, so that it was invalid. It wasn't a Constitutional issue case, but
whether a law of a Territory could co-exist with a law on the
Commonwealth. It could not, so it failed.

A case like this between a State law and the Commonwealth law would be
resolved by section 109 on the Constitution. But Territories ain't
States, so section 109 can't apply there.

[Pelican]

That is, the federal Act will change (maybe) so the ACT law would not be
relevant.

[Government Shill #2]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:37:57 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:27:09 -0600, Ned Latham
><nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>
>>Max wrote:
>>>
>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>
>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.
>>> That is less than a majority.
>>
>>It's a mojority of those who votedx.
>>
>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>
>>That's not the way it works, Max, even in *real* democracies.
>>
>>(Nor that there *are* any, but there used to be, and they defined
>>a majiruty as being of those who participated.)
>
>In Australia to change the constitution 66% or more are required for
>change
>http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html

And this is not a constitutional question, otherwise it could have been decided
by a referendum, instead of a plebiscite, or a postal survey.

This is a law that can only be changed by the parliament. The postal survey's
only task was to show the parliament the mood of the electorate. A popularity
quiz.

For a law to pass the parliament it needs a one vote majority in the reps and
the senate. Should be easy.

Shill #2
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

[Petzl]

The High Court and the Meaning of 'Marriage' in Section
51(xxi) of the Constitution

Thus, in 1901 'marriage' was seen as meaning a voluntary union of life
between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If that
level of abstraction were now accepted, it would deny the Parliament
of the Commonwealth the power to legislate for same sex marriages.
--
Petzl
Australia's parliament needs to obey our Constitutions, the judiciary must apply the law!
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth’.

[Petzl]

[Pelican]

Bad luck. The High Court won't decide that. If it was likely, there
was no need for Howard to change the marriage legislation. The High
Court will allow the marriage legislation to define what "marriage" is,
just as it has frequently declined to restrict words in the Constitution
to a narrow meaning.

[Pelican]

Bad luck, whinger.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
to prevent them having access to children.

[Petzl]

More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
Australia To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?

[Pelican]

Should have happened long ago.

> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?

It's a secular Commonwealth. But feel free to whine on.

[Pelican]

I fart in your general direction.

[Phil Allison]

Petzl the Retard wrote:

-------------------------

>
> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
> Australia
>

** Utter garbage.

The true ratio is a about ten to 15 times the other way round.


... Phil

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:04:15 +1100, Pelican

When did that referendum happen?

[Ned Latham]

Pelican wrote:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
>> Australia To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>
> Should have happened long ago.

You approve of humbug, huh?

Wgat a surprise.

[news16]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>

>>Bad luck, whinger.
>
> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia

What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.

> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.

Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.

> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?

n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.

[felix]

but we bend over backwards not to offend muslims, don't we

--
Australians have spoken, love is
love, so I'm marrying my cat

[FMurtz]

I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
against same sex bills?

[Phil Allison]

FMurtz wrote:

------------------

>
>
> >
> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
> against same sex bills?
>
>

** Both the Lib/Nats and Labor have agreed to make voting on the SSM bill a "conscience vote".

Since only 17 out of 150 federal electorates voted NO there is no issue here at all.


.... Phil

[Pelican]

It was always a secular Commonwealth. No referendum was required.

[Pelican]

You might. I don't.

[Phil Allison]

Pelican the Pedo Poof wrote:

-----------------------------

>
> > but we bend over backwards not to offend muslims, don't we
>
> You might. I don't.
>

** That's true - cos the Pedo spends his life bent over forwards.




..... Phil

[de chucka]

51(xxi) of the Constitution clearly states 51(xxi) of the Constitution.
Section 51(xxi) states: The Parliament has powers to make laws about
marriage. So SSM is not a constitutional matter

[de chucka]

On 15/11/2017 11:21 PM, FMurtz wrote:
> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> 79.5% of people voted.  61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>
>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.  That is less than a
>>> majority.
>>>
>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>
>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>
> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no,

NSW voted yes

politicians think
> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
> against same sex bills?

It is free vote, try and keep up

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:47:54 +1100, Pelican

Not according to those that voted for Federation and without the fact
that Australia was to be a Christian Commonwealth the vote would of
been stillborn!

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:49:23 +1100, Pelican

Going against Christians you are!
--
Petzl

You're not being tolerant. You're not being inclusive. You're not being open-minded... You're being conquered."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ-4y-3UMAAVWQD.jpg

Italian immigration was an advance point for Australia, followed by Greek immigration, then Asian all provided positive growth, benefits.

The failure has and is Moslem immigration where over 30 years they are planted in West Sydney it is a proven disaster which is forbidden to be spoken about.
Reality is
This is a Islamic invasion/war by Stealth!

Moslems are also history killers and twist historical facts and truth they call taqiyya kitman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Facts are:-
This Trojan horse invasion by Moslems was invented by Mohammed when he and his marauding followers fled Mecca in AD 622 to Yathrib now called Medina. Claiming “refugee status”
Medina welcomed them as “our” government does today!

ISIS is doing nothing that the Moslem’s “Prophet” Mohammed wouldn’t do!
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html

Mohammad himself was once a (claimed) refugee taken in by the Jewish run city of Medina, then called Yathrib (fleeing Mecca AD 622).
https://www.britannica.com/event/Hijrah-Islam
Within five years, Mohammed (joining with other invading “marauding refugees”) had driven out, executed, or enslaved every Jew living in Medina
https://www.britannica.com/place/Medina-Saudi-Arabia

For around 1,400 years Islam has produced the major majority of the worlds “refugees”! Always fleeing from what they created!

Still the same today!

This Trojan horse invasion continues WHY?
Moslems and Islam are of course synonymous with terror!
It was and is a CRIME to allow Moslems in. Every politician is obligated to know the history of foreign people they bring in. If they had done even a little bit of study they would have found a bloodthirsty people, full of hate and terrorism.?

Mohammad invented this sort of invasion by stealth, Centuries old still used today.
The success of thier blood lust carnage is that Moslem have made their Calender year begining AD 622

"Our" repomse is to declare a war on thw TACTIC "terror"?
1: You can’t declare war on a tactic – TERROR.
2: You can’t win if the “Good Guys” your soldiers are dying for are just a different type of bad guy.
3: You can’t win if you promote the problem – ISLAM.
4: And you can’t win overseas if you are losing at home
https://youtu.be/6CS1R1SAjBE

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>

I'm part Aboriginal?
--
Petzl
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead.

[Government Shill #2]

Stupid beliefs deserve ridicule.

Shill #2
--
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
positions.
Thomas Jefferson

[Pelican]

Ho-hum.

[Petzl]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
areas voted no?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOq8iolU8AAh0hx.jpg

[Pelican]

Jedi Knight, are you?

[Pelican]

On 16/11/2017 07:32, Petzl wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>
>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>
>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>>
>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>
>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>
>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>
>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>
> I'm part Aboriginal?

Which part?

[Pelican]

On 16/11/2017 07:42, Petzl wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>>>> majority.
>>>>
>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>
>>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>>
>> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
>> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
>> against same sex bills?
>
>
> Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
> areas voted no?
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOq8iolU8AAh0hx.jpg

The end result is that the people of Australia voted "yes". The
legislation will follow.

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 7:42 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>>>> majority.
>>>>
>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>
>>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>>
>> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
>> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
>> against same sex bills?
>
>
> Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
> areas voted no?

I'll answer your question the vast majority of Labor electorates voted
yes as did the vast majority of people who had there say
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOq8iolU8AAh0hx.jpg
>

[Government Shill #2]

I think Christian are as bad as Muslims, Jew, Hindus and the rest.

Expecting people to behave the same way you do, based on some fictitious
nonsense in a book, is utter bullshit. Feel free to believe whatever crap you
want, but stop telling other people how to act, who to marry, what they should
do with their own bodies, and when they can die.


“You’re allowed to believe in a god. You’re allowed to believe unicorns live in
your shoes for all I care. But the day you start telling me how to wear my shoes
so I don’t upset the unicorns, I have a problem with you. The day you start
involving the unicorns in making decisions for this country, I have a BIG
problem with you.”

Matthew Shultz


Shill #2
--
There was once a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This
time was called The Dark Ages.
Richard Lederer

[de chucka]

It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 7:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>
>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>
>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>>
>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>
>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>
>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>
>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>
> I'm part Aboriginal?

You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962 or Q'land till 1965

[Pelican]

On 16/11/2017 08:04, de chucka wrote:
>
>
> It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey

How or why people voted is now irrelevant and a distraction. The issue
is getting the legislation made.

[de chucka]

Oh I agree but was commenting on the claim

[Government Shill #2]

I wasn't talking about the survey. I was addressing Pretzl's "Going against
Christians you are!" :-)

Shill #2
--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
Vique

[Pelican]

The "no" side will now try to muddy the waters and deflect attention
from the main game.

[de chucka]

Of course they will but it is now in the hands of the politicians and
they know the views of those that elect them.

[Petzl]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:04:33 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Seems those that did were labor voters, South West Sydney was a
resounding no

The Labor politicians (all run by the crooked and not Australian or
Christian) claim they will support the yes vote.

Same applies to the Coalition
--
Petzl
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for Islam and Sharia.

[Pelican]

There is a clear majority in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate to get the job done.

[Petzl]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:11:26 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

My Grandmothers family only snidely talked about it

[Pelican]

On 16/11/2017 08:55, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:11:26 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2017 7:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>>>
>>>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>>>>
>>>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>>>
>>>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>>>
>>>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>>>
>>>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>>>
>>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>>
>> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
>> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962 or Q'land till 1965
>
> My Grandmothers family only snidely talked about it

So, what's your mob?

[de chucka]

Yep 12 out 0f 29 Sydney electorates voted no

>
> The Labor politicians (all run by the crooked and not Australian or
> Christian) claim they will support the yes vote.

They should vote yes if their electorate said yes and no if it voted no.

60% 0f Senators should vote Yes, 40% no based on the results. Does that
make it representative enough for you?

[de chucka]

'Goonbagerians'' maybe

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 8:55 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:11:26 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2017 7:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>>>
>>>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>>>>
>>>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>>>
>>>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>>>
>>>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>>>
>>>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>>>
>>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>>
>> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
>> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962 or Q'land till 1965
>
> My Grandmothers family only snidely talked about it

So you're bloody lucky this country has moved on or you could be refused
entry into your bottle shop on the base of your colour

[Pelican]

That's not correct. The vote was not about how individual electorates
might vote, which amounts to single-issue politics. It was a national
vote about what Australia thought about a specific issue.

We now know the answer, and it's a clear "Yes".

The vote on the legislation should proceed along normal lines, similar
to a formal referendum. We know what the political leaders think and
what the majority of MPs think. The outcome is a no-brainer.

Abbott and the rest of the loonies have been decisively sidelined by the
vote.

> 60% 0f Senators should vote Yes, 40% no based on the results. Does that
> make it representative enough for you?
>
>>
>> Same applies to the Coalition

You should know how pointless it is to argue with the brain-dead.

[Pelican]

Now, now. Don't make fun of the less fortunate. On the other hand,
there is no law about having fun...

[de chucka]

The vote was broken down by electorate so the members knows how the
people they represent feel. I think it would be fair for a politician to
follow their electorates feelings even if they disagree.

It was a national
> vote about what Australia thought about a specific issue.
>
> We now know the answer, and it's a clear "Yes".
>
> The vote on the legislation should proceed along normal lines, similar
> to a formal referendum.

Legislation for a referendum comes before a vote

We know what the political leaders think and
> what the majority of MPs think.  The outcome is a no-brainer.

Of course it is

>
> Abbott and the rest of the loonies have been decisively sidelined by the
> vote.

Certainly have

[Petzl]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:50:51 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

South West Sydney Labour Areas didn't

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtVXNWVQAAPzJ0.jpg
--
Petzl
Same Sex Marriage
It is ok to vote no.
"two blokes and a cocker spaniel don't make a family"

You'll never believe why the Army sacked
this decorated intelligence officer
https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 9:55 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:50:51 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2017 7:42 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>>>>>> majority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>>>>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>>>>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>>>>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>>>>
>>>> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
>>>> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
>>>> against same sex bills?
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
>>> areas voted no?
>>
>> I'll answer your question the vast majority of Labor electorates voted
>> yes as did the vast majority of people who had there say
>
> South West Sydney Labour Areas didn't

and your point is what?

>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtVXNWVQAAPzJ0.jpg
>

[Government Shill #2]

Because a lot of holy book believers live there?

Shill #2
--
"Everyone has the right to believe anything they want.
And everyone else has the right to find it fucking ridiculous."
Ricky Gervais

[Pelican]

That holy book has its basis in the Jewish holy texts, and the Christian
holy texts. There are far greater links between these religious texts
than differences.

The differences come from the crazies who claim a knowledge of the texts
and the correct interpretation of the texts. Needless to say, none of
those crazies has a clue about the central entity involved, which is the
self-same entity in the mono-theistic religions.

[Government Shill #2]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:29:35 +1100, Pelican <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir>
wrote:

I know.

>The differences come from the crazies who claim a knowledge of the texts
>and the correct interpretation of the texts. Needless to say, none of
>those crazies has a clue about the central entity involved, which is the
>self-same entity in the mono-theistic religions.

To me they are all crazy. Belief without reason is ridiculous.

Shill #2
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and
evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins

[Pelican]

People have to be free to believe what they please, however ridiculous
it is. It's when they want to impose those beliefs on others that there
is a problem.

[de chucka]

Very high Islamic population so pez will be happy they support him

[Ned Latham]

The Shitwit Shill wrote:
>
> I think Christian are as bad as Muslims, Jew, Hindus and the rest.

You think wrongly. The first three add institutionalised bigotry
to the other evils of religion. They alone are resoponsible for
the hundreds of millions murdered in the name of religion. Thay
alone are responsibke for religious genocide. They alone "persuade"
conversion ny torture and threats of death.

They are far worse than the rest.

[Phil Allison]

de chucka wrote:

-----------------

> They should vote yes if their electorate said yes and no if it voted no.
>
> 60% 0f Senators should vote Yes, 40% no based on the results.
>

** Huh ??

12 senators are elected by each state ( plus a couple for the territories) and all states voted YES.


.... Phil

[Government Shill #2]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:38:04 +1100, Pelican <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir>

Yep.

Shill #2
--
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it,
but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE
don't try to shove it down my child's throat. - Anon

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 11:16 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> de chucka wrote:
>
> -----------------
>
>
>> They should vote yes if their electorate said yes and no if it voted no.
>>
>> 60% 0f Senators should vote Yes, 40% no based on the results.
>>
>
> ** Huh ??
>
> 12 senators are elected by each state ( plus a couple for the territories) and all states voted YES.

but as they represent the State a a whole there votes should represent
that States view in proportion to the vote

As I've said before I bet you they try and get it through on the voices
so we won't know how they would of voted and they can tell their
electorate anything . If I was a member I'd be yelling no to force them
all to show their hand

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ts3o0d9l8o2o236tn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:04:15 +1100, Pelican
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>>On 15/11/2017 19:56, Petzl wrote:

>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/11/2017 19:03, Petzl wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:42:58 +1100, Government Shill #2
>>>>> <gov....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:37:57 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:27:09 -0600, Ned Latham
>>>>>>> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.
>>>>>>>>> That is less than a majority.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's a mojority of those who votedx.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>>>>>>

> When did that referendum happen?

Didn't need one, that's what the constitution says.

[news16]

Nope, the real South West voted YES. It was the core of the real Sydney,
as opposed to CBD, that voted No
>

[felix]

those who elect

--
Australians have spoken, love is
love, so I'm marrying my cat

[Rod Speed]

"news16" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:ouh6t0$7p4$6...@dont-email.me...

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>

>>>Bad luck, whinger.
>>
>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>

> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>

>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.

> Yep, the owners decided to ban it

They aint the owners.

> as few people climbed it.
>

>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>

[Rod Speed]

"felix" <felix@real_felix.invalid> wrote in message
news:f72n5e...@mid.individual.net...
> On 15/11/2017 8:04 PM, Pelican wrote:

>> On 15/11/2017 19:56, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican

>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>
>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in

>>> Australia To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>
>> Should have happened long ago.
>>

>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>

>> It's a secular Commonwealth. But feel free to whine on.
>
>

> but we bend over backwards not to offend muslims, don't we

Nope.

[Rod Speed]

"FMurtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a0c315d$0$2191$b1db1813$aa81...@news.astraweb.com...
> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:

>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>
>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>>> majority.
>>>

>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>

>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>
> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think their
> constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote against same
> sex bills?

Corse they are allowed to and some have said they will do.

[de chucka]

To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>
>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it
>
> They aint the owners.

'They aren't'

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:vd8p0dhetjrpeke17...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:47:54 +1100, Pelican
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>>On 15/11/2017 20:58, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:04:15 +1100, Pelican

>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/11/2017 19:56, Petzl wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/11/2017 19:03, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:42:58 +1100, Government Shill #2
>>>>>>> <gov....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:37:57 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:27:09 -0600, Ned Latham
>>>>>>>>> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is less than a majority.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It's a mojority of those who votedx.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>> When did that referendum happen?
>>

>>It was always a secular Commonwealth. No referendum was required.
>
> Not according to those that voted for Federation

They are irrelevant. What matters is what the constitution says.

> and without the fact that Australia was to be a Christian Commonwealth

That is a bare faced lie.

> the vote would of been stillborn!

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something, Abdullah.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:iv8p0dhhlgiv2f5e9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:49:23 +1100, Pelican
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>>On 15/11/2017 22:36, felix wrote:

>>> but we bend over backwards not to offend muslims, don't we
>>

>>You might. I don't.
>
> Going against Christians

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, Abdullah.

> you are!

Nope.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:629p0dth7kpedfslg...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>

> wrote:

>
>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>

>>>>Bad luck, whinger.
>>>
>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in Australia
>>

>>What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>

>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.

>>Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.

>>
>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>

>>n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>

> I'm part Aboriginal?

Then do the decent thing and hang yourself.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:m39p0dhakc9m08g8r...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>Lucifer Morningstar wrote:

>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>>>> majority.
>>>>

>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>

>>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>>
>>I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
>>their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
>>against same sex bills?
>
>

> Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
> areas voted no?

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOq8iolU8AAh0hx.jpg

Coz recent immigrants stupidly vote Labor, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message
news:oui926$eha$5...@dont-email.me...

> On 16/11/2017 07:32, Petzl wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>
>>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>>
>>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
>>>> Australia
>>>
>>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>>
>>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>>
>>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>>
>>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>>
>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>

> Which part?

The arse, stupid.

[Phil Allison]

de chucka wrote:

-----------------------

> >
> >> They should vote yes if their electorate said yes and no if it voted no.
> >>
> >> 60% 0f Senators should vote Yes, 40% no based on the results.
> >>
> >
> > ** Huh ??
> >
> > 12 senators are elected by each state ( plus a couple for the territories) and all states voted YES.
>
> but as they represent the State a a whole there votes should represent
> that States view in proportion to the vote
>
>

** Wot absurd crap.



.... Phil

[Rod Speed]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67GdnRr2VagfMJHH...@westnet.com.au...

> On 16/11/2017 7:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>
>>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>>
>>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
>>>> Australia
>>>
>>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>>
>>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>>
>>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>>
>>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>>
>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>

> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962 or Q'land till 1965

He shouldn’t be allowed to vote now.

[Rod Speed]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message

news:ouic43$770$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 16/11/2017 08:31, de chucka wrote:
>> On 16/11/2017 8:17 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2017 08:04, de chucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey
>>>
>>> How or why people voted is now irrelevant and a distraction. The issue
>>> is getting the legislation made.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh I agree but was commenting on the claim
>
>
> The "no" side will now try to muddy the waters and deflect attention from
> the main game.

Those homos that are stupid enough to want
to get married will be able to do so anyway.

But the churches etc wont have to marry them.

[Rod Speed]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Y--dnacko4AGKZHH...@westnet.com.au...

> On 16/11/2017 8:38 AM, Pelican wrote:
>> On 16/11/2017 08:31, de chucka wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2017 8:17 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2017 08:04, de chucka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey
>>>>
>>>> How or why people voted is now irrelevant and a distraction. The issue
>>>> is getting the legislation made.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I agree but was commenting on the claim
>>
>>
>> The "no" side will now try to muddy the waters and deflect attention from
>> the main game.
>>
>
>

> Of course they will but it is now in the hands of the politicians and they
> know the views of those that elect them.

They know that about euthanasia and the death penalty too, and don’t care.

[de chucka]

Do they? Could you give me figures by Federal electorate?

[Rod Speed]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:BZqdnYvJINHKJ5HH...@westnet.com.au...
> On 16/11/2017 8:55 AM, Petzl wrote:

>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:11:26 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/11/2017 7:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:57 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:56:14 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:23:30 +1100, Pelican
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bad luck, whinger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More people each year climb Ayers rock, than there are gays in
>>>>>> Australia
>>>>>
>>>>> What, there won't b any economic boon from all those gay weddings.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To not offend Aboriginals this is now banned.
>>>>> Yep, the owners decided to ban it as few people climbed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem with offending Christians in our Christian Commonwealth?
>>>>>
>>>>> n the banning affects everyone, inmcluding non-christians.
>>>>
>>>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>>>
>>> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
>>> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962 or Q'land till 1965
>>

>> My Grandmothers family only snidely talked about it
>
> So you're bloody lucky this country has moved on or you could be refused
> entry into your bottle shop on the base of your colour

He always is, the green about the gills puts the other customers off.

[Rod Speed]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jrip0d9ihjd12sqk2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:55:28 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:50:51 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:

>>
>>>On 16/11/2017 7:42 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:21:34 +1100, FMurtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:13:22 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> majority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not all bad for us No voters. Now we are a minority so we can
>>>>>> push for all sorts of special rights! We can refuse to respect gay
>>>>>> so called marriage. We can make fun of them and propose laws
>>>>>> to prevent them having access to children.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder,if NSW or any other places that voted no, politicians think
>>>>> their constituents may vote them out of office are allowed to vote
>>>>> against same sex bills?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems those that swamped with the "yes" vote were liberal areas, Labor
>>>> areas voted no?
>>>

>>>I'll answer your question the vast majority of Labor electorates voted
>>>yes as did the vast majority of people who had there say
>>
>>South West Sydney Labour Areas didn't
>>
>>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtVXNWVQAAPzJ0.jpg
>
> Because a lot of holy book believers live there?

Nope, the more recent immigrants.

[Rod Speed]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1mjp0ddm75im4pf2q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:29:35 +1100, Pelican
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir>
> wrote:

>>That holy book has its basis in the Jewish holy texts, and the Christian
>>holy texts. There are far greater links between these religious texts
>>than differences.
>
> I know.
>
>>The differences come from the crazies who claim a knowledge of the texts
>>and the correct interpretation of the texts. Needless to say, none of
>>those crazies has a clue about the central entity involved, which is the
>>self-same entity in the mono-theistic religions.
>
> To me they are all crazy. Belief without reason is ridiculous.

But not crazy.

[Rod Speed]

"Ned Latham" <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrnp0pldt.2...@woden.valhalla.oz...

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage, and that’s saying something.

[Ned Latham]

The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote:

> Petzl wrote:
>>
>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>
> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962

1967, moron.

[de chucka]

1962 WA allowed Aboriginals to vote, 1965 for Queensland and in 1962 the
Commonwealth Electoral Act was changed to allow Aboriginals to vote.
The other States allowed Aboriginals to vote from before Federation.

Thus ends ned's education for today

[Ned Latham]

The Rod Walloper wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Shitwit Shill wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Christian are as bad as Muslims, Jew, Hindus and the rest.
> >
> > You think wrongly. The first three add institutionalised bigotry
> > to the other evils of religion. They alone are resoponsible for
> > the hundreds of millions murdered in the name of religion.
> > Thay alone are responsibke for religious genocide.
>

> > They alone "persuade" conversion by torture and threats of death.
>
> Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.

Were it wrong, Woddy, that would be dead easy to prove.

Can you show evidence of a polytheist religion that "persuades"
conversion by torture and threats of death?

> > The monotheisms are far worse than the rest.

[Pelican]

Come in spinner!

[de chucka]

https://www.ancient.eu/Akhenaten/

[Ned Latham]

See the word "federally" in your text? Get yourself a dictionary
and look up the word "federally". Note that it does not involve
the dtates.

Now look up the 1967 referendum. See of you can work out what it is
that the 1967 referebndum did in relation to aborigines.

(Hint. Federal voting is involved.)

[Ned Latham]

You failed, moron.

[Petzl]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:24:11 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:54:05 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:04:33 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>>>On 16/11/2017 8:00 AM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey
>>

>> Seems those that did were labor voters, South West Sydney was a
>> resounding no
>
>Nope, the real South West voted YES. It was the core of the real Sydney,
>as opposed to CBD, that voted No


not according to this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtVXNWVQAAPzJ0.jpg
--
Petzl
Our parliaments need to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law
"Dieu et mon droit" God is my legal right

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 1:13 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote:
>> On 16/11/2017 12:23 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote:
>>>> Petzl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm part Aboriginal?
>>>>
>>>> You're bloody lucky things have changed since 1902 or you wouldn't have
>>>> been able to vote Federally or in WA till 1962
>>>
>>> 1967, moron.
>>
>> 1962 WA allowed Aboriginals to vote, 1965 for Queensland and in 1962 the
>> Commonwealth Electoral Act was changed to allow Aboriginals to vote.
>> The other States allowed Aboriginals to vote from before Federation.
>>
>> Thus ends ned's education for today
>
> See the word "federally" in your text? Get yourself a dictionary
> and look up the word "federally". Note that it does not involve
> the dtates.


>
> Now look up the 1967 referendum. See of you can work out what it is
> that the 1967 referebndum did in relation to aborigines.

Until 1949 most Aboriginals could not vote Federally under the 1902 Act.
The 1949 Act allowed Aboriginals to vote Federally if they were able to
vote in their State. 1962 The Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to
allow all Aboriginals to vote federally but they still couldn't vote
Q'land or WA state elections.
The 1967 referendum was NOT about allowing Aboriginals to become
citizens or allowing to them vote in Federal elections

>
> (Hint. Federal voting is involved.)

No it isn't

[de chucka]

On 16/11/2017 1:22 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:24:11 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:54:05 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:04:33 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2017 8:00 AM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a myth that all Christians voted no in the survey
>>>
>>> Seems those that did were labor voters, South West Sydney was a
>>> resounding no
>>
>> Nope, the real South West voted YES. It was the core of the real Sydney,
>> as opposed to CBD, that voted No
>
>
> not according to this
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtVXNWVQAAPzJ0.jpg
>

depends how you define SW, I think it shitbox places like Campbelltown
and Macarther