-
Latest Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
-
A vote for the Voice is a vote for a national ban on free speech
This entry was posted in Left-wing extremism, Left-wing hypocrisy, Social media. Bookmark the permalink.
If simply voting No is racist, advocating a No vote must be racist.
Maybe it would be easier if the ALP Government simply filled out all the referendum votes for us.
I thought the AEC were already doing that!
I’m from the “F**ken Sick of It Tribe”.
Roger W (1pm). I already explained the following on the earlier thread about sporting outfits “supporting” Albo’s Voice…..but will repeat.
So what if some low-IQ leftist shrieks “racist”? The fate of Albo’s Voice will be decided in the voting booths = the massive defeat of Albo’s Vanity Project will occur IN PRIVATE, and will have zero to do with Albo’s mates and their shrieking in public..
I thought the AEC were already doing that!
I’ve always thought that’s what happened with the SSM “plebiscite”…
How to “better understand racism”?
Cast the net wide; they don’t seem to understand this will encourage more resentment/’racism’. Or maybe they do.
The Pirate of Piffle revisits Folau. It’s behind a paywall. Does anyone have access?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/flagging-the-lack-of-logic-in-response-to-folau-backlash-20230526-p5dblf.html
Thanks, Ando. What a grub:
Has “The Pirate of Piffle” (love that ‘and’) transitioned or just displaying his simian brain synapses?
Not the slightest bit of sympathy from me for rugby.
All Rugby Australia had to do was ignore what Folau wrote and not sack him.
Instead, in a public display of woke virtue-signalling they scored an own goal.
Folau saying to someone who doesn’t believe in hell, that they will go to hell if they don’t repent, is no big deal. Someone who believes in any religion that labels homosexual acts as ones that require repentance and does not repent after performing them, has decided to choose homosexuality over their religion. In my book, that’s their choice. The only big deal here seems to be feeble minded people who think that they should take moral guidance from footballers.
And sports administrators who want to tell their player how to think.
Interesting. If you don’t believe in religion or it’s tenets, then why would you give a plook about Hell?
Hell in St Paul is clearly about not inheriting the Kingdom of God.
No reason why the republican FitzSimons is not championing Folau.
They don’t fear hell, in fact they’re busy endorsing it, on earth.
What they do fear is people of Christian faith, because they are called to personal examination and a belief in a power beyond the here and now.
They are Authoritarians, and the faithful are out of reach of their threatss and punishments.
Well put, Wally.
It’s an “imbroglio” now, when people who sign a contract are expected to pay what they promised to pay.
If your only argument is to tell lies about the other guy … then you already lost the argument. Thanks for playing.
Leftists hate competition for ideas. Just like the old time inquisition priests they pretend to be superior to.
Thanks, C.L.
Obvious is that, from the Folau saga, the jackass Pirate learned nothing of value… zip.
If your only argument is to tell lies about the other guy … then you already lost the argument.
There are a number of inflammatory lies in just this short Pirate piece. At the time, the Goth head of Strine RU conceded that people had the right to hold religious beliefs BUT should not express them in a public forum if those beliefs conflicted with an employer’s stance. This is contradictory and takes a baseball bat to religious rights.
It seems that sensibility prevailed with the RU defense team, concluding that the chance of success in the courtroom (re unfair dismissal) was slim, if that. Therefore, Strine RU settled out of court for millions. It’s just too much logic for the Pirate’s puny cross-wired thinking to accept that RU was in the wrong… that’s why they settled out of court, still now blaming Folau for the “imbroglio”.
There’s the use of the tired lie of the concocted “homophobia”.
Then there’s the demand for remorse/apology from Folau for quoting the Bible.
The Pirate is a mind-addled authoritarian… kombucha-sipping bully… running on hate masqueraded as “nouveaux morality”. It’s pathetic. It’s sad. But he pursues this path with a [deranged] passion.
The Pirate of Piffle has not only found the wide way that leads to disaster, but may well have found the express lane therein.
what and says…
Did you hear the one about Hidea Snorp lodging a human rights complaint against the Greens?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/may/28/australia-news-live-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton-lidia-thorpe-richard-marles-indigenous-voice
It is apparent that those who want to ban speech are running 2 related claims. One is that “hate talk” is not speech at all, and thus banningi it need not be justified. This is calculated to avoid the relevance of common law, statutory (such as the ACT Human Rights Act) and constitutional protections of speech.
Two is that any kind of speech is disregarded if it’s not “truthful”. This seems to be what Stan Grant meant when he said that ABC “balancing” opinions did not warrant making room for untruthful speakers.
Both doctrines are quite pernicious.
I didn’t understand why his attackers supposedly cared about Hell.
Evidently, what’s unbearable to Fitzsimons is that Folau didn’t back off “a jot”.
The voice yes commercial that says the constitution does not represent indigenous Australians is untruthful, the constitution currently treats all people equally, that also means all people are represented in it and to name one group over all others is simply racism.