Search results for query: *

lots of rapes and deaths of women still going on in communities, are you saying that British rule is responsible for those too?

how many steps are there? Thought saying sorry was going to do it.

not as cheap as bunnings

mate of mine owns a cheap as chips style retail shop. Can tell you that they make bucketloads selling Oz day stuff. Possibly shoppers are focussed on other items at Woolies and Big W, but I doubt he's got the only shop in Australia that cashed in on that merchandise.

Not much experience I see.

lol indeed sir.

It’s not about the date, it’s about the celebration. Regardless of date and what it commemorates, it’ll always be a problem for the activist class. Change it to whatever you want to celebrate this country and nothing will change. It needs to be a day of mourning, nothing else will do.

Pretty sure someone hasn't been following the evidence.

hey, some whataboutism. Great way to start a day.

oh my.

but that's not actually the reason the government should be punished for this debacle though, is it?

but what if they don't agree with it?

couple of terrible performers in cabinet at the moment. I think Albo can turn it around, disapproval with him is a bit shallow I reckon. But his govt needs to improve in a hurry, he needs a reshuffle.

Old Albo didn't want to share the spoils given the high early yes polling. Anyway, country voted the right way, nit a single valid reason was provided in order to vote for change.

Seriously, it’s near impossible to discuss on merit with so many. You’re stating that the ‘question’ was in the form of the statement that ‘this is obviously bad….’ and then go on to say that voting yes requiring some form of effort is ridiculous. It’s rubbish, the question stood alone and...

Not sure I recall the coalition being invited into any discussions on the wording etc. What actually happened is the early polling made Albo think it was a slam dunk and why would he share this with them, they weren't required. What changed the vote was that the only response to genuine...

"and it might have bought a much needed positive change". Yeh, only the unthinking people would vote no to changing the constitution for a "might".

you forgetting the whole Higgins thing started with her paid interview?

the way it's been reported so far, the complainant consented to sex, but not condomless sex. Which, if proven, is sexual assault. But nothing to do with "surprise sleep sex tactics", she was ok with the intercourse part, but conditionally.

the gullible are the 40% that voted yes. No information was provided that could have led any normally thinking person to vote to change the constitution based upon the question posed. It's been especially hilarious reading all the concern for no voters peace of mind and psychological...