Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Gronk]

I'm fat and many trendy stores don't stock my size, I don't feel equal in the community or society in general......do you care about me, Gronk?

Today is about your right to marry the person you love. I do not know your sexuality, however whoever is special in your life, you should have the right to marry them if that is your mutual wish.

The legislation introduced to parliament today proposes to reverse the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act when the definition was changed from "two people" to "man and woman". It did not go to a plebiscite in 2004 and Howard instigated the change. Accordingly times have changed and it needs to revert to the old definition - without the need to go to a $200M vote. We all want it. Get it done.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

 

[Gronk]

Is this guy a big deal ?

 

[Kornstar]

Today is about your right to marry the person you love. I do not know your sexuality, however whoever is special in your life, you should have the right to marry them if that is your mutual wish.

The legislation introduced to parliament today proposes to reverse the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act when the definition was changed from "two people" to "man and woman". It did not go to a plebiscite in 2004 and Howard instigated the change. Accordingly times have changed and it needs to revert to the old definition - without the need to go to a $200M vote. We all want it. Get it done.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

I am married but never wanted to be, I think it is the most pointless piece of paper I own.

Instead of saying "We all want it" you should be sprouting that it shouldn't matter to anyone else but the two parties involved whether they want to marry or not. Your absolute statement is factually incorrect! I am shocked by the amount of people I know who will be voting no, people who I have never even seen be homophobic or anything......

Sure it's going to cost 200million but if you are so sure it will get up, why worry about it? The government waste money left, right and centre I don't see you upset about that?

Yes people should have a choice but there was an election with this on the horizon and they were still voted in.......

 

[Twizzle]

Headspace has been the best think Abbott ever did, if in fact it was him that brought it in.

 

[Gronk]

I am married but never wanted to be, I think it is the most pointless piece of paper I own.

Instead of saying "We all want it" you should be sprouting that it shouldn't matter to anyone else but the two parties involved whether they want to marry or not. Your absolute statement is factually incorrect! I am shocked by the amount of people I know who will be voting no, people who I have never even seen be homophobic or anything......

Sure it's going to cost 200million but if you are so sure it will get up, why worry about it? The government waste money left, right and centre I don't see you upset about that?

Yes people should have a choice but there was an election with this on the horizon and they were still voted in.......

I am not sure it will get up. Polls suggest it should. Referendums and Plebiscites historically have a very poor conversion rate. There will be a very public NO campaign which will be confusing to some, link nasty slippery slope arguments and provoke many to take the devil you know position and vote no. Hence why Abbott sold this as a "compromise".

Your politicians can send our sons to war, change laws regarding abortion, prostitution, morning after pill, euthanasia, prison camps for illegal immigrants - but can't vote on changing the definition of marriage being two people rather than man & woman ? FFS.

 

[Kornstar]

I am not sure it will get up. Polls suggest it should. Referendums and Plebiscites historically have a very poor conversion rate. There will be a very public NO campaign which will be confusing to some, link nasty slippery slope arguments and provoke many to take the devil you know position and vote no. Hence why Abbott sold this as a "compromise".

Your politicians can send our sons to war, change laws regarding abortion, prostitution, morning after pill, euthanasia, prison camps for illegal immigrants - but can't vote on changing the definition of marriage being two people rather than man & woman ? FFS.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I would be voting yes but I think I just heard Labor has killed the plebiscite.

 

[Twizzle]

thats Turnbull playing politics

 

[strider]

Is this guy a big deal ?

He's a dude who gets on NBA rosters, but barely plays much - and switches teams a lot cos he's not really a keeper, but he's cheap .... Pou would love him

that said - he'll probably be pretty good in the NBL

 

[Gary Gutful]

Is this guy a big deal ?

Andrew Gaze?

Nah. Starred in a few Rexona commercials, commentated at the Olympics and has a goofy laugh. Beyond that he has done f**k all.

 

[Eelementary]

Is this guy a big deal ?

Won back-to-back NBA Championships with both the Lakers and Hawks in 2009 and 2010.

He's a big deal for the NBL.

 

[hineyrulz]

He's a dude who gets on NBA rosters, but barely plays much - and switches teams a lot cos he's not really a keeper, but he's cheap .... Pou would love him

that said - he'll probably be pretty good in the NBL

Awesome solid back up depth!!!

 

[strider]

Won back-to-back NBA Championships with both the Lakers and Hawks in 2009 and 2010.

He's a big deal for the NBL.

nah with the Lakers both years ..... Hawks aint won shit

he's pretty f**kin average tbh .... but the NBL is pretty f**kin below average

 

[Eelementary]

nah with the Lakers both years ..... Hawks aint won shit

he's pretty f**kin average tbh .... but the NBL is pretty f**kin below average

Shit - I thought the Hawks won one!

Yeah, he's an average player, but no doubt the NBL will see his signing as a huge coup.

 

[Dibs]

I would totally believe that. She'll probably have a great time, although I've heard stories of him being a total dick to his fans on stage, calling them idiots and whatnot..

They f*cken deserve it for being his fans

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Just for reference HJ, this is how you do it.

Sources or GTFO. Especially when making allegations against people.

Righty.

The Clinton laughing tape is easy to find.


"destroyed my faith in polygraphs" (shows she knew he was lying), "miscarriage of justice" (obvious sarcasm, do you f**kers actually need this explained?)

The wikileaks dump this week would have been read by anyone with a serious interest in the topic.

Executive order example - http://conservativetribune.com/wikileaks-executive-order-hillary/

The Bill Clinton payment has been known for quite some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

But these were all already freely and easily available.

Everyone knew they were true.

Yet you all f**king whinge like a bunch of softcocks.

 

[bartman]

So... EGJ and Sophie Monk go public as an item.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/en...r/news-story/1e997bcb560ed0aec04068b98ff8a2c7

 

[Gary Gutful]

The Clinton laughing tape is easy to find.


"destroyed my faith in polygraphs" (shows she knew he was lying), "miscarriage of justice" (obvious sarcasm, do you f**kers actually need this explained?)

The wikileaks dump this week would have been read by anyone with a serious interest in the topic.

Executive order example - http://conservativetribune.com/wikileaks-executive-order-hillary/

The Bill Clinton payment has been known for quite some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

But these were all already freely and easily available.

Everyone knew they were true.

Yet you all f**king whinge like a bunch of softcocks.

So you've finally come back with a couple of references to 2 of your 5 original unreferenced assertions and added a 3rd about Bill/Paula Jones which was never in question.

Of those 2, Gronk put forward the view that with one of them (laughing/child rapist) Hilary isn't actually laughing at the victim as Trump claims. This is true but the recording still reflects poorly on her. With the other (Wikileaks/gun control) Gronk agreed that it was true but argued that it wasn't really an issue. I agree with this.

But what about the other 3 original allegations? Perhaps you we're too busy serving up a big dose of smugness to us "whinging soft cocks" to bother with those ones?

 

[Gronk]

I actually dont get the claim that a wife of an adulterer can be accused as an enabler.

That is what the Trump camp are trying to hang their hats on. So the fact that she is still talking to him or perhaps even partially forgiven him, she is condoning or even encouraging his past ?

Anyway anyone can play the smear game. Have you noticed however how some don't stoop that low ? Trump will be appearing at a trial to defend under age rape charges in December.

This is based on his sleazy relationship with his mate and fellow billionaire dirtbag peodophile Jeffrey Epstien.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...p-accused-underage-rape-lawsuit-a7352976.html

 

[Gary Gutful]

The amount of shit that's coming out about both Trump and Hillary is ludicrous. Really grubby stuff and it will only get worse in the coming days and weeks.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

So you've finally come back with a couple of references to 2 of your 5 original unreferenced assertions and added a 3rd about Bill/Paula Jones which was never in question.

Of those 2, Gronk put forward the view that with one of them (laughing/child rapist) Hilary isn't actually laughing at the victim as Trump claims. This is true but the recording still reflects poorly on her. With the other (Wikileaks/gun control) Gronk agreed that it was true but argued that it wasn't really an issue. I agree with this.

But what about the other 3 original allegations? Perhaps you we're too busy serving up a big dose of smugness to us "whinging soft cocks" to bother with those ones?

If you don't know about them already then you really have no legitimate interest in the topic, so I'm not going to put too much effort into posting links because you really don't want to see past your confirmation bias.

As for Hillary not laughing over the situation - that in itself is hilarious. When you laugh like Clinton does in the previous clip then you are laughing at the victim and have no right to claim you support women or victims of sexual assault, as Clinton does.

Let's not forget, too, that Clinton stated that the girl was lying, that she romantacised having affairs with older men, and that generally she was full of shit. By the way, that information isn't hard to find, either...