SA Footy

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:58 pm**

woodublieve12 wrote:Social media last night, between corws and power supporters. And neutrals baiting them both

Saw a bit of that last night. I always thought that Crows supporters were the absolute worst, but obviously Port have been winning a few and I've forgotten what it's like when they're not doing so well. F*** me Port fans are sooks! They whinge on Facebook about how badly Port played, then they have an angry rant because the Crows won and, quelle f***ing horreur, Crows supporters have been writing things like 'Go Crows' (how VERY DARE THEY?), and finally if someone calls them out on it, they delete the comment and explain it's because no one is allowed to say anything bad about Port on THEIR Facebook wall. I think a few friendships were sundered last night - I sat and watched for a while. Only a game, cheer up cockers! :roll:

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:15 pm**

daysofourlives wrote:A thread devoted to a debate over who has a better list Richmond or Adelaide

Just Wow

What's your point?

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:38 pm**

bennymacca wrote:
daysofourlives wrote:A thread devoted to a debate over who has a better list Richmond or Adelaide

Just Wow

What's your point?

I wouldve thought the title of this thread makes that pretty obvious

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:15 am**

Former England captain Andrew Strauss was "mortified" and "profusely sorry" after initiating a fresh row regarding Kevin Pietersen by making highly offensive comments about his old Test colleague while broadcasting, he said on Saturday.
Sky Sports commentator Strauss, believing he was off the air in a break in play during the Lord's bicentenary match between MCC and the Rest of the World, reportedly described Pietersen as an "absolute c---" to fellow commentator Nick Knight.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/and ... z36jOXKJGR

:lol:

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:56 am**

on my way to work tonight i saw a Mazda 3 with the number plate that made me actually laugh out loud

NG 8888

i thought to myself, how did they know...

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:28 am**

This picture - I thought Senator Bestiality's views were extreme, but this guy went to the extent of making his own giraffe to get the point across. :roll:

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:47 am**

The green sign says it all in the above pic

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:10 am**

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The green sign says it all in the above pic

But if a man REALLY loves his dog then why can't they get married?!? Who are you to say who someone can and can't love......

Sounds a familiar argument to me... ;-)

I think his point is valid, if the constitution is changed from the current which states something along the lines of

'Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman'

What is proposed is just one word change in any alternative whether that be 1 man and 1 man, woman and woman, man and dog, 1 man and 40 women...

As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.

What makes me laugh is that marriage is something done before 'God and all these witnesses' and people who live lives that disregard God altogether want to get married when they don't actually believe... Staggers me

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:38 am**

Wow.

No mention of your God or any of the other 6,000 Gods people believe in at my wedding.

What if the constitution is changed to allow marriage between any 2 humans? Your post staggers me. Are you still looking for the whites only bus as well?

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:40 am**

nuggety goodness wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The green sign says it all in the above pic

But if a man REALLY loves his dog then why can't they get married?!? Who are you to say who someone can and can't love......

Sounds a familiar argument to me... ;-)

I think his point is valid, if the constitution is changed from the current which states something along the lines of

'Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman'

What is proposed is just one word change in any alternative whether that be 1 man and 1 man, woman and woman, man and dog, 1 man and 40 women...

As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.

What makes me laugh is that marriage is something done before 'God and all these witnesses' and people who live lives that disregard God altogether want to get married when they don't actually believe... Staggers me

That happens every weekend between man and woman also

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:04 am**

nuggety goodness wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The green sign says it all in the above pic

But if a man REALLY loves his dog then why can't they get married?!? Who are you to say who someone can and can't love......

Sounds a familiar argument to me... ;-)

I think his point is valid, if the constitution is changed from the current which states something along the lines of

'Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman'

What is proposed is just one word change in any alternative whether that be 1 man and 1 man, woman and woman, man and dog, 1 man and 40 women...

As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.

What makes me laugh is that marriage is something done before 'God and all these witnesses' and people who live lives that disregard God altogether want to get married when they don't actually believe... Staggers me

Are you actually serious?

Just wow

Firstly the difference is another human can CONSENT to being married, something that an animal or child cannot do.

So what you are arguing actually sickens me. How dare you think that homosexuals all of a sudden want to fk animals. Are you saying that you would fk an animal of it was legal?

Another thing that also gets overlooked with the whole marriage debate is 2/3 of them are civil ceremonies already and have nothing the hell to do with god. Marriage has nothing to do with god, it is done for legal and social reasons, nothing at all to do with god

People like you have no place in a modern democratic society.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:32 am**

bennymacca wrote:
nuggety goodness wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The green sign says it all in the above pic

But if a man REALLY loves his dog then why can't they get married?!? Who are you to say who someone can and can't love......

Sounds a familiar argument to me... ;-)

I think his point is valid, if the constitution is changed from the current which states something along the lines of

'Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman'

What is proposed is just one word change in any alternative whether that be 1 man and 1 man, woman and woman, man and dog, 1 man and 40 women...

As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.

What makes me laugh is that marriage is something done before 'God and all these witnesses' and people who live lives that disregard God altogether want to get married when they don't actually believe... Staggers me

Are you actually serious?

Just wow

Firstly the difference is another human can CONSENT to being married, something that an animal or child cannot do.

So what you are arguing actually sickens me. How dare you think that homosexuals all of a sudden want to fk animals. Are you saying that you would fk an animal of it was legal?

Another thing that also gets overlooked with the whole marriage debate is 2/3 of them are civil ceremonies already and have nothing the hell to do with god. Marriage has nothing to do with god, it is done for legal and social reasons, nothing at all to do with god

People like you have no place in a modern democratic society.

Benny, dont get too carried away mate...

What im saying is that it was God/church that instituted marriage between man and woman. Ask yourself why people actually get married? Why did you get married? Because it has some significance. The reason is because it is the right thing to do. We know what is right and wrong and marriage is right.

and now due to the modern, progressive society we live in, people want to have their relationships recognised and validated by marriage because it is inherently right.

Im not saying that I would commit disgusting acts even if it was made legal because it isnt right and I know it. What I am saying is that the precedent will be set when (it is only a matter of time) the law is changed that will allow people to do whatever they feel is right and some will want to marry their pets and what's to stop them?

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:34 am**

So changing marriage law so that it says two people instead of a man and a woman makes people fk dogs.

Yep.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:35 am**

The law allows people to own dogs and cats.

What's next! They will be able to own children. Or black people.

Slippery slope...

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:36 am**

http://news.peacefmonline.com/pages/soc ... 188127.php

Here is just one article of many... and an excerpt of it which is just what I said...

So how could this have happened? In the book of California’s State Laws and Regulations, there is a little known law that was passed as the state was first forming in 1850. According to article 155, paragraph 10, it clearly states: If a man and a man can get married and a woman and a woman can get married, if ever comes that day, then a human and animal will have the exact same rights to marriage in every eye of the law. God help us if this ever is to happen!

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:36 am**

bennymacca wrote:The law allows people to own dogs and cats.

What's next! They will be able to own children. Or black people.

Slippery slope...

Both of which are in the bible too btw...

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:46 am**

nuggety goodness wrote:http://news.peacefmonline.com/pages/social/201402/188127.php

Here is just one article of many... and an excerpt of it which is just what I said...

So how could this have happened? In the book of California’s State Laws and Regulations, there is a little known law that was passed as the state was first forming in 1850. According to article 155, paragraph 10, it clearly states: If a man and a man can get married and a woman and a woman can get married, if ever comes that day, then a human and animal will have the exact same rights to marriage in every eye of the law. God help us if this ever is to happen!

Come on that is just ridiculous. Once again equating gay people with looneys that want to marry dogs shows your prejudices.

What if they changed the law to "between two CONSENTING ADULTS"?

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:02 am**

bennymacca wrote:
nuggety goodness wrote:http://news.peacefmonline.com/pages/social/201402/188127.php

Here is just one article of many... and an excerpt of it which is just what I said...

So how could this have happened? In the book of California’s State Laws and Regulations, there is a little known law that was passed as the state was first forming in 1850. According to article 155, paragraph 10, it clearly states: If a man and a man can get married and a woman and a woman can get married, if ever comes that day, then a human and animal will have the exact same rights to marriage in every eye of the law. God help us if this ever is to happen!

Come on that is just ridiculous. Once again equating gay people with looneys that want to marry dogs shows your prejudices.

What if they changed the law to "between two CONSENTING ADULTS"?

Im not equating anyone to anything, what im saying is if you open the door to change on a small detail, gey ready to have every aspect challenged.

You give an inch, they take a mile...

It is only a matter of time, and that californian man who exploited their law is the example I've given. Can you not see it?!?

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:06 am**

The fact that you describe normal people as THEY shows your prejudice.

Can you comment on my ownership post above? How is that not a slippery slope but this is?

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:28 am**

nuggety goodness wrote:Im not equating anyone to anything, what im saying is if you open the door to change on a small detail, gey ready to have every aspect challenged.

You give an inch, they take a mile...

It is only a matter of time, and that californian man who exploited their law is the example I've given. Can you not see it?!?

SA Footy

Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh

Re: Things that make you laugh