Wrecker45

It's not muddying the waters when it is genuine concern. I know people who have been organising floats at the Mardi Gras sine the late 90's who are embarrassed that groups like GetUp! and antifa are pretending to represent the gay community when in reality they don't and are fighting a battle for themselves.

Seems Trump has put the appropriate amount of pressure on the Chinese. Chinese banks will no longer do business with North Korea. Rocket man had it easy under Obama. I doubt he will last Trump's electeted term.

We are on the same page now. The individual took a stance and their organisation supported them. Exactly how it should be.

I'm undecided. If I thought it was purely a ssm vote I would be in the yes camp. i really dislike Marxist causes and this is a pet cause for them at the moment. Breaking down traditional western values. I don't like organisations like the AFL getting involved because they are pretending to represent people they don't. The legislation hasn't been drawn up before the vote which is another reason to think wtf? Having said all that I don't want to stand in the way of the very small minority who are really hoping to be recognised as married couples and can't be at the moment.

They are. How many shop windows have you seen with a "No" sign out the front? It won't happen because their shop will be vandalised. The yes vote is around 60% at the moment so logically about 40% are in the no camp. Yet we see a large set of the population too scared to voice an opinion. Andrew Bolt Is not the only one exposing this but Dieter has some kind of obsession with him.

We can always rely on you to make no sense. What has Andrew Bolt, one of your favourite scapegoats got to do with AFL house?

Exactly social issues belong on the General Board. Why the AFL in its capacity as the peak body of footyball operations weighs into it is beyond me. Whilst the AFL think it is a football issue surely it stays out of place on the football forum.

I'm glad we cleared that up and can move on.

You need to learn when you're losing and opt out.

It's a shame you don't recognise recent immigrants as Australian and dare I say it racist. And of course you go on to blame white males which reinforces your race profiling habbits.

And so it should be because it is the national anthem that we can all unite under. It doesn't matter your race, gender, religion or leftism we all unite for 1 song.

We are all Australians no matter our heritage. Would you support a "whites" round that celebrates all the good and influential things white settlement has had on this country? Of course not. The same principal should apply across the board.

Can't play him injured. His poor form and kicking always coincide with injury. They need to get him cherry ripe and rest him when they wouldn't for others.

I remember him having a booming kick but the ball spun more like a helicopter not a traditional drop punt.

Organisations should support individuals rights not drive their own interpretation of them. What Nicky Winmar did was courageous and was rightly supported by the then VFL. No number of indigenous rounds instigated by the out of touch AFL will ever benefit a cause in the same way Nicky Winmar did.

By people like Nicky Winmar calling it out for what it is.

Neither. I obviously don't sit where you do.

Perhaps I'm lucky enough to have lived in a generation that hasn't heard racist, homophobic or other prejudiced ignorance at the footy. I'm glad that has gone. The AFL can be harmonious for all without involving itself in political discourse.

If I start i safe schools thread will you reply? Or do you need to keep your opinion secret until after the postal survey just like the legislation?

Probably best you don't bet when you are walking around with blinkers on.

What if the AFL took the no stance would you have the same opinion? I would but I'm guessing you wouldn't. It is not about which side the AFL are supporting they should not be supporting a political side of an argument or pushing social agenda.

I don't think the afl should get involved in social issues. I have no interest or see no relevance in that link.

So you do understand the AFL is a collective with employees, players and fans entitled to their own opinions without being told how to think. I support individuals rights to express their opinion.

Wong and Gillard were in power before Abbott and held the view marriage should be between a man and a women. No chance for ssm. Abbott got elected and suggested a plebiscite which could lead to ssm. Somehow in your confused logic Abbott delayed ssm when he was the first PM in history to give it a chance.

The fact you won't answer the question demonstrates you know they are linked but are desperate to keep them seperate (for the time being). All you had to say was yes you do or no you don't, this is a forum where everyone is free to voice their opinion. You hate being called a leftist but you keep towing than line.