Fire70

Showcase of IT'S TWENTY SEVENTEEN; Canadians are cunts

29,607 posts in this topic

Meanwhile, I just log into tanks and scroll through them.


Also, Watch out Cory Bernardi! You might catch the gay!

6mmbd0lhvelz.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's Cory's greatest fear, because everyone knows that gaynious is contagious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Cory was a gay name like Bruce. He may have already caught it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on conversations with some Australian acquaintances I actually think No might win which will go a long way to confirm the rest of the worlds view that Australia is basically the test bed from Trumpublican 'murica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the paper this morning said about %70 supported "yes"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AdrianK said:

I thought the paper this morning said about %70 supported "yes"?

Supporting and actually voting yes are 2 different things. 

 

Straya. Now with kac levels of apathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politx_Killer said:

Supporting and actually voting yes are 2 different things. 

Ah yes, very true.  Fwarken red-line snipers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we try and get Trumphammer over here to debate the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, googling trumphammer comes up with some funny stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JOC469 said:

Should we try and get Trumphammer over here to debate the topic?

He's not the only one I have debated this with in recent weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Siggy said:

He's not the only one I have debated this with in recent weeks.

You've been mass-debating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ignore the above, I haven't got half an hour to tap and hold and tap and tap trying to make it to away.

The last sentence in the Q&A on the daily bounce caught my eye:

..."once the client is shut down for mods, which is being taken care off."...

Finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they seem to be shifting to an approved mods list rather than a free for all. Of course it won't help against the injectors but I guess it's still something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Manic_Wombat said:

The last sentence in the Q&A on the daily bounce caught my eye:

..."once the client is shut down for mods, which is being taken care off."...

Finally.

Hmmm - shutting down the ability to make mods, most of which are intended to be legal, or, shutting down ability for illegal mods to operate?

Because achieving the latter will be very hard - in an absolute sense.  Raising the technical bar to hackers is definitely good and may have positive consequences, but the game client doesn't have absolute control over your computer so there's always likely to be ways in.  

It'd be a shame if this wipes out people's abilities to make legal mods.

They could introduce a "WoT In-game Store" but I can't see them doing that, can you?  How long would it take to get apps/mods approved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is talk of removing stats as well, which given WG seem intent on shifting the game towards the lower end of the gene pool would not be all that surprising. So XVM sniping will be less of a thing but will be replaced by every fktard blaming team because they know people can't see they are 46%ers any more. Win some, lose some i guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Siggy said:

Based on conversations with some Australian acquaintances I actually think No might win which will go a long way to confirm the rest of the worlds view that Australia is basically the test bed from Trumpublican 'murica.

The whole point of a postal vote is to take advantage of those who support it but don't give a toss about it so they won't be a participant of the survey.

 

A No vote will most likely shift the Liberal party further into the retard (bernardi, abbott, etc) faction, pretty much dooming them further next election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closet homophobia is like closet racism in oz. You can guarantee the vote won't end up at 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ezz said:

Closet homophobia is like closet racism in oz. You can guarantee the vote won't end up at 70%.

It was like 70% of 60% of people iirc

Plus its not homophobia, its the 'respectful debate'.

I'm really into this 'respectful debate' where the No campaign has been twisted into a debate about safe schools, kids forced to wear dresses (???), incest, bestiality and the end of the earth because if we vote Yes to this non-binding, postal SURVEY, the earth will spin in the opposite direction. 

The politicians are also flat out lying, stating that gay civil unions hold the same rights as married couples do. No, the Howard government put an end to that too after deciding to remove the loophole that allowed for SSM. 

kzfp9pY.png

Fuck religious law in a secular country. Fucking homophobic, hypocritical fucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

The politicians are also flat out lying, stating that gay civil unions hold the same rights as married couples do. No, the Howard government put an end to that too after deciding to remove the loophole that allowed for SSM. 

Is there a reasonably clear resource that explains what the current situation with respect to said rights actually is? The only things i've seen have been fairly clearly created by advocacy groups from either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ezz said:

Is there a reasonably clear resource that explains what the current situation with respect to said rights actually is? The only things i've seen have been fairly clearly created by advocacy groups from either side.

IIRC they get fucked over in the family law side of things. 

Also not all states allow for same sex civil unions. 

 

ah, in NSW at least, a civil union is equivalent to a de fecto relationship. 

And civil unions arent recognised on the federal level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

IIRC they get fucked over in the family law side of things. 

Also not all states allow for same sex civil unions. 

 

ah, in NSW at least, a civil union is equivalent to a de fecto relationship. 

And civil unions arent recognised on the federal level. 

Does it matter if they have dual citizenship or not?  Smile-tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that the opponents to SSM are all conservative Christians (but not all conservative Christians are opponents).

I was reading a piece written by a pro-gay movement arguing that Jesus was non discriminatory towards homosexuals because he blessed and healed a Roman centurion's homosexual lover.

The argument is that while modern translations of the Bible say that the centurion was concerned about his "servant", older texts use the Greek word "Pais" to describe the "servant".  Pais is a Greek word that refers to a younger homosexual lover/companion of an older man. They were very common. Aristotle had (a) Pais. Roman soldiers were forbidden to marry for the duration of their service so a Pais servant would not have been unusual (maybe not common but not unusual).

Romans didn't have any proscriptions against homosexual sex AS LONG AS you were the one doing the penetrating. Taking the "female" role was not on.

So, back to the point, the argument was that if Jesus was prepared to bless and heal a homosexual union, who has the right to do otherwise in his name?

Interesting argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.