Up There Cazaly

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Clearly you are not a Richmond supporter. 10 goals up with 5 minutes to go there is always a chance for catastrophe at Tigerland

But yes Richmond should make the GF. Most likely to play the Crows. They gave us a fair old touch up early in the season, but we have improved our defensive pressure significantly since then - especially in that first final. If we can maintain that we are a chance to go all the way.

@shadowen Said

Absolutely had a gut full of the bloody AFL and their constant desire to push liberal left dogma down our throats. It was only a matter of time before the AFL came out with their nauseating self righteous lecturing on SSM. If Gil (and others at the AFL) want to speak out on the issue as INDIVIDUALS then that's one thing, but they have NO right to assume that they speak for all footy supporters and players. The AFL (formerly VFL) was created to administer the game on behalf of supporters, players and clubs. They were not created to promote select social issues. The AFL act more like a (unelected) political party than a body set up to administer a sporting competition.

The reality is that there are some players and supporters who will vote 'yes' and some who will vote 'no', and yet by the AFL coming out and saying that the organisation as a whole is in favour of SSM they are effectively excluding those who hold different views. Adding to the frustration is the fact that clubs like St. Kilda, Footscray and C'wood have also taken it upon themselves to state that they all support SSM. What the self important administrators dont seem to understand is that they are NOT the club and therefore have no right to speak on the clubs behalf on such matters.

Wonder what would happen if supporters unveiled a "It's alright to vote no" banner at an AFL match? Actually, going on the AFL's slavishly hypocritical left wing posturing the answer is pretty obvious.

@shadowen Said

On the money Bob.

I also find it interesting how the Greens and ALP did all they could to stop the public from expressing their views in the form of a postal 'vote' claiming that any public debate would just result in intolerance, name calling and even threats of violence. Then we had two major incidents within a few days of each other where 'yes' supporters used name calling and threats of violence to try and prevent those with a dissenting view from being heard (even when such views were expressed on PRIVATE land). A number of 'yes' supporters were arrested and the ALP (through the likes of Albanese and Wong) then came out and said words to the effect of "see we were right, we told you this would happen"! So their view is because their supporters are intolerant thugs no one else should be allowed to express an opinion that is at odds with their own.
Un-bloody-beliveable.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

It is ridiculous isn't it? But it has been this way for a while now. The left claim there will be violence if X happens so X should not happen. When X does happen the left get violent then say, "see, we said this would happen," and then use their own acts of violence to try to ban the next event - for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali coming to Australia. I was very keen to hear her speak and would have happily gone despite the real risk of violence. But no. The combination of threats from the left and Muslims meant she was prevented from speaking. This is beyond unacceptable. It sets an ugly and dangerous precedent as it says fascist tactics are victorious tactics. And of course, what makes it worse is the left and media use the threat of violence to prove that it is people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who cause violence. It is a magnificent tactic, really.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

This has been one of the most disappointing finals series that I can recall. Only one close game and one other that was good - Geelong V Richmond. Most games have been over from well before half time. Good to see Geelong lose but a closer game would have been nice.