Search results

From NRL.com **Tui hasn't shed enough kilos** The Wests Tigers had every intention of starting the season with Tuimoala Lolohea at fullback, however the Tongan international struggled to meet one of the club's key demands. Coach Ivan Cleary wanted Lolohea to drop a certain amount of kilograms...

Hopefully a wake-up call we needed.

That would be my guess. As some type of leadership thing…

Yep, correct.

Thought Corey Thompson was really good, so on form he might get the spot. Don't think Cleary will worry about Fonua being sent off for back-chatting again. That was a one-off.

Could the NRL allow a return for exiled former Dally M winner Ben Barba? FEBRUARY 05, 2018 THE NRL is willing to extend Ben Barba a last chance lifeline — as long as he can prove he’s a changed man. Based in the UK Super League with St Helens, the former Sharks premiership-winning fullback...

I'm in!

You were saying?

We should get him just for this… https://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/03/12/18/00/tedesco-gets-buried-by-solid-tackle-at-cambelltown-stadium

If anyone's interested in watching Tui or Mahe, you can see the Tonga v Italy trial match here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUwoWKvvy1g Camerawork isn't great but Mahe bags a try around the 40 minute mark.

I've had the cash come out but no confirmation.

God know why I bother replying, as I know you'll only misconstrue whatever I write, but here goes nothing- First, you ask for someone to "outright refute the claim" and them you use an emotive and subjective term like "stomped". The problem is, I don't think our definitions of "stomped" are the...

How can this possibly be a ramification of marriage equality when it happened two years ago? There are already anti-discrimination laws in place, as you just proved. Marriage equality doesn't change that.

If only there was some way of guessing what the ramifications could be? Oh wait, 23 countries have already legalised same-sex marriage. The main ramification turns out to be equality for LGBTI people.

Yes, the existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. That's literally what this whole debate is about. You also make a pretty big logic jump here. You start by stating the law is quite specific about what defines a marriage and then bringing procreation into it, which has...

OK, so how many people have been thrown in jail then? How many business made bankrupt? How many charities shut down? Please inform the ignorant among us.

So, although 760 million people now live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the best example of injustice the author of that article can come up with is a baker in Northern Ireland was fined 500 quid for discrimination. And, because of this great injustice you'd vote to prevent...

Well, if you can tell me whether it discrimination for a baker to refuse to make a kid's Bar Mitzvah cake because it's for an event they don't believe in, then I can answer your hypothetical question. Because, as I said, nothing is changing in the anti-discrimination laws. But, the reason I'm...

We change the definition of words all the time. Are you specifically against changing the meaning of any words or just this one?

At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.