The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
People go out of their way to make others who have different religious beliefs feel more welcome by getting rid of Christmas decorations and trying to change the name to "Winterfest" or something.
At the same time, these same people are moaning about the Gambling Legislation Bill thingy that will allow horse racing etc on Christmas Day and Easter.
Erm.
Backwards.
Also, is the only reason you can't buy alcohol before 12.30pm on Sundays because of churches?
I only thought about it today, and that's the only reason I can think of for it..
But surely that's not welcoming otehr religions?
THIS COUNTRY = WEIRD
Yes.
At the same time, these same people are moaning about the Gambling Legislation Bill thingy that will allow horse racing etc on Christmas Day and Easter.
Erm.
Backwards.
Also, is the only reason you can't buy alcohol before 12.30pm on Sundays because of churches?
I only thought about it today, and that's the only reason I can think of for it..
But surely that's not welcoming otehr religions?
THIS COUNTRY = WEIRD
Yes.
Page:
Ms NY wrote:
> I'm annoyed with other people coming into our country and demand that
> the huge Christmas tree gets taken down in a shopping centre because
> they find it offensive. Found that out a month ago and still
> annoyed about it. Now there's no tree :-( Meh.
> We go into other countries and might moan about how different things
> are, but we don't demand change. So others should respect how we have
> it. Freakin' fools.
No, we go into other countrys, kill 10,000 odd civilians and tell them they should change thier political system into a democracy. We sent loads of missionarys overseas to tell everyone we conqurered to abandon thier own beliefs and convert to Christianity. We have plenty of charities and NGOs in other countrys telling them they should abolish the death penalty, female castration etc.
> I'm annoyed with other people coming into our country and demand that
> the huge Christmas tree gets taken down in a shopping centre because
> they find it offensive. Found that out a month ago and still
> annoyed about it. Now there's no tree :-( Meh.
> We go into other countries and might moan about how different things
> are, but we don't demand change. So others should respect how we have
> it. Freakin' fools.
No, we go into other countrys, kill 10,000 odd civilians and tell them they should change thier political system into a democracy. We sent loads of missionarys overseas to tell everyone we conqurered to abandon thier own beliefs and convert to Christianity. We have plenty of charities and NGOs in other countrys telling them they should abolish the death penalty, female castration etc.
lalakersrule wrote:
> Just because a casino opens up doesn't mean we'll all flock to it
> like sheeps and suddenly develop a gambling habit.
No, it doesn't. But it is inevitable that new casinos will mean that a number MORE will develop gambling habits.
> Just because a casino opens up doesn't mean we'll all flock to it
> like sheeps and suddenly develop a gambling habit.
No, it doesn't. But it is inevitable that new casinos will mean that a number MORE will develop gambling habits.
I don't think it's the 'minority' people that ask for these changes, it's usually British born whities.
Best (or worst, depending how you want to look at it) exmaple I can think of is the campaign to change the Union flag so it has big black borders on it, because apparently any flag without black on it is racist...
Best (or worst, depending how you want to look at it) exmaple I can think of is the campaign to change the Union flag so it has big black borders on it, because apparently any flag without black on it is racist...
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> No, it doesn't. But it is inevitable that new casinos will mean that
> a number MORE will develop gambling habits.
true but people have alcohol problems yet there's no massive outcry to ban that is there. So why all the fuss about some casinos opening up?
> No, it doesn't. But it is inevitable that new casinos will mean that
> a number MORE will develop gambling habits.
true but people have alcohol problems yet there's no massive outcry to ban that is there. So why all the fuss about some casinos opening up?
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Best (or worst, depending how you want to look at it) exmaple I can
> think of is the campaign to change the Union flag so it has big black
> borders on it, because apparently any flag without black on it is
> racist...
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
*Deep breath*
Ha.
I'm offended by the fact that racism towards white people is tolerated.
In my Geography book, I read
"White men came to the Amazon rainforest. They cut it down.
They infected the natives common diseases, which they have no immunity to, and destroy their way of life"
Maybe someone should tell them that just as many Brazilian natives are responsible for it as there are White people.
Racism will exist until people stop taking things so seriously.
> Best (or worst, depending how you want to look at it) exmaple I can
> think of is the campaign to change the Union flag so it has big black
> borders on it, because apparently any flag without black on it is
> racist...
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
*Deep breath*
Ha.
I'm offended by the fact that racism towards white people is tolerated.
In my Geography book, I read
"White men came to the Amazon rainforest. They cut it down.
They infected the natives common diseases, which they have no immunity to, and destroy their way of life"
Maybe someone should tell them that just as many Brazilian natives are responsible for it as there are White people.
Racism will exist until people stop taking things so seriously.
somebody you know wrote:
> Maybe someone should tell them that just as many Brazilian natives
> are responsible for it as there are White people.
I had no idea that there were still Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans living in Brazil...
> Maybe someone should tell them that just as many Brazilian natives
> are responsible for it as there are White people.
I had no idea that there were still Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans living in Brazil...
Light wrote:
> I had no idea that there were still Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans living
> in Brazil...
Me either considering Aztecs were originally from Mexico, Mayans around Guatemala and Incas were around Peru i think, though they probably did invade Brazil
(remembered from Year 4 of primary school so probably totally wrong :-D)
> I had no idea that there were still Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans living
> in Brazil...
Me either considering Aztecs were originally from Mexico, Mayans around Guatemala and Incas were around Peru i think, though they probably did invade Brazil
(remembered from Year 4 of primary school so probably totally wrong :-D)
lalakersrule wrote:
> Me either considering Aztecs were originally from Mexico, Mayans
> around Guatemala and Incas were around Peru i think, though they
> probably did invade Brazil
>
> (remembered from Year 4 of primary school so probably totally wrong
> :-D)
Meh; gotta admit, that was not much more than a "Who the hell lived in South America before the Spaniards wiped them all out" braindump.
I'm fairly sure the Incas were foresty types, but I'm not altogether sure.
(NB. If you are reading this and you are a Mormon, please don't start ranting about the Israelite tribes who populated South America. It's not at all true, and you'll just give Forest Fan ideas...)
> Me either considering Aztecs were originally from Mexico, Mayans
> around Guatemala and Incas were around Peru i think, though they
> probably did invade Brazil
>
> (remembered from Year 4 of primary school so probably totally wrong
> :-D)
Meh; gotta admit, that was not much more than a "Who the hell lived in South America before the Spaniards wiped them all out" braindump.
I'm fairly sure the Incas were foresty types, but I'm not altogether sure.
(NB. If you are reading this and you are a Mormon, please don't start ranting about the Israelite tribes who populated South America. It's not at all true, and you'll just give Forest Fan ideas...)
Light wrote:
> I'm fairly sure the Incas were foresty types, but I'm not altogether
> sure.
Just had a glimpse on google and the Incas were from Peru so seems my memory isn't totally rubbish.
Hmmm and all us Americans aren't meant to know any history outside our borders :-D
> I'm fairly sure the Incas were foresty types, but I'm not altogether
> sure.
Just had a glimpse on google and the Incas were from Peru so seems my memory isn't totally rubbish.
Hmmm and all us Americans aren't meant to know any history outside our borders :-D
The Incas were a distinct people with a distinct language living in a highland center, Cuzco. They were an ancient people, but had been subject to the regional powers during the entire history of South American urban cultures. They began to expand their influence in the twelfth century and in the early sixteenth century, they exercised control over more territory than any other people had done in South American history. The empire consisted of over one million individuals, spanning a territory stretching from Ecuador to northern Chile.
Page: