This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The lunatic left

Jump to new
moXJO said:
Go to google search page and type:

Men can

Make sure you make a space after the n and look at the auto results.
Delete that.

Now type:

women can
Click to expand...
What am I supposed to be getting outraged about?
 
The absolute mental pathology of the left is exemplified by their reaction to Abu Bakr's death.

Well documented in your favourite version of Pravda.
 
wayneL said:
The absolute mental pathology of the left is exemplified by their reaction to Abu Bakr's death.

Well documented in your favourite version of Pravda.
Click to expand...

And the problem with these reports are what exactly ???

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-that-killed-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/28/doubts-over-trump-dramatic-account-baghdadi-raid

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dis-death-not-enough-to-destroy-islamic-state
 
wayneL said:
The absolute mental pathology of the left is exemplified by their reaction to Abu Bakr's death.

Well documented in your favourite version of Pravda.
Click to expand...
You didn't read WaPo, NYT et al?
 
‘No ethics? No morality?’: Neil Mitchell takes aim at Daniel Andrews over new China deal

Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday signed another deal with China, a controversial decision which has attracted criticism from many, including 3AW’s Neil Mitchell.

Mr Andrews signed on to the infrastructure deal, which is the second step in the Belt and Road initiative, while on his sixth trip to China.

Under the deal, Victoria and China have agreed to work together on major infrastructure, innovation, and tackling the challenges posed by ageing populations.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton spoke out after the signing of the agreement, accusing Mr Andrews of failing to act in Australia’s national interest.

Neil Mitchell also criticised Mr Andrews for ignoring China’s poor human rights record.

“He seems to have a bendable sense of morality,” the 3AW Mornings host said.

“China is brutalising protestors in Hong Kong.

“China is reasonably suspected of hacking into our parliamentary computer system.

“China is keeping Uighur Muslims in concentration camps.

“China runs a social credit system.

“But for money we turn our backs on all the horror!

“Do we have no ethics? No morality?”

Neil Mitchell called on the premier to reconsider his cooperation with China.

“This is the same Daniel Andrews who lectured the federal government about Syrian refugees!,” he said.

“Where’s the decency and fairness in supporting and working in partnership with a brutal, undemocratic, devious regime?


https://www.3aw.com.au/no-ethics-no...es-aim-at-daniel-andrews-over-new-china-deal/
 
Hello Tink,
This is an interesting one
How should we act with China?
We all agree with the wrong doing there yet with China as number one trading client, i think we are screwed
Years after years of limp government responses from both sides means that we can not even pretend to make a stand
I might be wrong but if we had acted manly from the start (figure of speech here, no anti feminism), we could be respected by China, but our past, ever changing government policies and western focus: gay marriage, Kardashian, wasting billions on pretending fighting climate change, etc
China sees us as jokers and dimwits and they can now squeeze us at will
We may just get what we deserved
If i started a startup in china, it is because China was offering the opportunity, not CSIRO, not CBA or a government agency.
But that's ok, we can get more immigration to boost building constructions.
So should i take a principle position and keep pushing paper in a corporate job, being denied here jobs based on my sex so that bhp and rio can reach their 50pc female leadership quotas? or do i commute to China monthly and use my AI degree for the first time in 30y?
The answer was easy.
The patents are now chinese owned.
We get what we deserve
 
The benefits of the one child policy will materialise over the next 40-50 years and I wouldn't be surprised if other nations adopt it afterwards.
 
The one-child policy was a program that was implemented nationwide by the Chinese government in 1980 in order to limit most Chinese families to one child each. The policy was enacted to address the growth rate of China’s population, which the government viewed as being too high. In late 2015 the government announced that the one-child limit per family would end in 2016. Here are some of the major consequences of the policy.

  • The fertility rate decreased after 1980.
  • The birth rate decreased after 1980.
  • The overall rate of natural increase (the difference between the birth rate and the death rate) declined.
  • The Chinese government estimated that some 400 million births were prevented by the policy, although some analysts dispute this finding.
  • As sons were generally preferred over daughters, the overall sex ratio in China became skewed toward males. In 2016 there were 33.59 million more men than women.
  • Because of the preference for sons, there was a rise in the number of abortions of female fetuses.
  • The number of female babies killed, abandoned, or placed in orphanages increased as a result of the policy.
  • Incentives were offered to families complying with the policy, including financial perks and greater employment options.
  • Millions of Chinese parents had to endure strict enforcement methods of the policy, including forced sterilization and forced abortions.
  • In families that already had one child, the births of additional children—in violation of the one-child policy—were often undocumented, leading to many problems later on for those children as they struggled to receive an education or find work.
  • Even after the one-child policy was rescinded, China’s birth and fertility rates remained low, leaving the country with a population that was aging too rapidly as well as a shrinking workforce.
 
And as time goes by the ratio of workers vs the aged will increase, leaving China in a stronger position than say - a welfare state like Australia, where the aged will continue to draw revenue from a dwindling pool of workers. Ultimately, our quality of life will decrease as a result of a rollback of Govt programs to sponsor the welfare needs.
 
LOL @ Richo decrying political violence.

He might be hung, drawn and quartered by midnight in todays' political world but not in 1980

He votes Liberal these days. Maybe copped a midnight visit the night before. Karma's a beech.

Ask Latham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Daily Aus
Replies
0
Views
285
qldfrog
Real Rukshan
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
investor13
The 2024 Apocalypse
Replies
10
Views
1K
Knobby22
Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment
108 109 110
Replies
2K
Views
165K
sptrawler
The future of... The future?
Replies
3
Views
1K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...