JCsays:
April 18, 2023 at 5:51 pm

Jerk Off Cretin, you really are a T.W.A.T. on this site. As if you really own it BTW. LOL. Pompous Windbag with really not very much to say. Except BS and your own self importance.

More Armstrong to come and for you to ignore and not comment upon. Until you do that is. LOL.

Ed Casesays:
April 18, 2023 at 6:25 pm
That has been the Liberals’ lot for a while, and they have lately, stupidly sought (unsuccessfully I might add) to minimise the effect by mimicking Labor as much as they dare.

Nah, that’s wrong.
Hewson was rubbish, his no. 2 was Peter Reith [a dope]
and Tony Abbott [another dope] was his senior adviser.
Plus he was a bit fruity.
Australia just wasn’t ready for him.

And ‘Head Case’, ‘A suitable Case for Treatment’, you seem like you like smoking the dope with those comments of yours. Keep on smoking that stuff and making us larf’. Very boring but sometimes sort of entertaining in a childish sort of way.

In a shadow ministerial reshuffle that was broader than expected due to the
surprise frontbench resignation of Karen Andrews, Nationals senator and
prominent No campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has replaced Julian Leeser
as opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians.

South Australian senator Kerrynne Liddle, the only Indigenous federal Liberal
MP, will join the outer shadow ministry with responsibility for child protection
and prevention of family violence – problems that are endemic in some
Indigenous communities and which Mr Dutton believes the Voice will not help
resolve.
The reshuffle was precipitated by Mr Leeser’s decision last week to resign
[https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/julian-leeser-quits-coalition-frontbench-over-indigenousvoice-20230411-p5czi1] as shadow attorney-general and Indigenous affairs minister
because he disagreed with the party’s position to oppose the Voice. He wants to
advocate for a Yes vote.
Senators Price and Liddle now have frontline roles in arguing against it.
Mr Leeser was replaced as shadow attorney-general by Michaelia Cash, who
held the portfolio when the Coalition was last in government. She will keep her
industrial relations duties as well.
Ms Andrews, the shadow home affairs minister, used the opportunity to step
down from the frontbench because she intends to retire from politics at the next
election. She opposes the Voice.
“I will continue to support the party position on the Voice and to campaign hard
for a Coalition victory at the next election,” she said in a statement.
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price takes the portfolio of Indigenous Australian in Peter Dutton’s shadow ministry. Alex
Ellinghausen

“I look forward to continuing to serve my constituents with honour and
diligence until the next election.”
Extra spot for Nationals
Ms Andrews will be replaced by up-and-coming Victorian Liberal senator James
Paterson, who will also retain his outer shadow ministry duties of cybersecurity
and countering foreign interference.
The reshuffle caused some consternation, with the Nationals getting an extra
cabinet spot at the expense of the Liberals, and NSW losing a place in the
shadow cabinet to Victoria.
But Mr Dutton’s decision to insert into frontline roles two Indigenous senators
who oppose the Voice is a signal of intent ahead of the referendum later this
year.
After Mr Leeser resigned, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson recommended he
be replaced by Senator Price, from the Northern Territory.
Senator Price, who led the Nationals to oppose the Voice before the proposition
was even known, doesn’t believe it will help at a local community level.
“There are examples of Indigenous leaders in communities who are coming out
and saying now that they don’t have any idea what the prime minister’s proposal
for their Yes campaign is,” she said on Tuesday.
“They don’t know what the Voice is; they don’t feel like they will be represented
by yet another model that they see as being run by those who had long held
positions within the Aboriginal industry, if you like.

“Indigenous people in remote communities also elect us into parliament, and
they are calling for us to do our jobs and do our jobs a lot better. Those I’ve
spoken to are not interested in yet another bureaucracy.”
Mr Dutton said Senator Price would do “an outstanding job in leading the charge
for better practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians, not through the prime
minister’s Canberra Voice bureaucracy”.
Mr Dutton supports only the constitutional recognition of Indigenous
Australians and believes a regional and local voice should be enacted by
legislation, instead of having a national Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Mr Leeser welcomed the “great appointments by Peter Dutton”.
“I have worked closely with Jacinta and Kerrynne. Together they will make
significant contributions to addressing the challenges being faced by regional
and remote Indigenous communities,” he said in a statement.
The frontbench changes
Shadow Cabinet: Shadow Cabinet:
Jacinta Price (NT): Indigenous Affairs (replaces Julian Leeser)
James Paterson (Vic): Home Affairs (replaces Karen Andrews)
Michaelia Cash (WA): Attorney-General (replaces Julian Leeser)
Outer Shadow Ministry: Outer Shadow Ministry:

Kerrynne Liddle (SA): Child Protection and Prevention of Family Violence
(replaces Karen Andrews)

Dotsays:
April 18, 2023 at 6:36 pm

Nice try Dotty Dot of Dottiness but you are just like JC the Jerk Off Cretin. Both Pompous Windbags and retreat when you are called out.

Where was the ‘sarc’ fine print in your ‘stoopid’ comment? Nowhere to be seen anywhere. FFS.

Both Pompous Windbags and retreat when you are called out.

We do? As well as stupid, you’re a delusional dickhead, Wodney. Now stop wasting our time and piss off back to the ladyboy. Me loves you long time Wodney.

Crikey, what’s happened to “auto-steer”?
Where for years there’s been arrow-straight lines in cultivation, suddenly there’s young fellers wriggling like snakes, turns out nobody under 30yo is able to cut or maintain a straight line of cultivation without some sort of GPS/autosteer.

Haw haw haw – the skiting that’s been going on, how they can plough/sow a straight line, “not like you old goats”… hasn’t that taken a dive the past few days.

But what the heck happened to cause this?

My only experience with the NDIS is that every disabled person in my neighborhood has shiny new, very expensive, electric wheelchairs or mobility scooters. They were all using basic wheelchairs or cheap mobility scooters a few years ago.
I have noticed in a couple of cases that the people who were using manual wheelchairs have lost a lot of fitness and are getting fat on there new equipment with all the bells and whistles.
It is clear to me that some, maybe all, of these new items are way over the top.

Personally I want to stay out of a wheelchair or scooter as long as possible. I may not be able to avoid it eventually but I’ll do as much as I can (eat healthy and exercise) to stay out them.

A lot of people here seem to think we’re seeing the end of the West and the US in particular. Look, it could be from this point on because we don’t know what the future holds. But, I wouldn’t bet on it. There’s an old saying coined by Warren Buffet. You’d go broke shorting the US and I tend to agree. Yes, I know it’s the Economist and I don’t only read parts of it, but boy this piece tells a great story. Look, the US always looks like a mess, because it’s a messy country.

Just one example. AI is the most important development since the advent of the internet and perhaps it’s even more important in the way it will impact on humanity. American companies absolutely dominate that sector.

Here’s the Economist piece. Take a deep breath and push down. You’ll be fine in the end.

America’s economic outperformance is a marvel to behold
But the country could still undercut its own success

American economic declinism is a broad church. Voices on the right claim that big government has stifled the frontier spirit and that soaring debt has condemned future generations to poverty. The left worries that inequality and corporate power have hollowed out the economy. In a rare display of unity, all parts of the ideological spectrum bemoan the death of American manufacturing and the crushing of the middle class.

There is just one snag. On a whole range of measures American dominance remains striking. And relative to its rich-world peers its lead is increasing.

It is true that, by one measure, America is no longer the largest economy in the world. Using currency conversions based on purchasing power—that is, on what individuals can buy in their own country—China’s economy has been larger than America’s since 2016. Today China represents 18% of the world economy calculated in terms of purchasing power and America just 16%, whereas in 1990 the shares were 4% and 22% (see chart 1).

But though purchasing-power parity (ppp) is the right metric for comparing people’s well-being in different economies, in terms of what those economies can achieve on the world stage it is exchange rates set by markets that count. And looked at this way, American pre-eminence is clear. America’s $25.5trn in gdp last year represented 25% of the world’s total—almost the same share as it had in 1990. On that measure China’s share is now 18%.

More astonishing, and less appreciated, than its ability to hold its place in the world as a whole is the extent to which America has extended its dominance over its developed peers. In 1990 America accounted for 40% of the nominal gdp of the g7, a group of the world’s seven biggest advanced economies, including Japan and Germany. Today it accounts for 58%. In ppp terms the increase was smaller, but still significant: from 43% of the g7‘s gdp in 1990 to 51% now (see chart 2). So much for a declining power.

America’s outperformance has translated into wealth for its people. Income per person in America was 24% higher than in western Europe in 1990 in ppp terms; today it is about 30% higher. It was 17% higher than in Japan in 1990; today it is 54% higher. In ppp terms the only countries with higher per-person income figures are small petrostates like Qatar and financial hubs such as Luxembourg. A lot of that income growth was at the top end of the scale; the ultra rich have indeed done ultra well. But most other Americans have done pretty well, too. Median wages have grown almost as much as mean wages. A trucker in Oklahoma can earn more than a doctor in Portugal. The consumption gap is even starker. Britons, some of Europe’s best-off inhabitants, spent 80% as much as Americans in 1990. By 2021 that was down to 69%.

Money is obviously not everything. It is often argued (and not just in Europe) that Europeans make a trade off between extra pay and a nicer way of life. Instead of clogged roads and overstuffed wardrobes, they have longer holidays and generous maternity leave. What is more, they devote a lot less of their income to health care.

At a personal level such trade-offs may make perfect sense: there is much else to life besides income and shopping. But they are hardly new. Can the long-standing cultural difference on which they are based really account for a gap that continues to grow today? What’s more, America has been devoting a little more of its national treasure to helping its people. America’s social spending was just 14% of gdp in 1990 but had risen to 18% by the end of 2019, thanks in part to more medical insurance for its poor and elderly. That hardly makes it Sweden, which has spent a quarter of its gdp on social programmes for decades. But the gap is narrowing, not widening.

Fortunate sons
Americans are getting richer because they are getting more productive more quickly than workers in other rich countries. That advantage comes with real costs. America’s economy permits extreme volatility in individual livelihoods. Unemployment soars during downturns. Vast numbers end up chucked to the side: a combination of drugs, gun violence and dangerous driving has led to a shocking decline in average life expectancy in America. This suffering is concentrated among the country’s poorest, most marginalised communities. Money could mitigate most of these problems, and outperforming America has money aplenty. But this is not what it is spent on.

The fact that America has problems hardly sets it apart. All economies do. The striking thing about America’s is that they have not noticeably slowed down its growth. Investors are gratefully aware of this. A hundred dollars invested in the s&p 500, a stock index of America’s biggest companies, in 1990 would have grown to be worth about $2,300 today. By contrast, if someone had invested the same amount at the same time in an index of the biggest rich-world stocks which excluded American equities they would now have just about $510 (see chart 3).

Past performance is, of course, no predictor of future returns. Since America became the world’s largest economy in the 1890s its lead has waxed and waned. But three decades in, its current period of outperformance has gone on long enough to merit a closer look.

There are two things that matter to an economy in the long term: the size of its workforce and the productivity thereof. A higher fertility rate and a more open immigration system have long given America a demographic advantage over most other wealthy countries, and that continues. America’s working-age population—those between 25 and 64—rose from 127m in 1990 to 175m in 2022, an increase of 38%. Contrast that with western Europe, where the working-age population rose just 9% during that period, from 94m to 102m.

That said, a higher proportion of those Europeans actually work. America’s labour-force participation rate has been falling this century, largely because of men dropping out of the workforce. But this American oddity is not large enough to make up for the country’s advantage in raw numbers. Even with lower participation, the past three decades have seen America’s labour force grow by 30%. In Europe the number is 13%, in Japan, just 7%.

And this growing workforce is also becoming more productive. The Conference Board, a think-tank backed by American business, has found that between 1990 and 2022 American labour productivity (what workers produce in an hour) increased by 67%, compared with 55% in Europe and 51% in Japan. Add on to that the fact that Americans work a lot. An American worker puts in on average 1,800 hours per year (a 36-hour work week with four weeks of holiday), roughly 200 hours more than in Europe, though 500 less than in China.

Some of America’s productivity growth comes from more investment. But total factor productivity (tfp), which strips out those effects in an attempt to show increases in efficiency and the adoption of new technology, has also increased. According to the Penn World Tables, a database for cross-country comparisons, tfp in America increased by about 20% between 1990 and 2019. The g7 as a whole averaged less than half that.

How to account for this higher productivity? For starters it is useful to identify where America is at its most productive. In 2019 Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, the dean of growth studies in America, and Hassan Sayed of Princeton divided the economy into 27 different industries to pinpoint the stars. They found them in the flourishing information and communications technology industry, and saw that they shone brightest from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. But the rapid growth of the bit of the economy making and connecting computers was only part of the story. The rest of the economy busied itself in using the new technology productively. Productivity growth of American businesses doubled to more than 3% annually during that magical decade, whereas their European counterparts managed less than 2%. Since then American productivity growth has fallen back towards its long-run average of about 1.5%. But it is still faster than in most other rich countries, and still driven by the technology sector.

The roots of America’s success as a technological innovator go deep; Silicon Valley was generations in the building. The reason why its wares were put to such productive use, though, are more easily seen, and still apply today. Simply put, they are skills, size and spunk.

Big wheel keeps on turning
First, American workers are, on average, highly skilled. This might seem jarring given conventional wisdom, not least in America, about the failures of its schools. But America spends roughly 37% more per pupil on education than the average member of the oecd, a club of mostly rich countries. When it comes to post-secondary students it spends twice the average.

There are good reasons to question the efficiency of some of this spending: test results in science and maths for 15-year-olds could be better. But good—often privileged—students thrive. As a share of its working-age population, roughly 34% of Americans have completed tertiary education, according to data compiled by Robert Barro and Jong-Wha Lee of Harvard and Korea University. Only Singapore has a higher rate. The Penn World Table’s human-capital index, which is based on years of schooling, currently has South Korea in the lead; but America has, on average, been first among major economies since 1990.

America is home to 11 of the world’s 15 top-ranked universities in the most recent Times Higher Education table. Along with educating many of the brightest Americans, they have long served as conduits which deliver the world’s smartest young people to the country. Some of them go on to join the 200,000 foreign students who enter the labour force through the “optional practical training” programme every year—a figure which stayed high even under Donald Trump.

America’s economy makes good use of its highly educated workforce. Spending on research and development across the public and private sectors—a useful, though not infallible, token of future growth—has risen over the past decade to 3.5% of gdp, well ahead of most other countries. Evidence of America’s innovative prowess is furnished by the number of its patents in force abroad, an indicator of international recognition: America’s share of such patents globally increased from 19% in 2004 (the first year for which data is available) to 22% in 2021, more than any other country.

A second set of explanations is tied to America’s size. A large single market always gives a country a leg-up; the rewards to scale seen in technology have amplified this effect in America. Europe has tried to craft a unified market, but linguistic, administrative and cultural differences still pose barriers to businesses such as e-commerce platforms. As India is not yet rich enough for its size to offer benefits on such a scale, China is the only country that can truly rival America in this regard. That helps to explain the vibrancy of its consumer-tech sector—at least until Xi Jinping got his fingers on it.

Size has other advantages. Covering almost 40% of the world’s third-largest continent means the United States has access to a wide variety of geological riches—some of which it has become newly adept at winkling out. In the first decade of the 2000s America imported more than 10m barrels of oil per day in net terms. But around the same time, a revolution was under way as energy firms perfected the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to release the mineral riches in shale formations that dot the country from North Dakota to Texas. Gas and oil production soared; America now meets most of its energy needs from domestic production. In 2020 it became a net exporter of oil.

Come on the rising wind
That has both expanded the economy and diversified it, adding new resilience. And because the boom in gas came at the expense of coal, it has reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Despite having had little federal climate policy worth speaking of until recently, America’s industrial carbon-dioxide emissions are 18% below their mid-2000s peak. Now that America is deliberately turning its attention to other resources which its size provides in abundance—such as sunshine and windy plains and coasts—it should accelerate that trend.

What makes American skills and size that much more potent is the third element in the mix: dynamism. This is often the attribute mentioned first by people trying to explain America’s success. It is also the one where definitions are sketchiest. But there are some clear correlates.

One is mobility. The ability and willingness of Americans to get up and go when opportunity calls is not what it was; but it is still impressive in international terms. In 2013 a Gallup survey found that about one in four adult Americans had moved from one city or area within the country to another over the past five years, compared with one in ten in other developed countries. About 5m move between states each year. William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, finds that the most educated are over-represented among these interstate movers, heading presumably to the most productive jobs.

America also has far and away the world’s deepest and most liquid financial markets, providing efficient, if occasionally unstable, channels for financing businesses and sorting the winners from the losers. Stockmarket capitalisation runs to about 170% of gdp; in most other countries it comes in below 100%. Funding for potentially high-growth startups is particularly bountiful: about half of the world’s venture capital goes to firms in America.

The hunger for starting something new, though, predates the world of tech and extends far beyond it. And the aftermath of covid-induced confinement has fired the American drive for reinvention as never before: 5.4m new businesses started in 2021, an annual record and a 53% increase from 2019. Many will not make it, but the founders will not be hurt as badly as they would be elsewhere: an oecd measure of the personal cost of failure for entrepreneurs consistently puts America and Canada at the bottom.

Odd as it may sound for a country that created both Mr Burns, the vulture capitalist of Springfield, and Dilbert, the quintessential office drone, the quality of corporate management is another source of dynamism. Since 2003 John Van Reenen of the lse and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford have been attempting to provide analytical rigour to international comparisons of management by means of their World Management Survey. America sits at the top of their ranking. Fierce competition, the researchers believe, helps to explain America’s corporate culture. Bosses are more comfortable with firing employees (and more easily able to: America has much weaker employee-protection law than other large economies). Markets are readier to reward companies for evidence that they are well run. America’s managerial strength, their survey finds, explains as much as half of the productivity lead that it has over other developed countries.

It can be hard to square America’s incredible wealth with its failings in other areas. Even after taxes and transfers it has the most unequal income distribution in the g7. The earnings gap between rich and poor, which grew in the 1990s and early 2000s, was stabilised by a tight labour market over the better part of a decade. Recent pay bumps for low-wage earners have seen them starting to catch up with the middle tier, but the gap between top- and middle-income workers has persisted.

Run through the jungle
Even more jarring is its harshness of life: on average Americans born today can expect to live to 77, about five years shorter than their peers in other countries at similar levels of development. For the poor, with less access to medical care and more violence around them, the deficit is particularly obvious. A certain sort of Pangloss might argue that the harshness, distasteful as it is, is part of America’s recipe, impelling people to strive to get ahead.

Another interpretation is that the country lacks neither the wealth nor wisdom to make people’s lives much better, but chooses not to—and pays little by way of an economic price for that choice. “Economics is not a morality play,” says Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think-tank. “It would be nice if we could design policies that solve inequality and promote growth at the same time, but regrettably there are only a few policies that do both. Cruelty does not prevent an economy from growing.”

If cruelty doesn’t, what else might? What might see America’s decades of economic outperformance draw to a close? One possibility would be for its rich-world peers to do more to catch up. Europe has failed to produce giant tech firms like America but its robust anti-monopoly rules have fostered a more competitive market, especially for consumers, which might yet bear fruit. Japan has struggled to shake up its sluggish economic model, but it is not done trying yet. China is intent on sustaining rapid growth, despite evident structural challenges. Meanwhile, India’s rise will surely tilt the world’s economy ever more towards the Pacific.

But there are also ways for America to undercut its own success. Take demographics. Though America’s working-age population has grown more than Europe’s over the past 30 years the fertility rate has now drifted close to European levels. With lower fertility, America needs higher immigration to maintain its demographic advantage. But a rising current of nativism pushes against this. President Donald Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to pick apart America’s visa programmes for welcoming in high-skilled foreign workers and began building a wall to block lower-skilled arrivals. Even if he fails to win election again in 2024, he has set the tone for more suspicion of and hostility towards migrants. President Joe Biden has kept many of Mr Trump’s border policies in place. Border authorities have expelled at least 2m illegal migrants on his watch.

The ugly turn in America’s politics also threatens other pillars of success. Highly polarised state governments are starting to endanger the country’s vast unified market, forcing companies to face new choices. Texas, for instance, has banned financial firms from doing business with the state if it deems them unfriendly to the oil industry. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor and a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has used his office to try and humble Disney in response to the company’s “woke agenda”. California is attacking from the opposite end, with a new law that could force oil firms to cap their profits.

The potential for a greater act of political self-sabotage also looms uncomfortably large on the horizon. In the next few months a protracted stand-off between Democrats and Republicans may render Congress unable to lift the federal government’s debt ceiling, which would trigger a sovereign default. That would shake the faith of investors in American markets. It also may make funding costs for the government permanently higher, a big risk given the steep rise in public debt during the covid pandemic.

Is the end coming soon?
On trade policy, one area where politicians from both sides of the aisle do see eye-to-eye, the consensus is deeply worrying. Its embrace of globalisation was a crucial background condition for America’s long run of strong growth, as a rising trade-to-gdpratio in the 1990s and 2000s makes clear. Foreign competition pushed American companies to make their operations more efficient; opportunities abroad gave them a bigger canvas for growth.

Now, though, globalisation is a dirty word in Washington, dc. A focus on national security and industrial policy has taken over. Take semiconductors: although America long ago lost its mantle as a major manufacturer, it is home to firms, such as Qualcomm and Nvidia, that design the world’s most sophisticated chips. That has worked well for America, letting it capture the highest-value segments of the global semiconductor industry.

But it is no longer enough. The government has started to throw billions of dollars at bringing chipmakers to America—in effect trying to hoover up lower-value parts of the industry in the name of supply-chain security. And it is trying to do much the same for electric vehicles, wind turbines, hydrogen production and more, potentially spending $2trn, or nearly 10% of gdp, to reshape the economy. These are aggressive interventions that run counter to America’s post-1980s stance; they may end up costing it productivity as well as money.

The overarching irony is that most of these potentially self-harming policies have their roots in a declinist view that, economically at least, simply does not reflect the facts. The diagnoses are that China is getting ahead, or that immigrants are a menace, that large corporations are bastions of woke power and free trade a form of treachery. Their folly is all the more striking because it betrays a lack of appreciation for the bigger economic picture, and just how good America has it. ?

I’m sorry, it’s really long and I messed up the quotes. But you can see where the quotation should begin.

Google CEO admits he doesn’t ‘fully understand’ how his AI works after it taught itself a new language and invented fake data to advance an idea

Sovereign First Nations people had never ceded sovereignty

The great manufactured dodge of those who think to comprehensively undermine the existence of Europeans is here.

‘Terra Nullius’ was never the basis of colonisation, but it was an observation of earlier adventurers. The British were previously happy to colonise territory they did not so assign.

But the great pretence as to pretence that ‘terra nullius’ asserts that there were no people – no humans – in Australia, and that being obviously wrong the basis for colonisation was baseless, is a key to the whiners.

Terra Nullius, as understood in the modern age, means a land where there is no state to address. Australia (an entity unimaginable by the older inhabitants) is no longer Terra Nullius. There is a structured government which can exert its will from coast to coast. There is a huge expanse of Antarctica, with almost no people, which is not Terra Nullius because, for all their scant population, it is an Australian territory. Anyone who wants to encroach therein, let us say a Dollar General from the US, must deal with the Australian government.

Who were the early Europeans supposed to deal with? Language groups? Clans? Bands? Individuals? There really was nothing there.

Aborigines did it really tough. Eked out a living where no one else assuredly could. Lived where anyone else would have died (although I would make the point that a large part of the reason is that other peoples’ values rather than ingenuity would have precluded survival – veneration of the elders would have meant you had to try to support a feeble elder rather than abandoning them).

But it was an doomed existence. Scarcely ably to justify itself even in its own terms, less so in those of the nations they hope to vampire-like sup upon. It is not a recourse to the rights of an earlier mode of sovereignty that the likes of the shi
Pity stripper-club-messiah hark, but the aspirations of a two-bit politician who thinks they are a whole dollar.

Dr Faustussays:

April 18, 2023 at 1:27 pm

Elon is exactly correct to label them “government-funded media”

Not exactly.
More precise and useful:

Government-funded media; supportive of Labor governments and antagonistic to conservative policies.

How good would it be if Musk created an algorithm which produced a simple linear chart to show how left-leaning or right-leaning a media outlet is?
Any departure 0.1% left of centre on the gauge would drive them nuts.

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry

NEW: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries didn’t just support anti-Semite Farrakhan in college but also embraced Marxism, demonizing “this country’s capitalist system” & advocating for “the redistribution of wealth” for “collective ends.” Democrats nominated Jeffries for Speaker

Third comment –

In other words, he’s one of today’s democrats.

FMD head prefect I was reading that long, occasionally correct piece you posted about the yanks, thinking “geez I’ve underestimated the shorter, he’s really put the old cerebral beret on his noggin”; but when I recheck it’s some by-line from some journal. Quotations please.

Quotations please.

I know, I said I screwed up. Shoot me.

Trump Rape Lawsuit Funded by Billionaire Who Invited Jeffrey Epstein for Dinner

Rice causes global warming

Dotsays:
April 18, 2023 at 5:15 pm

WHY AREN’T YOUNG MEN GETTING MARRIED!? MAN UP! YOU’LL LIVE LONGER!

And while I am about it, no one uses Upper Case Letters like you have to be sarcastic. That is more like a fat woman shouting like a fat Fish Wife. Sad really. FFS.

Ross Mckitrick, who I wish I had brought to Australia, and may still do so, on bolt explaining a new study about how the climate models are shot to bits and consistently exaggerate warming by 300%. The other issue is the source of CO2 which is natural. Fair dinkum, the science of alarmism belongs in a Nursery Rhyme book.

side issues like spellcheck

The details count head prefect; just like creases in the chinos, the colour of the sailing blazer coordinated with the loafers etc.

This isn’t the time for your nonsense, Cronkite. There are some very serious discussions going on especially with Wodney who’s about to tell us about his ladyboy and how happy he’s made him. You would be interested in that, obviously.

she’s outraged that anyone called her a nazi symp [no one did]

Yes they did crotchless.

There’s always time for wit, great insight and intellect head prefect; which is what I bring to the table. I don’t know this Wodney chap or his ladyboys. Is he the owner of one of the nightclubs you frequent?

And even more stuff for JC the Jerk Off Cretin, Dotty Dot of Dottiness and many others -Happy reading people.

US Troops on the Ground in Ukraine

“It’s official – the US is at war with Russia. This is no longer a proxy war regardless of whether an official declaration has been made. Washington confirmed that there is “a small U.S. military presence,” but only made the admission after the Pentagon data leak. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby insists American soldiers are not fighting on the battlefield.

“I won’t talk to the specifics of numbers and that kind of thing. But to get to your exact question, there is a small U.S. military presence at the embassy in conjunction with the Defense Attachés office to help us work on accountability of the material that is going in and out of Ukraine,” Kirby said, claiming the troops are connecting to a specific embassy. The initial data leak showed that there are also at least 50 troops from the UK on the ground in Ukraine, along with military personnel from 33 NATO nations.

The New York Times reported on Monday morning that NATO members are amassing their troops along the border. “NATO is rapidly moving from what the military calls deterrence by retaliation to deterrence by denial. In the past, the theory was that if the Russians invaded, member states would try to hold on until allied forces, mainly American and based at home, could come to their aid and retaliate against the Russians to try to push them back,” Steven Erlanger wrote. But NATO is going on the offensive rather than the defensive this time around. “To prevent that, to deter by denial, means a revolution in practical terms: more troops based permanently along the Russian border, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending and more detailed requirements for allies to have specific kinds of forces and equipment to fight, if necessary, in pre-assigned places,” the journalist wrote.

The war in Ukraine has already cost more than any war since World War II. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and there has never been a situation where NATO prepared its troops to battle a country unaffiliated with its alliance. Russia is completely backed into a corner now and the war must escalate. Putin will not retreat or surrender. Russia does not have the option to surrender as the world powers would swoop in and take over the nation, including its very valuable resources, which they’ve wanted all along. Zelensky is no longer running the show, and the global elites will decide how quickly to escalate this battle. Countless men, women, and children will die, all for the pride of a few who want to destroy the world to Build Back Better.”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/us-troops-on-the-ground-in-ukraine/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RSS

The UKR is winning this War? You are having a larf’…………………

Very good comment.

Thanks, Cassie.

Kenny increasingly desperate in supporting the screech saying no way will it give any power to the likes of thorpie or any other deranged 3rd nations activists

How you before people begin abandoning this turkey caravan? Plenty of reputational damage remaining hooked up to it in a way that was not present in the republic debate.

It should put a smile on your face.

Sci-Fi Fantasy Short Film “Downside Up” | DUST

Twitter was ‘absurdly’ overstaffed: Elon Musk

There appears to have been a great deal of apocrypha at twitter before Musk, Dot. Huge amount.

Twitter was ‘absurdly’ overstaffed: Elon Musk

Yet they were still unable to block the child pronn & grooming.
Something Musk managed to implement.

And some did, but the casualty rate would have been unacceptably high to us.

My mob ran sheep and cattle stations for over a hundred years, until the last of them retired in the 1970’s. They passed on the boundary riders stories of finding the bodies of the children, knocked on the head, and the old people, left behind to die, when the tribe moved on.

My mob ran sheep and cattle stations for over a hundred years, until the last of them retired in the 1970’s.

I’ve posted this before, but my uncle “went droving” out of Alice Springs in 1947. He recounted how the men had first pick of the game that was cooked on the campfire, the dogs were fed next, and the women and children got the scraps. I wonder how Lidia and Marcia would tolerate that situation?