Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
‘More than half a dozen of Johnson’s allies hit out at the report. Sir James Duddridge said the committee might as well “put Boris in the stocks” and “throw rotten food at him, moving him around the marginals so the country could share in the humiliation”.’
So they DID have some good ideas, after all…
So they DID have some good ideas, after all…
I'm sure the long list of ex colleagues, wives. girlfriends and others used and abused by Spaffer's lies and deceits will be revelling in his humiliations with more to come.
I'm waiting to hear the nature of the relationship between Johnson and Charlotte Owen.
You must log in or register to see media
Have I Got News For You:
Doubts raised over impartiality of new Daily Mail article:
Doubts raised over impartiality of new Daily Mail article:
You must log in or register to see images
Laugh, I nearly ****.
You must log in or register to see images
Play it down as much as you like but it was a section of the Diversity and Inclusion page on the Johns Hopkins website. Johns Hopkins as I'm sure you know is regarded as one of the best universities in the USA . Whether it was there for months before it was discovered is you again trying to divert away from the issue. It's been brought to the attention of the public (or the right wing as you like to say in an attempt to invalidate it further) because even in this day of incredible gibberish, this is one of the best. Johns Hopkins has influence whatever you say and it's nonsense like this is why we have hospitals calling women "chest feeders" , or The Lancet using the term "bodies with vaginas". It's not just from an "obscure corner of a university's website", it's everywhere and that's down to people like yourself.
If you achieve nothing else in life this is something to be proud of.
How on earth are we in a situation where women are having to protest what a woman is or what they are called? It defies sanity yet some defend it and some play it down. But despite your assurances of "nobody cares", they actually do and the momentum against this drivel is gathering speed. Here's hoping.
I think Schad’s point is that in most cases people are fully aware of what a woman is. However, I do agree with you. The word woman should not be denied to women. Women have their own struggled which are distinct from trans struggles.
To lump them all together is a disservice to both and pushed by ideology not fact.
That said, the right love this fight as it it plays into wokeness is evil as their bizarre mantra. Wokeness is annoying but it is a movement trying to balance out some of the harsher ideas of the past. It is just a phase on the path to agreement- if humanity ever gets there!
It's also a ridiculously asymmetric fight. On one side, the left sometimes uses silly language (while arguing among themselves as to what silly language to use). On the other side, the right wants to legislate minority groups straight out of public life, and there has been a considerable wave of violence accompanying that push (and a whole lot of people in full Nazi regalia showing up to anti-queer protests and not being shooed away by their fellow travelers). One of those things seems more consequential than the other, to me.
Claims that the international agreement on pandemics prevention and preparedness will cede power to WHO is false. It's fake news.
From https://www.dw.com/en/no-the-who-isnt-trying-to-grab-pandemic-lockdown-powers/a-65803596
"Countries will decide what the pandemic accord says, and countries alone. And countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO," the WHO spokesperson said.
The fake news has also made its way into traditional media outlets, with The Telegraph claiming that UK ministers fear the WHO pandemic treaty could impose lockdowns on the UK.
But the language in the treaty draft could not be any clearer: Powers to prevent and respond to pandemics will remain under national jurisdiction.
Its first consideration, listed on page 4, aims to "reaffirm the principle of sovereignty of State Parties in addressing public health matters."
Statements above in red completly repudiate the scaremongering misleading Telegraph piece "A WHO pandemic treaty would be a threat to our freedom.
Proposals for a global response shouldn’t see the light of day – healthcare decisions must be taken by national parliaments."
More in these links
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-world-health-organization-pandemic-treaty-212446302001
This is concise, AP's bebunking of claims.
"CLAIM: A legally-binding World Health Organization “pandemic treaty” will give the organization the authority to control U.S. policies during a pandemic, including those on vaccines, lockdowns, school closures and more."
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The voluntary treaty, which is in draft form and is still far away from ratification, does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, told The Associated Press. The treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Nowhere in the 30-page document are lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems mentioned."
From https://www.dw.com/en/no-the-who-isnt-trying-to-grab-pandemic-lockdown-powers/a-65803596
"Countries will decide what the pandemic accord says, and countries alone. And countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO," the WHO spokesperson said.
The fake news has also made its way into traditional media outlets, with The Telegraph claiming that UK ministers fear the WHO pandemic treaty could impose lockdowns on the UK.
But the language in the treaty draft could not be any clearer: Powers to prevent and respond to pandemics will remain under national jurisdiction.
Its first consideration, listed on page 4, aims to "reaffirm the principle of sovereignty of State Parties in addressing public health matters."
Statements above in red completly repudiate the scaremongering misleading Telegraph piece "A WHO pandemic treaty would be a threat to our freedom.
Proposals for a global response shouldn’t see the light of day – healthcare decisions must be taken by national parliaments."
More in these links
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-world-health-organization-pandemic-treaty-212446302001
This is concise, AP's bebunking of claims.
"CLAIM: A legally-binding World Health Organization “pandemic treaty” will give the organization the authority to control U.S. policies during a pandemic, including those on vaccines, lockdowns, school closures and more."
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The voluntary treaty, which is in draft form and is still far away from ratification, does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, told The Associated Press. The treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Nowhere in the 30-page document are lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems mentioned."
Tory breeding program in full swing. Some great child bearing hips there, not just female ones.
You must log in or register to see media
Daily Mail not a word shocker on Boris debacle.
You must log in or register to see media
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097
Await Os arriving to state that he's been stitched up here, but the fact that Tate once had a website which detailed how he manipulated women into doing sex work for him does make it harder to defend against charges that he was manipulating women into doing sex work for him.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7v94y/andrew-tate-tinder-camgirls
Await Os arriving to state that he's been stitched up here, but the fact that Tate once had a website which detailed how he manipulated women into doing sex work for him does make it harder to defend against charges that he was manipulating women into doing sex work for him.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7v94y/andrew-tate-tinder-camgirls
Nothing to worry about.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/stude...ter-questioning-peer-who-identifies-as-a-cat/
https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/stude...ter-questioning-peer-who-identifies-as-a-cat/
You're right; I definitely wouldn't worry about some article in the New York Post.
Similar threads
