25738 comments

• Comment Link nedeľa, 01 december 2024 02:09 posted by ร้านดอกไม้ จตุจักร

  id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading mw-first-heading">Search results
  
  Help
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  English
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Tools
  
  
  
  Tools
  move to sidebar hide
  
  Actions
  
  
  
  
  
  General
• Comment Link nedeľa, 01 december 2024 01:59 posted by ดอกไม้ไว้อาลัย สีดำ

  Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity is
  at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first place hear themselves?
  
  
  
  In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that the major parties
  look set to come together to support.
  
  The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals
  can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit
  on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the major parties currently spend.
  
  
  The proposed new laws also include lower
  disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing the transparency
  of who makes political donations in the first place.
  
  
  So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while using their cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth at all will be
  limited.
  
  The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that
  disclosures of donations need to be made.
  
  At present we have the absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the
  details of who has given what to whom many months later, well after elections are
  won and lost.
  
  In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result
  in much greater transparency and far less big money being
  injected into campaigning by the wealthy.
  
  
  
  
  Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared'
  with the policy and warned the reform would 'not stop the rot' 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves
  only the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'. Teal independent ACT
  senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be
  happening is a major-party stitch-up'
  
  Anyone donating more than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current
  rules, will need to disclose having done so.
  And how much they can donate will be capped.
  
  Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the
  proposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'. 
  
  They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's proposal just might secure the
  support of the opposition.
  
  I had to double check who was criticising
  what exactly before even starting to write this column.
  
  Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency
  measures stamping out the influence of the wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or
  the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability.
  
  
  
  More fool me.
  
  The bill, designed to clean up a rotten system, is being put forward by
  Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal
  of crossbenchers.
  
  It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this issue.
  
  
  
  
  
  Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major political donors such as Clive Palmer
  
  
  
  
  
  Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder
  Simon Holmes à Court
  
  
  
  
  
  The Greens have taken massive donations in the past, contrary to
  their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi are pictured)
  
  The major parties have long complained about the influence the
  likes of Simon Holmes à Court wields behind the
  scenes amongst the Teals. 
  
  And we know the Greens have taken massive donations from the wealthy in the
  past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules.
  
  
  Now that tangible change has been proposed,
  these bastions of virtue are running a mile from reforms that
  will curtail dark art of political donations.
  
  The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect
  immediately, by the way. It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next election designed to catch the
  crossbench out.
  
  They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough
  time to absorb and understand the changes before preparing
  for them.
  
  Don't get me wrong, no deal has yet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagine the opposition want
  to go over the laws with a fine tooth comb.
  
  As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of,
  therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally in the years
  to come.
  
  But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented,
  the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to
  what is being advocated for.
  
  They might even be able to offer something worthwhile that could be incorporated in the
  package.
  
  To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about
  being in politics to 'clean things up'.
• Comment Link nedeľa, 01 december 2024 00:32 posted by สรวง diy หนองจอก

  Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that
  transparency and integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament
  in the first place hear themselves?
  
  In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against
  proposed electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support.
  
  
  The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy
  individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the
  major parties currently spend.
  
  The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus
  increasing the transparency of who makes political donations in the first place.
  
  
  
  So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while using their
  cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth at all will be limited.
  
  
  The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that disclosures of donations need to be made.
  
  
  
  At present we have the absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later,
  well after elections are won and lost.
  
  In other words, what is broadly being proposed
  will result in much greater transparency and far less big money being injected into campaigning
  by the wealthy.
  
  
  
  
  Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared' with the policy and warned the reform
  would 'not stop the rot' 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves only
  the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'. Teal independent ACT senator David
  Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up'
  
  Anyone donating more than $1,000 to a political party, as
  opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having
  done so. And how much they can donate will be capped.
  
  Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the proposed new laws, labeling
  them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'. 
  
  They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's
  proposal just might secure the support of the opposition.
  
  I had to double check who was criticising what exactly before even starting to write this column.
  
  Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of
  the wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the
  corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability.
  
  
  More fool me.
  
  The bill, designed to clean up a rotten system, is being put forward by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers.
  
  
  It makes you wonder what they have to hide.
  Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this issue.
  
  
  
  
  
  Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major political
  donors such as Clive Palmer
  
  
  
  
  
  Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes à Court
  
  
  
  
  
  The Greens have taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls
  to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator
  Mehreen Faruqi are pictured)
  
  The major parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes
  à Court wields behind the scenes amongst the Teals. 
  
  And we know the Greens have taken massive donations from the wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules.
  
  
  Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions of virtue are running a mile from reforms that will
  curtail dark art of political donations.
  
  The Labor government isn't even seeking for these
  transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way.
  It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next election designed
  to catch the crossbench out.
  
  They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough time to absorb and understand the changes
  before preparing for them.
  
  Don't get me wrong, no deal has yet been done between Labor
  and the Coalition. I imagine the opposition want to go over the
  laws with a fine tooth comb.
  
  As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable
  of taking advantage of, therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally in the years
  to come.
  
  But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to what is being advocated for.
  
  
  They might even be able to offer something worthwhile
  that could be incorporated in the package.
  
  To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary
  about being in politics to 'clean things up'.
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 23:12 posted by จัดดอกไม้หน้าเมรุ ราคาถูก

  id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading mw-first-heading">Search results
  
  Help
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  English
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Tools
  
  
  
  Tools
  move to sidebar hide
  
  Actions
  
  
  
  
  
  General
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 21:14 posted by real estate agent in Pittsboro NC

  I am really loving the theme/design of your web site. Do you ever run into any browser compatibility problems?
  A few of my blog visitors have complained about my
  site not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Opera.
  
  Do you have any suggestions to help fix this issue?
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 21:08 posted by รับจัดงานศพ

  id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading mw-first-heading">Search results
  
  Help
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  English
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Tools
  
  
  
  Tools
  move to sidebar hide
  
  Actions
  
  
  
  
  
  General
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 21:03 posted by This Site

  Amazing issues here. I am very glad to peer your post. Thanks so much and I'm taking a look
  ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 20:54 posted by ดอกไม้ไหว้ศพ

  Joker: Folie À Deux — starring Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix — may have
  bombed at the box office, but the name behind the new flick is a perfect fit that nails its darkly playful tone. 
  
  Folie À Deux directly translates to madness for two. 
  
  The term means 'the presence of the same or similar delusional ideas
  in two persons closely associated with one another', According to Merriam-Webster. 
  
  And while the name is a stroke of clever ingenuity,
  the film itself might leave audiences feeling more bewildered than entertained. 
  
  The new flick has garnered the lowest CinemaScore in comic book
  movie history as it bombed at the box office on opening
  night. 
  
  
  
  
  Joker: Folie À Deux — starring Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix —
  may have bombed at the box office, but the name behind the new
  flick is a perfect fit that nails its darkly playful tone
  
  
  
  
  
  Folie À Deux directly translates to madness for two. The term
  means 'the presence of the same or similar delusional ideas in two persons closely associated with one another'
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The psychological musical thriller — which has been criticized as 'bleak'
  and 'disappointing' — officially released in theaters on Friday, October 4, but it only raked
  in $20 million at the domestic box office, per The Hollywood Reporter. 
  
  
  
  Read More
  
  Joker: Folie À Deux is branded 'bleak' and the 'most disappointing follow-up' by critics
  
  
  Joaquin reprised his role as the Joker in the sequel,
  which had earned him an Oscar for his portrayal in the 2019 film, while
  Gaga took on the role of Harleen Lee Quinzel (Harley Quinn). 
  
  However, Joker: Folie À Deux has been given a D rating on CinemaScore — the
  lowest score for a comic book movie at the time of writing. 
  
  Madame Web — which notably also flopped in theaters earlier this year and also received terrible
  reviews — holds a higher score with a C+. 
  
  On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie currently holds an audience score of 31 percent and a
  critic score of 33 percent. 
  
  The sequel is projected to rake in less that $50 million at the domestic box
  office during the entirety of opening weekend, per The Hollywood Reporter. 
  
  The movie had been projected to bring in around $70 million - but the number has since drastically dropped. 
  
  Joker (2019) notably opened with $96.2 million when the film first released
  in theaters - and eventually landed a little over $1 billion in the global box office. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It has garnered the lowest CinemaScore in comic book movie history as the film bombs at the box office
  on opening night
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It received a D rating on CinemaScore - the lowest score for a comic book movie
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie currently holds an audience score of 31% and a critic score of 32%
  
  The first movie - which was also directed by Todd Phillips - had a budget of between $55 and $70 million. However, the budget increased for Folie À Deux to around $200 million. 
  
  The 2019 movie garnered praise and positive reviews from both critics and audiences - and won the Golden Lion during the
  76th Venice International Film Festival. 
  
  Joaquin received an Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of the
  Joker (Arthur Fleck) - and the film garnered an additional Academy Award for Best Original Score. 
  
  The sequel also screened during the Venice International Film Festival last month in September,
  where it earned a 12-minute standing ovation, per Deadline.   
  
  However, audiences have since taken to X after the movie released in theaters on Friday - and shared their opinions
  on the sequel, which features musical sequences. 
  
  One fan penned, 'Joaquin Phoenix don't deserve this. what happened to the script?' while another added, 'is it that bad,' followed by a crying face emoji. 
  
  'Ironically I feel that a musical, if done well, could have been a good choice.
  It'd show how much of an unreliable narrator Fleck is,' one typed. 
  
  'But with some original songs, that keep everything vague, not
  just covers. Also when I heard of the ending I snorted fr.' 
  
  A social media user wrote, 'Stop making sequels as musicals if the original
  wasn't a musical.' 
  
  'Maybe he [Phillips] only had an hour long movie, and decided to randomly
  add musical scenes to fill the runtime,' one penned. 
  
  'Joker downfall really needs to be studied,' another shared,
  along with a monkey staring out a window. 
  
  One fan said, 'the movie sucks. i had to walk out of the
  cinema,' while another penned, 'After years of disagreement....*Joker 2 releases* Critics [shaking hands] Audience.' 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  However, audiences have since taken to X after the movie
  released in theaters on Friday - and shared their opinions over the
  sequel, which was also a musical
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  'Ironically I feel that a musical, if done well, could have been a good
  choice. It'd show how much of an unreliable narrator Fleck is,' one typed
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  'Joker downfall really needs to be studied,' another shared, along with a
  monkey staring out a window
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  'That's way below what we expected,' one wrote in regards to the current Rotten Tomatoes scores.
  'People are saying this is the worst sequel ever.' 
  
  A fan explained, 'yea this film was bad.
  it was pretentious and dull. has the aesthetic of an arthouse film without the substance.' 
  
  'It also insults the audience's intelligence. the songs were also underwhelming too.
  they shouldn't have let this escape to theaters.' 
  
  One shared, 'The audience that loved the first movie is not
  the same audience running to see musicals. This was a gigantic mistake from step 1.' 
  
  During an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Phillips discussed whether he would be interested
  in making a third Joker film or a movie centered around Gaga's character. 
  
  'It's not really where this movie is headed for me.
  I feel like my time in the DC Universe was these
  two films.' 
  
  
  Joaquin PhoenixLady Gaga
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 20:13 posted by real estate agent in Bedford NH

  Definitely consider that which you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be at the net the easiest thing to
  have in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed at the same time as folks think about worries that they just don't realize about.
  
  You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing
  without having side-effects , people could take a signal.
  Will probably be back to get more. Thank you
• Comment Link sobota, 30 november 2024 19:57 posted by realtor in Pittsboro NC

  Cool blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
  A design like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog jump out.
  Please let me know where you got your theme.
  With thanks