There you go: US citizen's newspaper features Pommie bastard deploring ethnic activism …
Why isn't the pond surprised?
Well it's just a quick item for the specialist late arvo slot, as a reminder of why the onion muncher still reigns supreme ...
Now will he slip in a reference to clean dinkum Oz coal, oi, oi, oi?
Hands up anyone who had any doubts, because you can leave the classroom and stand head down in shame in the corridor:
Now the pond is all in favour of nationalising media groups owned by foreign citizens, and might well join any campaign to send ten pound Poms back where they came from, if it'll help stop this incessant blather ...
Meanwhile, the pond was startled to see this bit of good old-fashioned Labor terminology get an airing.
Scabs?
That's what it's come to at the lizard Oz?
The pond checked out the twitter feed to see if it turned up there ...
Nope, however you cut it, 'freeloaders' isn't 'scabs'. It's perhaps even a little more decent than 'bludgers', which covers pimping for the chairman ...
What about the piece itself?
Nope, nothing in that gobbet. Perhaps the next gobbet … but before proceeding, how about this, at The Hill of all places …
...Harrison argues that defense should be tied to security needs, not the size of a nation’s economy, and also cast doubt on the importance of questioning those who are able to spend less while providing sufficient troops and equipment. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a budget watchdog, agreed. “It’s not obvious that if real GDP grows 20 percent in the next 10 years, that we need 20 percent more tanks and airplanes,” he said. A recent CSIS report on NATO spending suggested that setting defense target relative to overall government spending would be a better measure. “Assessing the financial contribution of a member state relative to its economy fails to take into consideration how the money is spent and what it adds to the collective defense effort. It similarly does not assess the efficiency with which it is spent,” the report said. Historically, U.S. defense spending has accentuated that mentality...
And …
...Some fiscal and defense hawks say that the issues of debt and security are linked. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen called the national debt the “most significant threat to our national security.” One reason is that the more money is tied up in the military, the less flexibility the United States has to respond if a sudden new threat emerges. Another is that higher debt levels will make it harder to gather the funds needed to pay for defense in the future. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, shares Mullen’s view. “The greatest threat to our nation is not North Korea, or Russia, or even ISIS," he said last year. “The greatest threat to our nation is our inability to get our fiscal house in order.”
...Harrison argues that defense should be tied to security needs, not the size of a nation’s economy, and also cast doubt on the importance of questioning those who are able to spend less while providing sufficient troops and equipment. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a budget watchdog, agreed. “It’s not obvious that if real GDP grows 20 percent in the next 10 years, that we need 20 percent more tanks and airplanes,” he said. A recent CSIS report on NATO spending suggested that setting defense target relative to overall government spending would be a better measure. “Assessing the financial contribution of a member state relative to its economy fails to take into consideration how the money is spent and what it adds to the collective defense effort. It similarly does not assess the efficiency with which it is spent,” the report said. Historically, U.S. defense spending has accentuated that mentality...
And …
...Some fiscal and defense hawks say that the issues of debt and security are linked. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen called the national debt the “most significant threat to our national security.” One reason is that the more money is tied up in the military, the less flexibility the United States has to respond if a sudden new threat emerges. Another is that higher debt levels will make it harder to gather the funds needed to pay for defense in the future. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, shares Mullen’s view. “The greatest threat to our nation is not North Korea, or Russia, or even ISIS," he said last year. “The greatest threat to our nation is our inability to get our fiscal house in order.”
Now, back to the hunt for scabs, almost as elusive as snarks …
So 'scabs' was just the lizard Oz going full Trump …
The pond doesn't feel particularly sorry for Higgie.
That's what happens when scabs scribble for the chairman, it seems, as the ethno activists bid fair to turn Europe into a set of tense, nervous armed camps, trigger fingers at the ready, urged on by American ethno activists of the verbally abusive, power-hungry, stage-strutting kind …
Well we've been there before, as evoked by Steve Bell way back in 2006 ...
… and of course we've been there a long time before that …
Hi Dorothy,
ReplyDeleteI for one heartily agree with Herr Drumpf. What the world needs now is a heavily armed and militaristic Germany.
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.samizdata.net/2015/08/what-trevor-dupuy-says-about-the-german-military/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/?utm_term=.01d0257c39e2
DiddyWrote
Hmm. Germany could partner with the Japanese now that Drumpf has rejected Japan. As the two major motor vehicle manufacturers - other than China and the USA - that'd be a match "made in heaven" wouldn't it ? We could even ask Broady Boi Donners for an official ACU ruling on that.
Delete