澳洲时政今日: 11|主题: 2201

澳洲时政版的宗旨是为了提高在澳华人对澳洲时政的了解和关心，最终达到提高澳洲华人参政热情和对澳洲政治的影响力。1. 内容仅限于澳洲时事和政坛相关的讨论。任何其他国家的内容将被删除，恕不另行通知。2. 新闻翻译请发到新闻版。3. 坚持对事不对人的原则。禁止任何人身攻击，谩骂，讥笑嘲讽，无中生有的发帖。欢迎举报任何违规内容。4. 鼓励对时事的不同看法和讨论。5. 鉴于本版内容可能会比较有争议性，版主会根据情况处理帖子。6. 本版不接受任何转帖。

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 56 / 56 页下一页

新窗筛选: 全部主题全部时间排序: 最后发表\|精华		作者	回复/查看	最后发表

公告: 投票调查：否认强奸指称后，司法部长波特应该继续担任内阁部长吗？	astina 2021-3-4
联邦选举投票指南最后跟贴：什么时候选，等不及了。最后发表：parramatta ...2	Y叔 2013-9-3	4517270	parramatta 2021-3-2 07:33
请大家记住选举委员会的网站: www.aec.gov.au 最后跟贴：一定去投票。最后发表：GEWEIYA ...2	bulaohu 2010-8-16	4222694	GEWEIYA 2021-3-1 09:23
版块主题
司法部长波特否认所指称强奸后，是否还应该继续担任内阁部长？（投票加一分）最后跟贴： buyongba 发表于 2021-3-5 05:34 那他为何不支持独立调查？作为权力人物，在独立调查开始前，他有一百种方法让自己看起来“innocent”, ... 新州警方的调查就是独立调查，从头到尾都没有让波特知道。如果你不信任警方的调查，那么又为什么要信任一个临时组成的“独立调查”？说到底，就是很多人心中早有成见，现在警方的结论不符合他们的想法，但又找不到警方调查过程中有什么问题，就只能喊着再来一次。最后发表：xydxyd ...2 3 4 New	astina 2021-3-4	1002661	xydxyd 2021-3-5 08:23
第二次Covid-19疫苗接种意愿调查（投票自动加2分）最后跟贴： astina 发表于 2021-3-4 23:07 @Y叔最后发表：Y叔 ...2 3 4 New	Y叔 2021-3-2	1118926	Y叔 2021-3-5 08:20
布里斯班太晒了，有什么防黑秘籍么。最后跟贴：控制时间，不要长时间暴晒，再擦点防晒霜，。最后发表：GEWEIYA	wheniyoung 2021-2-16	8338	GEWEIYA 2021-3-4 21:08
新版排华法案有望通过，该党已尝试投票废除18C！！！最后跟贴：飞儿发表于 2019-4-28 09:05 妖言惑众自由党执政期间，好像没有难民，没有华人移民似的。它是澳洲公民吗？算了吧。。。妖言惑众的这里还少吗？大家都撤了，留给它们玩吧！最后发表：迷宫 ...2 3 4 5 6..13	dam 2019-4-28	36518668	迷宫 2021-3-4 20:16
澳华裔议员收到种族歧视信件最后跟贴： landing 发表于 2021-3-4 15:19 政府好像没什么反应新足迹新闻版也没什么反应最后发表：UNREGISTRATION ...2 New	she1004 2021-3-3	331012	UNREGISTRATION 2021-3-4 16:14
你愿意打Covid-19疫苗吗？（投票加2分）最后跟贴： flyfish668 发表于 2021-1-20 19:27 等等强生再说，它说若三期临床试验进展顺利，将向土澳供应1.2亿剂新冠疫苗 ... 哪里的新闻？有链接吗？最后发表：Acu ...2 3 4 5 6..8	astina 2021-1-18	21715723	Acu 2021-3-4 09:39
阿贝兹再抛言论，号召澳人团结抗共最后跟贴： feox 发表于 2021-3-3 21:53 难得你这么平和的对待跟你立场不同的人。谢谢！本来都是素未谋面的网友，无冤无仇，平常心罢了。 "你当然不是指的这些物质生活的改善，无非是民主自由之类普世价值之类。 ...把自由民主当做普世价值，本身就不是一个民主的想法。" 我不满的地方已经列举了, 既包括平民百姓生计方面(教育, 医疗资源分配问题, 劳动者尤其是"低端人口"权益保障等等), 也包括写在中国宪法里的公民权利, 言论,集会自由等等。当今, 因言获罪已经不是新鲜事了。这些问题的存在很明显, 并不是跟西方民主制度比出来的。另外我不是民主战士, 尽管我个人更喜欢澳洲的民主社会。我认为中国人的道路要他们自己选择。共产党有在全国有很高的支持率, 他们自己选择的道路, 外人不应该把自己认为好的强加于中国人。民主始于民众的思想, 没有这个根基, 不可能有真正的民主。最后发表：拙泥 ...2 3 4 5 6	iphone1000 2020-12-24	1636266	拙泥 2021-3-4 01:14
论司法总长对强奸指控的自辩最后跟贴：今天司法总长Christian Porter站出来，承认自己就是媒体中被指控在30年前强奸16岁少女的当事人。司法总长和一些右翼记者（如Andrew Bolt）把此事与前任工党领袖Bill Shorten的经历拿出来作对比，以证明自己受到了媒体的不公正对待。 Bill Shorten被指控在30多年前性侵一位女士，该女子在2014年Bill Shorten当选反对党（工党）领袖之后，在自己的facebook上声称在80年代曾经被Shorten强奸。此事刚出时，Shorten也没有对公众发声，他等到警方结案并不宣布证据不足、不予起诉之后，对媒体交代说自己就是性侵指控的对象，觉得自己有必要在事件结束后给大家一个交代，以证清白。此事在Shorten 对外公开说明之后告一段落，后来Shorten在2019年的联邦大选中失败，输给了自由党的Scomo,因此辞去工党领袖职位。Shorten在大选中的失败原因很多，但是曾经的性侵指控却并不是主要原因，因为他早在2014年就已洗脱罪名,并继续担任工党领袖。今天，自由党政府的司法总长Christian Porter被迫承认自己就是30多年前一起少女强奸案的被指控者，他拿出了Bill Shorten的例子来对比自己的遭遇，认为媒体并没有以同样宽容的态度来报道他，尽管他和Bill Shorten的遭遇十分相似。乍一听，Porter的辩解似乎很有说服力：的确，他迟迟不站出来，好像也是因为在等待警方的最终结论。而媒体却有意无意地把此事渲染成了“他做贼心虚所以迟迟不敢承认”的意思，媒体中还有许多报道都对已过世的女受害者持同情的态度，以此显得Porter有罪的形象跃然纸上。与Shorten对比，媒体似乎确实有区别对待的嫌疑。 Porter还公开表示，反对就此事进行独立调查。他的理由是，每个人除非被法庭认定为罪名成立，否则都是无辜的（presumption of innocence unless proven guilty)。假如一位高层政客仅仅因为遭到指控就要引咎辞职并且接受调查，那么先例一出，以后谁想打击自己的政治对手，都可以使出这个招数，这样民主制度就会受到挑战。嗯，不亏是搞法律的，Porter的这个论点似乎也很有说服力。那么我们看看，他的论点到底能不能站得住脚呢？先和Bill Shorten对比。大家可以思考以下的问题：（1）反对党领袖对司法公正的影响力大，还是在任司法总长对司法公正的影响力大？（2）Bill Shorten事件的原告也自杀身亡了吗？（3）Bill Shorten事件的原告有厚厚的日记本记录吗？有朋友旁证吗？（4）Bill Shorten 事件在警方宣布证据不足、不予起诉之后，其原告是否提出过异议？是否表示要追诉到底？是否表现出自杀倾向？（5）假如Porter事件的原告仍然在世，警方还能够如此快速的结案吗？如此看来，针对Shorten的结案调查是否比针对Porter的结案调查需要更多的取证，也因此更有说服力呢？再分析一下司法总长的第二个论点，即：如果随便一个政客仅仅因为被指控就要面临独立调查并停职，这会坏了民主的规矩。那么我们再把总长与”随便一个政客“进行比较：（1）”随便一个政客“成为司法总长的几率有多大？（2）”随便一个政客“在遭到性侵指控后，受害人因为此事自杀身亡的几率有多大？假如对以上两种情况的几率都很低的话，那么总长大人口中说的“开了先例”是否还能成立？试问，出现能参照此等先例的案子的可能性有多大呢？大家对此事议论纷纷，其实Porter在此事中之所以获得媒体的宽容程度不高，而他之所以获得公众的怀疑程度很高，就是因为他所涉及的事情与一般的政客性丑闻都没有可比性，可以说是挑战了大众的容忍程度。而Scomo在这样的情况下，依然希望能够活活稀泥、不了了之，只能说明他的道德标准连普通大众都不如。大家想想，是不是这么回事儿？最后发表：克鲁伊 New	克鲁伊 2021-3-3	0107	克鲁伊 2021-3-3 20:25
最新：阿德莱德打人的Funtea奶茶店重新开业了！最后跟贴： benny2002 发表于 2021-3-3 19:27 大部分的华人店都这样。难道抵制所有华人店？是不是澳大利亚没有了这些华人店，华人都要去死呢？没有了他们，自然有其他合法的来填补市场。印度人没有印度街，没有那么大批的餐馆，是不是印度人在澳大利亚就活不下去了呢？最后发表：yybsn New	yybsn 2021-3-3	12529	yybsn 2021-3-3 19:42
奶茶店老板最新发言：害我的这些孙子，走着瞧最后跟贴：希望政府部门能罚死他最后发表：cainryna ...2 3 4	yybsn 2021-2-14	999047	cainryna 2021-3-2 19:41
最新：候议员：商家是弱势群体奶茶店主说受到死亡威胁，悉尼奶爸收费采访，唐人街商家联名写信赞扬候议员最后跟贴：啥情况呀，谁是工厂主的儿子呀？最后发表：凯蒂猫 ...2 3 4 5 6	yybsn 2021-2-10	1568414	凯蒂猫 2021-3-2 19:36
关于奶茶事件的访谈视频，悉尼奶爸的节奏最后跟贴：吃相有点难看了最后发表：凯蒂猫 ...2 3 4 5 6	PotatoChips 2021-2-10	1597601	凯蒂猫 2021-3-2 19:26
请愿！！要求侯议员辞职！！！最后跟贴：为啥就没有像模像样的一点的人来当议员呢最后发表：凯蒂猫 ...2 3 4	8gua 2021-2-10	1084614	凯蒂猫 2021-3-2 19:23
足迹赞不绝口的安州长吹牛后在牛年被打脸 (附所有英文链接) 最后跟贴：看他的长相憨憨厚厚的挺可爱的最后发表：凯蒂猫 ...2	yang689 2021-2-12	311340	凯蒂猫 2021-3-2 19:20
‘The Longer Telegram’ Is A Recipe For Costly Failure 最后跟贴： https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/the-longer-telegram-is-a-recipe-for-costly-failure/ anonymous former government official has written a conventionally hawkish paper on China. The Atlantic Council and Politico have both published versions of the piece, and they have agreed to keep the author’s identity under wraps for reasons known only to them. The Atlantic Council claims that anonymity was necessary because of “the extraordinary significance of the author’s insights and recommendations.” It’s not clear why they find these insights and recommendations to be so extraordinary, since almost everything in the paper has been said before by various authors. It makes no sense why the author would need to remain anonymous in order to make these views known. The author likens the paper to George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” by calling it “the longer telegram,” but the paper has little or none of Kennan’s astute observations about history and strategy. A lot of it is a series of regurgitated ideological claims about the Chinese government and its ambitions under the leadership of Xi Jinping. In that respect, it is not so different from H.R. McMaster’s attempt from last year. It is just much, much longer. It may come as a surprise to learn that “Xi has returned China to classical Marxism-Leninism,” but this is what the executive summary of the report says. That is a bizarre and incorrect claim, but it is one that the anonymous author returns to several times. The author asserts that “Xi has demonstrated that he intends to project China’s authoritarian system, coercive foreign policy, and military presence well beyond his country’s own borders to the world at large,” but we are left wondering how this has been demonstrated and he never proves his case. Then the author oversimplifies things quite a bit when he says, “China under Xi, unlike under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao, is no longer a status quo power. It has become a revisionist power.” Even granting that China has become somewhat more combative over certain territorial claims in the last nine years, this overstates the case. China can sometimes behave like a revisionist power, but in many ways China benefits from the existing institutions and rules and doesn’t wish to overturn them. It is inaccurate to describe China as being simply revisionist, and it creates a very misleading picture of China’s strategic goals. In short, the anonymous author exaggerates Chinese ambitions and threats as many China hawks tend to do, and he casts the rivalry between the U.S. and China in stark ideological terms that do not reflect reality. One unique element in the essay is the author’s proposal that the U.S. focus its attention on Xi and the party elite: Given the reality that today’s China is a state in which Xi has centralized nearly all decision-making power in his own hands, and used that power to substantially alter China’s political, economic, and foreign-policy trajectory, US strategy must remain laser focused on Xi, his inner circle, and the Chinese political context in which they rule. Changing their decision-making will require understanding, operating within, and changing their political and strategic paradigm. All US policy aimed at altering China’s behavior should revolve around this fact, or it is likely to prove ineffectual. Right here we can see the critical flaw in the author’s proposed strategy that renders the rest of the essay rather redundant. He imagines that there is some way that the U.S. can successfully change the decision-making of top Chinese officials when our government’s record of compelling foreign leaders to change their behavior is very poor. The U.S. has tried and failed to force changes in regime behavior in much smaller, weaker countries than China. The idea that the U.S. has the ability to force such changes in the Chinese government’s behavior is sheer fantasy. If the U.S. is supposed to change Chinese officials’ decision-making, what does the author want to achieve? The author says that the “overriding political objective should be to cause China’s elite leadership to collectively conclude that it is in the country’s best interests to continue to operate within the existing US-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order,” but pressure tactics are likely to encourage China to build more parallel institutions as a way of adapting to pressure. The author wants to convince Beijing “that it is in the party’s best interests, if it wishes to remain in power at home, not to attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.” In addition to being a reckless threat of attempting regime change if they do not comply with U.S. wishes, this is a solution to a problem that largely doesn’t exist. Chinese territorial ambitions are limited, and its government has no desire to export its political model anywhere outside its own territory. Like Pompeo and McMaster, the anonymous author assumes that China has ideologically-driven expansionist goals that encompass the globe. He is on guard against a phantom menace. Home/The State Of The Union/‘The Longer Telegram’ Is A Recipe For Costly Failure ‘The Longer Telegram’ Is A Recipe For Costly Failure bibiphoto / Shutterstock.com JANUARY 29, 2021\|3:56 PM DANIEL LARISON An anonymous former government official has written a conventionally hawkish paper on China. The Atlantic Council and Politico have both published versions of the piece, and they have agreed to keep the author’s identity under wraps for reasons known only to them. The Atlantic Council claims that anonymity was necessary because of “the extraordinary significance of the author’s insights and recommendations.” It’s not clear why they find these insights and recommendations to be so extraordinary, since almost everything in the paper has been said before by various authors. It makes no sense why the author would need to remain anonymous in order to make these views known. The author likens the paper to George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” by calling it “the longer telegram,” but the paper has little or none of Kennan’s astute observations about history and strategy. A lot of it is a series of regurgitated ideological claims about the Chinese government and its ambitions under the leadership of Xi Jinping. In that respect, it is not so different from H.R. McMaster’s attempt from last year. It is just much, much longer. It may come as a surprise to learn that “Xi has returned China to classical Marxism-Leninism,” but this is what the executive summary of the report says. That is a bizarre and incorrect claim, but it is one that the anonymous author returns to several times. The author asserts that “Xi has demonstrated that he intends to project China’s authoritarian system, coercive foreign policy, and military presence well beyond his country’s own borders to the world at large,” but we are left wondering how this has been demonstrated and he never proves his case. Then the author oversimplifies things quite a bit when he says, “China under Xi, unlike under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao, is no longer a status quo power. It has become a revisionist power.” Even granting that China has become somewhat more combative over certain territorial claims in the last nine years, this overstates the case. China can sometimes behave like a revisionist power, but in many ways China benefits from the existing institutions and rules and doesn’t wish to overturn them. It is inaccurate to describe China as being simply revisionist, and it creates a very misleading picture of China’s strategic goals. In short, the anonymous author exaggerates Chinese ambitions and threats as many China hawks tend to do, and he casts the rivalry between the U.S. and China in stark ideological terms that do not reflect reality. One unique element in the essay is the author’s proposal that the U.S. focus its attention on Xi and the party elite: Given the reality that today’s China is a state in which Xi has centralized nearly all decision-making power in his own hands, and used that power to substantially alter China’s political, economic, and foreign-policy trajectory, US strategy must remain laser focused on Xi, his inner circle, and the Chinese political context in which they rule. Changing their decision-making will require understanding, operating within, and changing their political and strategic paradigm. All US policy aimed at altering China’s behavior should revolve around this fact, or it is likely to prove ineffectual. Right here we can see the critical flaw in the author’s proposed strategy that renders the rest of the essay rather redundant. He imagines that there is some way that the U.S. can successfully change the decision-making of top Chinese officials when our government’s record of compelling foreign leaders to change their behavior is very poor. The U.S. has tried and failed to force changes in regime behavior in much smaller, weaker countries than China. The idea that the U.S. has the ability to force such changes in the Chinese government’s behavior is sheer fantasy. If the U.S. is supposed to change Chinese officials’ decision-making, what does the author want to achieve? The author says that the “overriding political objective should be to cause China’s elite leadership to collectively conclude that it is in the country’s best interests to continue to operate within the existing US-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order,” but pressure tactics are likely to encourage China to build more parallel institutions as a way of adapting to pressure. The author wants to convince Beijing “that it is in the party’s best interests, if it wishes to remain in power at home, not to attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.” In addition to being a reckless threat of attempting regime change if they do not comply with U.S. wishes, this is a solution to a problem that largely doesn’t exist. Chinese territorial ambitions are limited, and its government has no desire to export its political model anywhere outside its own territory. Like Pompeo and McMaster, the anonymous author assumes that China has ideologically-driven expansionist goals that encompass the globe. He is on guard against a phantom menace. The paper embeds the author’s misguided China recommendations in a defense of continued U.S. global primacy. There are all the usual salutes to the virtues of U.S. “leadership” that we have come to expect from such arguments: “US leadership remains the only credible foundation for sustaining, enhancing, and, where necessary, creatively reinventing the liberal international order.” The paper declares that America’s “core objective must be the retention of US global and regional strategic primacy for the century ahead.” This mistakenly assumes that it is both possible and desirable to sustain U.S. primacy in the world and in East Asia. The truth is that the U.S. has to adapt to a world in which it does not dominate East Asia or the world. The author’s unwillingness to contemplate the reality that it already upon us confirms that he is more ideologue than careful strategist. The author warns, “To abandon this mission would mean “the city upon a hill” would fade from view as the United States became just another nation-state in narrow pursuit of its national self-interest.” This is unvarnished American exceptionalist hogwash. The idea that America might become a normal country that pursues its own interests horrifies the author. All of the threat inflation and exaggerations of Chinese ambitions serve the purpose of giving America another grand ideological quest so that it doesn’t become “just another nation-state,” but the pursuit of yet another open-ended crusade has nothing to do with U.S. security and prosperity and it will undermine and possibly even wreck both. The so-called “longer telegram” is a recipe for costly failure, and it should be dismissed as such. There is a better U.S. strategy for East Asia available, and it looks nothing like this. 最后发表：joannejonesn New	joannejonesn 2021-3-1	065	joannejonesn 2021-3-1 17:24
大家是如何看待白左和白右的？最后跟贴：各有所爱。最后发表：GEWEIYA	dayone 2021-2-16	24700	GEWEIYA 2021-2-26 15:51
不买澳洲的煤，却买美国的，只能说明中共百般刁难澳洲只不过因为袋中没钱了，先不敢得罪美国而已最后跟贴：原来澳洲总理也是以Make America Great Again 为目标的呀！最后发表：miHoYo ...2	方白 2021-2-21	311086	miHoYo 2021-2-25 19:32
我来谈谈墨尔本张菊失踪案的疑点和个人见解最后跟贴：https://www.6parknews.com/newspa ... view&nid=468762 点开上链接，有疑犯Tan的2个短视频有会看相的吗？最后发表：猫儿不笨 ...2	Wuailing 2021-2-10	362703	猫儿不笨 2021-2-23 20:52
谢连斌案上诉前疑点讨论最后跟贴：本帖最后由 SoftSome 于 2021-2-22 18:22 编辑 hornsay 发表于 2021-2-22 16:19 如果没有听错的话，PERLIN argue的是孤女的DNA在所有的不同人群的组合测试里面都存在，只是量少量多的问 ... 几次审判的律师都没做最关键的一件事，包括前面的大牌律师。控方用大笔公款请了Perlin 博士这样的知名人物，辩方早就应该下血本请同样级别的人物，像上诉时的Gill教授。结果到四审时都没有请，处处被控方请的专家进攻，忙于招架。等到上诉时醒过味儿来请了Gill 教授做分析，可是太晚了，被上诉庭拒绝采用。最后发表：SoftSome ...2 3 4 5 6..16	猫儿不笨 2019-1-20	45926457	SoftSome 2021-2-22 18:19
澳大利亚本国大台上面中国报道的立场和可信度最后跟贴：如果澳洲媒体的可信度是50，那微信的可信度可能10都不到。最后发表：auman	dayone 2021-2-17	13612	auman 2021-2-22 00:01
中国政府是目标是让莫里森下台最后跟贴：楼主，你们是神助攻，你放心有投票权的华人基本上都投莫里森，你没有投票权，放在中国妄议中央就被刑拘了，翻墙出来才有了言论自由。最后发表：myangaus ...2 3 4 5	outdance 2020-11-29	1469190	myangaus 2021-2-21 23:07
拜登和中美中澳关系最后跟贴：华为准备养猪了，这么多钱白扔了，非常无奈。感觉战狼粉红五毛都是华为的黑子。最后发表：myangaus	dayone 2021-2-13	9366	myangaus 2021-2-21 22:57
承建达尔文Howard Springs隔离设施的建筑商可在4个月内在维州建设隔离设施最后跟贴：应该这样做最后发表：myangaus	smallcup 2021-2-17	282	myangaus 2021-2-21 22:52
2021年中澳关系最后跟贴：取决于美国最后发表：myangaus	dayone 2021-2-16	15524	myangaus 2021-2-21 22:39
多名澳洲政要向敏感宗教团体发送春节祝贺最后跟贴：这是很搞笑的一件事情，目前根本没有共产党对立面的组织和力量，法轮功能够站到台面，预示着共产党的路还可以走很长时间最后发表：DataRecovery	CopyLeft 2021-2-19	5294	DataRecovery 2021-2-19 16:29
Facebook和新闻媒体都不是好人，支持他们竞争最后跟贴：FB封trump的时候，澳洲媒体都说封的好，FB是私人公司，他们有权封。现在轮到澳洲了，媒体的态度怎么就变了呢？最后发表：han1250	skysadness 2021-2-18	5272	han1250 2021-2-19 13:23
悉尼的上北女子中学校长被学生批评发表带有厌女的言论最后跟贴：车水马龙的地发表于 2021-2-14 14:56 如果是这样来选择雇用教师的话，又会受到性别歧视的指控。万万不可行啊。。。should be keeep on an even ... 也有男校啊，只雇佣男老师。要男女分开就彻底分开。只分学生不分开员工，这不是歧视未成年人吗最后发表：krel	车水马龙的地 2021-2-13	14650	krel 2021-2-14 23:51
(高清薄码)阿德HotFunteaのBoss告白Debut-“真相”口中出更新至最终回&番外最后跟贴： tumbleweed 发表于 2021-2-14 19:40 人人平等就不好玩了，就是有奴隶制，他们才有奋斗目标，有朝一日可以做人上人，骑在别人的头上。 ... 5年前一个builder和我说，他喜欢去非洲做生意，我问为什么？他说有些非洲国家工资1美元一天，那时我没法完全去理解这份感受，就觉得有点不公平，为啥同样强度的劳动，我们澳洲那时17澳元每小时，非洲是1美元1天，随着岁月的洗礼，现在我都明白了最后发表：gulite120 ...2 3 4 5 6..23	Helixd21 2021-2-8	66828201	gulite120 2021-2-14 20:15
阿德莱德奶茶事件最寒心的难道不是人性的冷漠吗？最后跟贴：事后分析这么多，现实估计就是没反应过来，人之常情。最后发表：maodoubao ...2 3 4	sky3g 2021-2-5	924235	maodoubao 2021-2-13 11:50
VIC 都决定 Lockdown 了，NSW 还不关边境最后跟贴：NSW不屑开开关关最后发表：mdlp	scorpiusd 2021-2-12	1197	mdlp 2021-2-12 16:13
阿德莱德 funtea 事件视频已更新，请问这是无影脚在世吗？最后跟贴： flyinfree 发表于 2021-2-11 13:52 你忘了最重要的一点：是那个女的先”骂人“，郭老板才向段老板”投诉“的，结果女的”无耻“，居然 ... 老太太都不扶，就。。。最后发表：PotatoChips ...2 3 4 5 6..37	nuknuk 2021-2-2	110179193	PotatoChips 2021-2-11 13:57
分析奶茶店女孩被打事件的发展趋势，欢迎吐槽。最后跟贴：这样的店主不罚他个半死他都不知道疼，你看他的表现，在他的店里，除了wage theft外，他的员工被人打了，他没有关心，还帮打人的人，更恶心的是现在付钱想找一个youtuber 为他洗白，他不知道那个youtuber 即悉尼奶爸在他的前面的视频里已经把这个店主骂了个半死，另外他的律师明明不让他现在到处发声，但他置若罔闻，只能说这个店主真是脑袋进水了，还是重度进水。另外那个侯议员也是无耻到家了，太不要脸了。。这样的议员也是华人的耻辱。坚决不能再选他了。最后发表：nmanz ...2 3	zjgcs 2021-2-6	834134	nmanz 2021-2-10 22:09
阿德奶茶店，有人愿意众筹支持女孩，让她有勇气不接受任何金钱和解吗？最后跟贴： 8gua 发表于 2021-2-10 15:26 请大家帮忙转发！！我们请愿！！要求侯议员辞职！！！罩着小弟罩出了问题最后发表：ekong ...2 3 4	清咖一杯 2021-2-5	1115128	ekong 2021-2-10 19:43
南澳的小伙伴们！求扩散求转发！Report Wage Theft ！最后跟贴：请大家帮忙转发！！我们请愿！！要求侯议员辞职！！！请愿书网址：http://chng.it/QwJdMMrV 最后发表：8gua	8gua 2021-2-9	15562	8gua 2021-2-10 18:24
阿德奶茶门-侯先生的操作我看不明白了最后跟贴：请大家帮忙转发！！我们请愿！！要求侯议员辞职！！！请愿书网址：http://chng.it/QwJdMMrV 最后发表：8gua	mh2000wh 2021-2-7	292218	8gua 2021-2-10 18:05
中国女生被欺凌的时候，侨领们在哪里？最后跟贴： f221644 发表于 2021-2-6 11:52 站在老板方应该考虑的是如何转移资产了，毕竟被政府盯上，税务局肯定盯上 ... 如果段老板平日囤积大量现金，那基本上不用太愁（不过政府要是罚个天价，他也是欠着债，跑不掉）。若是老板的资产全在房产和银里账号中，这个会被追踪到的。最后发表：flyinfree ...2 3 4 5 6..8	yybsn 2021-2-4	23510301	flyinfree 2021-2-10 16:32
我们的侯议员终于发飙了：他要求写信请求他辞职的人赔偿50000澳币最后跟贴：http://chng.it/9n5yD557W2 最后发表：我是一只小小鸟 ...2 3 4 5 6..10	yybsn 2021-2-6	27616927	我是一只小小鸟 2021-2-10 14:53
阿德莱德奶茶店事件的几点疑问最后跟贴：女孩与包工头到底啥纠纷并不重要，因为到女孩讨薪时已经结束了。再翻旧帐打人就是寻衅滋事。女孩即使说了那句话SB ,也不是骂街，包工头的行为证明了他就是，女孩也只是说了一句大实话。最后发表：Brainbank ...2 3 4 5 6..11	maxdll 2021-2-4	30311960	Brainbank 2021-2-10 11:49

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 56 / 56 页下一页

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

澳洲时政 今日: 11|主题: 2201

澳洲时政今日: 11|主题: 2201