how to get bonus code in 711bet
In conclusion, Liu Yang's resignation marks the end of an era in finance and accounting education. His impact on the lives of his students and colleagues will be lasting, serving as a testament to his dedication and passion for teaching. As we bid farewell to a beloved mentor and educator, we wish Liu Yang all the best in his future endeavors and thank him for his invaluable contributions to the world of accounting.
The city of Porto was the scene of two demonstrations: an anti-immigration demo organised by the far-right Chega party and an anti-fascist protest organised by 28 social organisations. The protests took place on neighbouring streets, but never crossed paths. Two protests by opposing factions brought hundreds of people on the streets of Porto on Saturday. One was against illegal immigration and insecurity, while the other against fascism and racism. The first, organised by far-right party Chega, gathered hundreds of people who marched down the streets to Avenida dos Aliados, the city's main events square, on what its leader André Ventura again called a "historic day". Security around Ventura was high. "Whether they're white, yellow, black or blue, we know what they're coming for," said Ventura. "We're not prepared to be invaded," he added in his speech to hundreds of people waving national flags and placards against uncontrolled immigration, which they consider to be a cause of street crime. The Chega leader demanded "more security and control of immigration in a country where immigrants have increased by 95 per cent in the last two years," he said speaking to the press. Speaking to local media during the protest, Ventura said "Portugal needs immigrants who come here to work, we don't need them coming here to commit crimes. Portugal, like all decent countries, has to control its borders, and so far it hasn't." Some Chega supporters wore "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) hats, similar to those seen in US President-elect Donald Trump's campaign rallies. Channelling similar rhetoric to Trump, Ventura said: "The next government, which I hope to lead, will tell everyone who is here and commits crimes that they will get a Christmas present, they will get a ticket back to their country of origin and they will pay for that ticket... You can't eat cats, dogs or lizards. This is our country... We are in charge here," he told his supporters. According to a member of the Chega party, around 900 people took part in the demonstration in Porto. Many travelled by bus from Lisbon, Setúbal, Faro, Leiria, Braga and Vila Real, according to Lusa news agency. The second demonstration, which was in response to the one organised by Chega, was organised by 28 social organisation which brought together feminist, anti-fascist, anti-racist and pro-LGBTQ+ movements to support housing for immigrants and their regularisation. The counter-demonstration took place in Campo 24 de Agosto, a square not far from the Chega protest. Around 700 people loudly chanted against racism and anti-fascism. "No more hate speech," one protester told the SIC television channel. The protesters demanded that immigrants have the right to regularisation, and argue that they are not the cause of insecurity in Portuguese society. "It's not immigrants who make us afraid on the street," the same protester added added. "Portugal is a country of immigrants and is therefore for everyone - we need them and they need us. The world has no borders," another protester told state television channel RTP. The past year saw a 33% rise in the number of foreigners living in Portugal, where more than one million immigrants are living legally in the country, according to a report published by the government in June.QRDI Council Hosts Training Of Mumaken Programme
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — In an era of rising authoritarianism, at the heels of a six-hour martial law decree that unfolded while many South Koreans slept, something noteworthy happened: Democracy held. The past week in Seoul, officials and academics warn, is what a threat to democracy looks like in 2024. It's a democratically-elected president declaring martial law over the nation he leads, asserting sweeping powers to prevent opposition demonstrations, ban political parties and control the media. It's members of the military attempting to block lawmakers from exercising their power to vote on cancelling the power grab. And here's what it took to defeat President Yoon Suk Yeol 's lurch toward government by force: Unified popular support for democracy. Legislators storming the National Assembly past midnight, live-streaming themselves climbing over fences. A politician grabbing at a soldier's rifle and yelling “Aren't you ashamed?” until he retreated. And finally, decisively, Parliament assembling a quorum and voting unanimously to cancel martial law. It was a victory for a hard-won democracy — and for the idea that checks and balances among branches of government must work to counteract each other's ambitions, as the American founders wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1788. But as the drama played out in Seoul, the scaffolding of democracy rattled around the world. In other countries, the grab for power might have worked. Other would-be authoritarians might have been better prepared than Yoon. In deeply polarized societies — the United States, for example, where Republicans are staunchly loyal to president-elect Donald Trump — there might not have been decisive support from the public or the opposition. The military might have used force. And the members of the legislature might not have voted as one to snuff out the attempted takeover. “President Yoon's attempt to declare martial law reveals the fragility of the rule of law in divided societies, especially those with governments in which the chief executive cannot be easily dismissed by the legislature," said Tom Pepinsky, a government professor at Cornell University who studies backsliding among democracies in Southeast Asia. Notably, he said in an email, “No members of President Yoon’s own party were willing to defend his actions in public." Nevertheless, Yoon’s surprise attempt to impose martial law revealed both the fragility and resilience of the country’s democratic system. Within three hours of his stunning announcement to impose military rule — claiming the opposition was “paralyzing” state affairs — 190 lawmakers voted to cancel his actions. In so doing, they demonstrated the strength of the country’s democratic checks and balances. Yoon’s authoritarian push, carried out by hundreds of heavily armed troops with Blackhawk helicopters and armored vehicles sent to the National Assembly, harked back to an era of dictatorial presidents. The country’s democratic transition in the late 1980s came after years of massive protests by millions that eventually overcame violent suppressions by military rulers. Civilian presence was again crucial in shaping the events following Yoon’s late night television announcement on Tuesday. Thousands of people flocked to the National Assembly, shouting slogans for martial law to be lifted and Yoon to step down from power. There were no reports of violent clashes as troops and police officers. “We restored democracy without having a single casualty this time,” said Seol Dong-hoon, a sociology professor at South Korea’s Jeonbuk National University. It’s virtually impossible for any leader of a democracy to pull off a transition toward martial law without a public willing to support it, or at least tolerate it. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, who narrowly lost to Yoon in the 2022 presidential election, attracted millions of views as he began live-streaming his journey to the National Assembly, pleading for people to converge to the parliament to help lawmakers get inside. The shaky footage later shows him exiting his car climbing over a fence to get onto the grounds. The vote at the National Assembly was also broadcast live on the YouTube channel of Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik, who also had to scale a fence to get in. Yoon’s sense of crisis clearly wasn’t shared by the public, whose opinions, Seol said, were shaped predominantly by the shocking videos broadcast to their devices. “Ultimately, democracy is all about moving public opinion,” he said. “What was most crucial in this case was that everything was broadcast live on smartphones, YouTube and countless other media.” Opposition lawmakers are now pushing to remove Yoon from office, saying he failed to meet the constitutional requirement that martial law should only be considered in wartime or a comparable severe crisis — and that he unlawfully deployed troops to the National Assembly. On Saturday, an opposition-led impeachment motion failed after most lawmakers from Yoon’s party boycotted the vote. Yet the president’s troubles persist: The vote’s defeat is expected to intensify nationwide protests and deepen South Korea’s political turmoil, with opposition parties preparing to introduce another impeachment motion when parliament reconvenes next Wednesday. Han Sang-hie, a law professor at Seoul’s Konkuk University, said the martial law debacle highlights what he sees as the most crucial flaw of South Korea’s democracy: that it places too much power in the hands of the president, which is easily abused and often goes unchecked. Political scientists call what happened in South Korea an “autogolpe” — a “self-coup” — defined as one led by incumbent leaders themselves, in which an executive takes or sponsors illegal actions against others in the government. Yoon qualifies because he used troops to try to shut down South Korea's legislature. Self-coups are increasing, with a third of the 46 since 1945 occurring in the past decade, according to a study by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and Penn State University. About 80% of self-coups succeed, they reported. In 2021, a power grab by Tunisian President Kais Saied raised similar concerns around the world after the country designed a democracy from scratch and won a Nobel Peace Prize after a largely bloodless revolution. In the United States, some have expresed worry about similar situations arising during the second administration of Donald Trump. He has vowed, after all, to shake some of democracy's pillars . He's mused that he would be justified if he decided to pursue “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” That’s in contrast to the oath of office he took in 2017, and will again next year, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” as best he can. Nearly half of voters in the Nov. 5 election, which Trump won, said they were “very concerned” that another Trump presidency would bring the U.S. closer to authoritarianism, according to AP Votecast survey data. Asked before a live audience on Fox News Channel in 2023 to assure Americans that he would not abuse power or use the presidency to seek retribution against anyone, Trump replied, “except for day one," when he'll close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” After that, Trump said, "I'm not a dictator.” Kellman reported from London.US President-elect Donald Trump President-elect Donald Trump took to Truth Social, alleging that the Democrats had paid celebrities to lend their public support to Vice President Kamala Harris. In a post on Saturday, Trump claimed the Democrats had spent millions to secure endorsements from high-profile figures such as Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and MSNBC host Al Sharpton. “Are the Democrats allowed to pay $11,000,000, $2,000,000, and $500,000 to get the ENDORSEMENT of Beyoncé, Oprah, and Reverend Al? I don’t think so,” the former president wrote. He went on to criticise the involvement of these figures, stating, “Beyoncé didn’t sing, Oprah didn’t do much of anything (she called it ‘expenses’), and Al is just a third rate Con Man.” Beyoncé and Oprah had both appeared alongside Harris during the campaign trail, with Oprah recently insisting that she “was not paid a dime” for her involvement in a live-streamed event, though the campaign did cover production fees, The Hill reported. Sharpton, the prominent civil rights activist and MSNBC host, interviewed Harris in October. He is also the founder of the National Action Network, a non-profit organisation that received a $500,000 donation from Harris’ campaign shortly before the interview. Sharpton subsequently organised a get-out-the-vote rally for Harris, just three days after the segment aired. An MSNBC spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that the network was unaware of the donations to the National Action Network. The network has declined to comment further on the matter, citing its policy of not discussing "personnel matters." Trump, in his Saturday post, questioned the legality of the donation, suggesting that it might be in violation of campaign laws. "So what is going on here??? Totally against the law, and I have heard there are many others!!!" he wrote, continuing his criticism of Harris' campaign spending. Throughout the 2024 election cycle, Trump has frequently taken issue with Harris’ media appearances, including a CBS News interview in which he claimed the network altered her responses before airing.
The company, known for its forward-thinking approach to shareholder benefits, announced the groundbreaking offer as part of their latest campaign to engage investors and reward their loyal shareholders. This bold move was met with enthusiasm from the investment community, as the promise of a year's worth of free phone bill added an extra incentive for investors to consider buying shares in the company.Tertze, known for his exquisite skills and goal-scoring prowess, had been sidelined for several months due to a nagging injury that required extensive rehabilitation and rest. However, his determination and perseverance throughout the recovery process have finally paid off, as he is now back on the training pitch, eager to regain match fitness and contribute to the team once again.Risk adjusted net present value: What is the current valuation of Organon & Co’s Denosumab biosimilar?
In conclusion, Liu Yang's resignation marks the end of an era in finance and accounting education. His impact on the lives of his students and colleagues will be lasting, serving as a testament to his dedication and passion for teaching. As we bid farewell to a beloved mentor and educator, we wish Liu Yang all the best in his future endeavors and thank him for his invaluable contributions to the world of accounting.
The city of Porto was the scene of two demonstrations: an anti-immigration demo organised by the far-right Chega party and an anti-fascist protest organised by 28 social organisations. The protests took place on neighbouring streets, but never crossed paths. Two protests by opposing factions brought hundreds of people on the streets of Porto on Saturday. One was against illegal immigration and insecurity, while the other against fascism and racism. The first, organised by far-right party Chega, gathered hundreds of people who marched down the streets to Avenida dos Aliados, the city's main events square, on what its leader André Ventura again called a "historic day". Security around Ventura was high. "Whether they're white, yellow, black or blue, we know what they're coming for," said Ventura. "We're not prepared to be invaded," he added in his speech to hundreds of people waving national flags and placards against uncontrolled immigration, which they consider to be a cause of street crime. The Chega leader demanded "more security and control of immigration in a country where immigrants have increased by 95 per cent in the last two years," he said speaking to the press. Speaking to local media during the protest, Ventura said "Portugal needs immigrants who come here to work, we don't need them coming here to commit crimes. Portugal, like all decent countries, has to control its borders, and so far it hasn't." Some Chega supporters wore "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) hats, similar to those seen in US President-elect Donald Trump's campaign rallies. Channelling similar rhetoric to Trump, Ventura said: "The next government, which I hope to lead, will tell everyone who is here and commits crimes that they will get a Christmas present, they will get a ticket back to their country of origin and they will pay for that ticket... You can't eat cats, dogs or lizards. This is our country... We are in charge here," he told his supporters. According to a member of the Chega party, around 900 people took part in the demonstration in Porto. Many travelled by bus from Lisbon, Setúbal, Faro, Leiria, Braga and Vila Real, according to Lusa news agency. The second demonstration, which was in response to the one organised by Chega, was organised by 28 social organisation which brought together feminist, anti-fascist, anti-racist and pro-LGBTQ+ movements to support housing for immigrants and their regularisation. The counter-demonstration took place in Campo 24 de Agosto, a square not far from the Chega protest. Around 700 people loudly chanted against racism and anti-fascism. "No more hate speech," one protester told the SIC television channel. The protesters demanded that immigrants have the right to regularisation, and argue that they are not the cause of insecurity in Portuguese society. "It's not immigrants who make us afraid on the street," the same protester added added. "Portugal is a country of immigrants and is therefore for everyone - we need them and they need us. The world has no borders," another protester told state television channel RTP. The past year saw a 33% rise in the number of foreigners living in Portugal, where more than one million immigrants are living legally in the country, according to a report published by the government in June.QRDI Council Hosts Training Of Mumaken Programme
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — In an era of rising authoritarianism, at the heels of a six-hour martial law decree that unfolded while many South Koreans slept, something noteworthy happened: Democracy held. The past week in Seoul, officials and academics warn, is what a threat to democracy looks like in 2024. It's a democratically-elected president declaring martial law over the nation he leads, asserting sweeping powers to prevent opposition demonstrations, ban political parties and control the media. It's members of the military attempting to block lawmakers from exercising their power to vote on cancelling the power grab. And here's what it took to defeat President Yoon Suk Yeol 's lurch toward government by force: Unified popular support for democracy. Legislators storming the National Assembly past midnight, live-streaming themselves climbing over fences. A politician grabbing at a soldier's rifle and yelling “Aren't you ashamed?” until he retreated. And finally, decisively, Parliament assembling a quorum and voting unanimously to cancel martial law. It was a victory for a hard-won democracy — and for the idea that checks and balances among branches of government must work to counteract each other's ambitions, as the American founders wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1788. But as the drama played out in Seoul, the scaffolding of democracy rattled around the world. In other countries, the grab for power might have worked. Other would-be authoritarians might have been better prepared than Yoon. In deeply polarized societies — the United States, for example, where Republicans are staunchly loyal to president-elect Donald Trump — there might not have been decisive support from the public or the opposition. The military might have used force. And the members of the legislature might not have voted as one to snuff out the attempted takeover. “President Yoon's attempt to declare martial law reveals the fragility of the rule of law in divided societies, especially those with governments in which the chief executive cannot be easily dismissed by the legislature," said Tom Pepinsky, a government professor at Cornell University who studies backsliding among democracies in Southeast Asia. Notably, he said in an email, “No members of President Yoon’s own party were willing to defend his actions in public." Nevertheless, Yoon’s surprise attempt to impose martial law revealed both the fragility and resilience of the country’s democratic system. Within three hours of his stunning announcement to impose military rule — claiming the opposition was “paralyzing” state affairs — 190 lawmakers voted to cancel his actions. In so doing, they demonstrated the strength of the country’s democratic checks and balances. Yoon’s authoritarian push, carried out by hundreds of heavily armed troops with Blackhawk helicopters and armored vehicles sent to the National Assembly, harked back to an era of dictatorial presidents. The country’s democratic transition in the late 1980s came after years of massive protests by millions that eventually overcame violent suppressions by military rulers. Civilian presence was again crucial in shaping the events following Yoon’s late night television announcement on Tuesday. Thousands of people flocked to the National Assembly, shouting slogans for martial law to be lifted and Yoon to step down from power. There were no reports of violent clashes as troops and police officers. “We restored democracy without having a single casualty this time,” said Seol Dong-hoon, a sociology professor at South Korea’s Jeonbuk National University. It’s virtually impossible for any leader of a democracy to pull off a transition toward martial law without a public willing to support it, or at least tolerate it. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, who narrowly lost to Yoon in the 2022 presidential election, attracted millions of views as he began live-streaming his journey to the National Assembly, pleading for people to converge to the parliament to help lawmakers get inside. The shaky footage later shows him exiting his car climbing over a fence to get onto the grounds. The vote at the National Assembly was also broadcast live on the YouTube channel of Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik, who also had to scale a fence to get in. Yoon’s sense of crisis clearly wasn’t shared by the public, whose opinions, Seol said, were shaped predominantly by the shocking videos broadcast to their devices. “Ultimately, democracy is all about moving public opinion,” he said. “What was most crucial in this case was that everything was broadcast live on smartphones, YouTube and countless other media.” Opposition lawmakers are now pushing to remove Yoon from office, saying he failed to meet the constitutional requirement that martial law should only be considered in wartime or a comparable severe crisis — and that he unlawfully deployed troops to the National Assembly. On Saturday, an opposition-led impeachment motion failed after most lawmakers from Yoon’s party boycotted the vote. Yet the president’s troubles persist: The vote’s defeat is expected to intensify nationwide protests and deepen South Korea’s political turmoil, with opposition parties preparing to introduce another impeachment motion when parliament reconvenes next Wednesday. Han Sang-hie, a law professor at Seoul’s Konkuk University, said the martial law debacle highlights what he sees as the most crucial flaw of South Korea’s democracy: that it places too much power in the hands of the president, which is easily abused and often goes unchecked. Political scientists call what happened in South Korea an “autogolpe” — a “self-coup” — defined as one led by incumbent leaders themselves, in which an executive takes or sponsors illegal actions against others in the government. Yoon qualifies because he used troops to try to shut down South Korea's legislature. Self-coups are increasing, with a third of the 46 since 1945 occurring in the past decade, according to a study by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and Penn State University. About 80% of self-coups succeed, they reported. In 2021, a power grab by Tunisian President Kais Saied raised similar concerns around the world after the country designed a democracy from scratch and won a Nobel Peace Prize after a largely bloodless revolution. In the United States, some have expresed worry about similar situations arising during the second administration of Donald Trump. He has vowed, after all, to shake some of democracy's pillars . He's mused that he would be justified if he decided to pursue “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” That’s in contrast to the oath of office he took in 2017, and will again next year, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” as best he can. Nearly half of voters in the Nov. 5 election, which Trump won, said they were “very concerned” that another Trump presidency would bring the U.S. closer to authoritarianism, according to AP Votecast survey data. Asked before a live audience on Fox News Channel in 2023 to assure Americans that he would not abuse power or use the presidency to seek retribution against anyone, Trump replied, “except for day one," when he'll close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” After that, Trump said, "I'm not a dictator.” Kellman reported from London.US President-elect Donald Trump President-elect Donald Trump took to Truth Social, alleging that the Democrats had paid celebrities to lend their public support to Vice President Kamala Harris. In a post on Saturday, Trump claimed the Democrats had spent millions to secure endorsements from high-profile figures such as Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and MSNBC host Al Sharpton. “Are the Democrats allowed to pay $11,000,000, $2,000,000, and $500,000 to get the ENDORSEMENT of Beyoncé, Oprah, and Reverend Al? I don’t think so,” the former president wrote. He went on to criticise the involvement of these figures, stating, “Beyoncé didn’t sing, Oprah didn’t do much of anything (she called it ‘expenses’), and Al is just a third rate Con Man.” Beyoncé and Oprah had both appeared alongside Harris during the campaign trail, with Oprah recently insisting that she “was not paid a dime” for her involvement in a live-streamed event, though the campaign did cover production fees, The Hill reported. Sharpton, the prominent civil rights activist and MSNBC host, interviewed Harris in October. He is also the founder of the National Action Network, a non-profit organisation that received a $500,000 donation from Harris’ campaign shortly before the interview. Sharpton subsequently organised a get-out-the-vote rally for Harris, just three days after the segment aired. An MSNBC spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that the network was unaware of the donations to the National Action Network. The network has declined to comment further on the matter, citing its policy of not discussing "personnel matters." Trump, in his Saturday post, questioned the legality of the donation, suggesting that it might be in violation of campaign laws. "So what is going on here??? Totally against the law, and I have heard there are many others!!!" he wrote, continuing his criticism of Harris' campaign spending. Throughout the 2024 election cycle, Trump has frequently taken issue with Harris’ media appearances, including a CBS News interview in which he claimed the network altered her responses before airing.
The company, known for its forward-thinking approach to shareholder benefits, announced the groundbreaking offer as part of their latest campaign to engage investors and reward their loyal shareholders. This bold move was met with enthusiasm from the investment community, as the promise of a year's worth of free phone bill added an extra incentive for investors to consider buying shares in the company.Tertze, known for his exquisite skills and goal-scoring prowess, had been sidelined for several months due to a nagging injury that required extensive rehabilitation and rest. However, his determination and perseverance throughout the recovery process have finally paid off, as he is now back on the training pitch, eager to regain match fitness and contribute to the team once again.Risk adjusted net present value: What is the current valuation of Organon & Co’s Denosumab biosimilar?