George Osborne a new low..
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Dave W
Check your email if you haven't recently, Dave.
Re: Gentleman
They don't come any lower than tories,lower than vermin.
Re: Gentleman
Unfortunately the majority that you speak of are not able to form their own opinions and believe what's written in the tabloids.
While underclass scum like the philpotts are repeatedly presented as the poster boys for the welfare state it isn't surprising sheeple think the way they do.
Remember the TV debates during the election this shows how stupid people are when all it did was reduce politics even further to the level of the X factor.
As I've repeatedly said the system is broken but there isn't anything being done to address the problems just people being hung out to dry for the sake of votes.
While underclass scum like the philpotts are repeatedly presented as the poster boys for the welfare state it isn't surprising sheeple think the way they do.
Remember the TV debates during the election this shows how stupid people are when all it did was reduce politics even further to the level of the X factor.
As I've repeatedly said the system is broken but there isn't anything being done to address the problems just people being hung out to dry for the sake of votes.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Argie - think!
"If you have kids be prepared to look after them.....or keep your cock in your trousers."
This is the sort of comment that morons tend to make i.e. limiting welfare benefits to a certain number of kids. Ian Duncan Smith who is not a moron, more an idiot and a liar talked about limiting benefits to two children.
The questions these morons, idiots and liars need to consider are:
1. Is it fair (Do you like that use of the Tories' favourite start to a sentence?) that a couple can work decade in/decade out, pay all their taxes and raise a family of 4 kids and then after 20 years find that the main breadwinner is made redundant through no fault of their own, be deprived of benefits for their kids?
2. If families have more than two kids and there are no benefits for further kids what is the government expecting to happen? Extra children will starve to death? Parents will follow the age old approach in India by strangling female babies?
As I said debates engineered by the cynical, the idiots and the liars for morons to get in a blather about.
This is the sort of comment that morons tend to make i.e. limiting welfare benefits to a certain number of kids. Ian Duncan Smith who is not a moron, more an idiot and a liar talked about limiting benefits to two children.
The questions these morons, idiots and liars need to consider are:
1. Is it fair (Do you like that use of the Tories' favourite start to a sentence?) that a couple can work decade in/decade out, pay all their taxes and raise a family of 4 kids and then after 20 years find that the main breadwinner is made redundant through no fault of their own, be deprived of benefits for their kids?
2. If families have more than two kids and there are no benefits for further kids what is the government expecting to happen? Extra children will starve to death? Parents will follow the age old approach in India by strangling female babies?
As I said debates engineered by the cynical, the idiots and the liars for morons to get in a blather about.
-
thealtruist
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Argie - think!
Has anyone else noticed how rude, ignorant and nasty DJ is getting lately? There are times when he can be quite pleasant and likeable. We need to see more of that. It makes these boards more fun to read. I can't be doing with seeng "moron" and "idiot" et al.
It's no secret that he thrives on his pretentiousness and love for Labour with the mistaken belief that he's so intelligent and "in the know" as a "political analyst" (I'm being sarcastic at that bit) that everybody else on these boards is plankton if they don't agree with him (which most people don't).
Politics has and always will cause strong debate but don't be an arse about it.
I'm waiting for the thread, now, starting with "TheAltruist or Minimalist" or some other "witty" name pointing out that I'm hypocritical by starting this thread and, therefore, being rude, ignorant and downright nasty, and how I'm trying to silence his right to free speech etc. You know the drill. You've all read it.
Oh, and before he points it out, I am well aware of the irony of writing this when I consider him a waste of space.
You can read him like a book (well, leaflet. That supports Labour. And has jizz on it.)
It's no secret that he thrives on his pretentiousness and love for Labour with the mistaken belief that he's so intelligent and "in the know" as a "political analyst" (I'm being sarcastic at that bit) that everybody else on these boards is plankton if they don't agree with him (which most people don't).
Politics has and always will cause strong debate but don't be an arse about it.
I'm waiting for the thread, now, starting with "TheAltruist or Minimalist" or some other "witty" name pointing out that I'm hypocritical by starting this thread and, therefore, being rude, ignorant and downright nasty, and how I'm trying to silence his right to free speech etc. You know the drill. You've all read it.
Oh, and before he points it out, I am well aware of the irony of writing this when I consider him a waste of space.
You can read him like a book (well, leaflet. That supports Labour. And has jizz on it.)
Re: Gentleman
Gentleman wrote:
> Unfortunately the majority that you speak of are not able to
> form their own opinions and believe what's written in the
> tabloids.
But fewer and fewer people are buying newspapers so I'm not sure that argument holds water.
>
>
> As I've repeatedly said the system is broken but there isn't
> anything being done to address the problems just people being
> hung out to dry for the sake of votes.
But when an attempt is made to reform the system they are shouted down as wanting to send children up chimneys and the like...
> Unfortunately the majority that you speak of are not able to
> form their own opinions and believe what's written in the
> tabloids.
But fewer and fewer people are buying newspapers so I'm not sure that argument holds water.
>
>
> As I've repeatedly said the system is broken but there isn't
> anything being done to address the problems just people being
> hung out to dry for the sake of votes.
But when an attempt is made to reform the system they are shouted down as wanting to send children up chimneys and the like...
Re: Argie - think!
David Johnson wrote:
> "If you have kids be prepared to look after them.....or keep
> your cock in your trousers."
>
> This is the sort of comment that morons tend to make i.e.
> limiting welfare benefits to a certain number of kids. Ian
> Duncan Smith who is not a moron, more an idiot and a liar
> talked about limiting benefits to two children.
>
It's Iain not Ian, for a start.
> The questions these morons, idiots and liars need to consider
> are:
>
> 1. Is it fair (Do you like that use of the Tories' favourite
> start to a sentence?) that a couple can work decade in/decade
> out, pay all their taxes and raise a family of 4 kids and then
> after 20 years find that the main breadwinner is made redundant
> through no fault of their own, be deprived of benefits for
> their kids?
Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a percentage of what you put in? If you have paid in for decades you are allowed more generous benefits than someone who has never contributed?
>
> 2. If families have more than two kids and there are no
> benefits for further kids what is the government expecting to
> happen? Extra children will starve to death? Parents will
> follow the age old approach in India by strangling female
> babies?
>
"Extra children will starve to death? Parents will follow the age old approach in India by strangling female babies?" This is absolute rubbish. Don't be so utterly ridiculous. No one is starving to death in this country and parents are not strangling their female offspring. You don't half talk some bollocks at times. Visit areas of high unemployment and more often than not all the people there are overweight not starving.
> "If you have kids be prepared to look after them.....or keep
> your cock in your trousers."
>
> This is the sort of comment that morons tend to make i.e.
> limiting welfare benefits to a certain number of kids. Ian
> Duncan Smith who is not a moron, more an idiot and a liar
> talked about limiting benefits to two children.
>
It's Iain not Ian, for a start.
> The questions these morons, idiots and liars need to consider
> are:
>
> 1. Is it fair (Do you like that use of the Tories' favourite
> start to a sentence?) that a couple can work decade in/decade
> out, pay all their taxes and raise a family of 4 kids and then
> after 20 years find that the main breadwinner is made redundant
> through no fault of their own, be deprived of benefits for
> their kids?
Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a percentage of what you put in? If you have paid in for decades you are allowed more generous benefits than someone who has never contributed?
>
> 2. If families have more than two kids and there are no
> benefits for further kids what is the government expecting to
> happen? Extra children will starve to death? Parents will
> follow the age old approach in India by strangling female
> babies?
>
"Extra children will starve to death? Parents will follow the age old approach in India by strangling female babies?" This is absolute rubbish. Don't be so utterly ridiculous. No one is starving to death in this country and parents are not strangling their female offspring. You don't half talk some bollocks at times. Visit areas of high unemployment and more often than not all the people there are overweight not starving.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
The Altruist
Call me cruel, ignorant, nasty and unkind if you like, but I believe that people who advocate policies which potentially result in large scale suffering to children should be challenged and given short thrift.
Children don't ask to be brought into this world so why should they be forced to suffer by the government and it's fellow travellers?
"Oh, and before he points it out, I am well aware of the irony of writing this when I consider him a waste of space."
How ungrateful! That's the last time I give advice on job applications to an unemployed shirker of an ex-Blockbuster worker like yourself who probably spends all day stretched across the sofa watching Sky on a huge flat screen television whilst playing games on your Iphone, coining it in in benefits while the hard working strivers like myself don't get a penny in benefits and see our hard-earned taxes go to supporting those like yourself who clearly are a part of a culture of welfare entitlement.
See Argie for more details about your lifestyle, Mr Altruist!
By the way, have you got any kids? To quote Argie, you should have kept your cock in your trousers shouldn't you?
Disgusted of Blackpool
!wink!
Children don't ask to be brought into this world so why should they be forced to suffer by the government and it's fellow travellers?
"Oh, and before he points it out, I am well aware of the irony of writing this when I consider him a waste of space."
How ungrateful! That's the last time I give advice on job applications to an unemployed shirker of an ex-Blockbuster worker like yourself who probably spends all day stretched across the sofa watching Sky on a huge flat screen television whilst playing games on your Iphone, coining it in in benefits while the hard working strivers like myself don't get a penny in benefits and see our hard-earned taxes go to supporting those like yourself who clearly are a part of a culture of welfare entitlement.
See Argie for more details about your lifestyle, Mr Altruist!
By the way, have you got any kids? To quote Argie, you should have kept your cock in your trousers shouldn't you?
Disgusted of Blackpool
!wink!
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
"It's Iain not Ian, for a start."
Excellent, crucial point, well made.
"Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a percentage of what you put in? If you have paid in for decades you are allowed more generous benefits than someone who has never contributed?"
I think you should consider this more carefully. No-one has a crystal ball. They can think they are in a job for life or been given the spiel to that effect and then lose the job after a few years. Even with contraception, accidents can happen. Some people as I am sure you have noticed are not very bright, self-aware, careful, in control etc. etc. Why should children be made to suffer in these situations?
"No one is starving to death in this country and parents are not strangling their female offspring. You don't half talk some bollocks at times. Visit areas of high unemployment and more often than not all the people there are overweight not starving."
As usual, you need to pay more attention to the detail of an argument. Where did I state that people are "starving to death in this country"?
Both my statements end in question marks. I am not saying this will happen. What I am saying is that reductions in child benefits to say two children could have very significant impacts on the well being of children. That needs to be considered before politicians come out with moronic, ill-considered statements.
Excellent, crucial point, well made.
"Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a percentage of what you put in? If you have paid in for decades you are allowed more generous benefits than someone who has never contributed?"
I think you should consider this more carefully. No-one has a crystal ball. They can think they are in a job for life or been given the spiel to that effect and then lose the job after a few years. Even with contraception, accidents can happen. Some people as I am sure you have noticed are not very bright, self-aware, careful, in control etc. etc. Why should children be made to suffer in these situations?
"No one is starving to death in this country and parents are not strangling their female offspring. You don't half talk some bollocks at times. Visit areas of high unemployment and more often than not all the people there are overweight not starving."
As usual, you need to pay more attention to the detail of an argument. Where did I state that people are "starving to death in this country"?
Both my statements end in question marks. I am not saying this will happen. What I am saying is that reductions in child benefits to say two children could have very significant impacts on the well being of children. That needs to be considered before politicians come out with moronic, ill-considered statements.
-
thealtruist
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Altruist
Wrong, David. Totally wrong. No, flat screen, no Sky, no iphone. I worked every hour possible at Blockbuster. I was made redundant. I had no choice. I'm always out looking for work so please don't lump me in with the real benefit scroungers. And. no, I don't have kids. If you read the top of the page I did say that you can be quite pleasant referring to your advice on getting a job.
But I do have to agree that line about being a waste of space was unfair and was meant to come out because I remembered you did give some sound advice about applying for jobs. That's my fault for not reading it through before posting it. I was just annoyed at you for calling people morons and your attitude as of late. It was written out of annoyance. I do owe you an apology so I am very sorry for saying you are a waste of space. That was grossly unfair and unjust. You are not a waste of space.
Once again I'm very sorry.
The Altruist.
But I do have to agree that line about being a waste of space was unfair and was meant to come out because I remembered you did give some sound advice about applying for jobs. That's my fault for not reading it through before posting it. I was just annoyed at you for calling people morons and your attitude as of late. It was written out of annoyance. I do owe you an apology so I am very sorry for saying you are a waste of space. That was grossly unfair and unjust. You are not a waste of space.
Once again I'm very sorry.
The Altruist.