marieholmfan wrote: » Bizarre that Paddy McKee is unaware that One of the most important jobs that any woman can do is rear her children .
Blaze420 wrote: » Nobody, that’s the problem.
McMurphy wrote: » So, let's get something straight. Margaret Cash is on city five bajillion a year tax free due to measures introduced over the years by successive FFG Govts, neither of which are proposing to cap or reduce these measures, SF don't have any plans either, but it's all SFs fault regardless. You sir, can get up the yard.
Blaze420 wrote: » You’re not getting my point - why should it continue as is? What is SF going to do about it? From what I’ve seen they want to further enable these scumbags to sit on their holes all day - they have nothing to offer people who have worked hard over the years.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Where? You're making it up. TBF, no party advocates for people choosing not to work. The way I see it is FG want to bend over backwards for business, the bigger the better and the tax payer get get f***ed. For me dole chancers don't even come into the discussion. They are way down the list after waste on projects, leasing apartments for use as social housing, the crises in housing, health, homelessness, low tax for vulture funds etc. I think we are long over due a change. I'll take a chance on SD/SF etc.
Blaze420 wrote: » Where did I say it’s SF fault? Can you read?
Blaze420 wrote: » i don’t think there is any issue with perspective when vermin like her are pulling in 55k+ a year in benefits without lifting a finger, for laying on their back popping out future parasites that will grow up to be just like them. That’s the class of people SF are catering to and they can **** off.
McMurphy wrote: » Oh dear. So, despite the welfare recipients receiving what they receive due to ffg introduced measures, it's SF who is catering for them? You're talking through your hoop, and it appears you aren't too impressed on being pulled up on it either. The yard beckons. Get up it.
Blaze420 wrote: » Go look at SF policies particularly on housing and then read my post again. You could do with going up the yard yourself and learning some ****ing comprehension skills
Blaze420 wrote: » The Social Democrats??? Are you for real?
McMurphy wrote: » I could reread your post a thousand times, but it wouldn't make what you posted any the less scutter.
Blaze420 wrote: » A lot like your vote for SF is going to be in the end, enjoy!
Granny15 wrote: » Oh no we SF voters aren’t in the corrupt Me Fein majority. Or should I say with the most seats. At least we have morals unlike the economic realists and money money money everything FGers.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Lot of anger here today.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I don't think it's very moralistic to ignore economic realism to promise a pipedream. It didn't work out well for Pearses beloved Sryzia in Greece.
Granny15 wrote: » It’s not a pipe dream. The haves will have to part with their beloved money and give to the poor unfortunates rough sleeping. What’s unrealistic about that? I’ll tell you what those in the money are bitterly holding onto every cent despite their overtures about them being generous and giving back. They hoard all their money and care less about the unfortunates literally begging them for mercy and a few cents
Blaze420 wrote: » You are prime SF material alright, you’ve swallowed the bull**** 10k homeless figure hook line and sinker. How many rough sleepers are there in Ireland I.e genuine homeless? 300 maybe 350? And conveniently ignoring the myriad of reasons those people remain on the streets. Nobody is getting parted with their cash and anybody promising such things is telling you mighty big lies.
Granny15 wrote: » That’s it doctor the official figures in every news and media outlet in the country. It’s all a conspiracy and everybody is making them up because it doesn’t suit your agenda or political views. Argue the point in question with me without moving the goalposts
McMurphy wrote: » Margaret Cash is on fifty five bazillion million a year tax free due to measures introduced over the years by successive FFG Govts, neither of which are proposing to cap or reduce these measures, SF don't have any plans either, but it's all SFs fault regardless.
Blaze420 wrote: » I’m not moving any goalposts, when we get a realistic and true figure of “homeless” minus the bull****ters, chancers and game players then we can talk about it. The dogs on the street know what the majority of that 10k is at and the bleeding hearts enabling them are fooling nobody.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So who are you voting for that is going to sort this out?
Blaze420 wrote: » Nobody and simply because they are all on either cheek of the same arse. Nothing will change, nothing will be done - a new bunch of ****heads doing the same **** that’s been done since the inception of the state. There isn’t a single party with the balls to do what needs to be done.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Communism?
Granny15 wrote: » So punish them for being brought up in broken homes with drug addiction and all sorts of social problems the elite like yourself would curl into a ball at under the same circumstances? Or help them break the cycle? You have no empathy and are in my view the carbon copy of the type of heartless psychopaths who are in FG. Closet murderers! Yes that’s right they kill off whole segments of society through psychopathic policy which punishes the poor and needy. Troll ids in hospitals? I don’t care I have private health Insurance. Privatise everything brigade who don’t care if less we’ll off can’t afford it. Homelessness? I don’t care they are drug users. Psychopathic murderers the lot of them
Blaze420 wrote: » You are utterly ****ing delusional if you half believe the utter ****e you posted above. I’m in no way an “elite” - I work my bollix off to pay the rent, pay the bills, and barely have enough to last the 4 weeks of a month.Who said anything about punishing them? You have reduced genuine homelessness to some poor song you can play on your tiny violin, ignoring the realities of the situation.
