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.
Granny15 wrote: » It struck me from your previous post that you were criticising homeless people and said they deserve to be where they are. I haven’t reduced it to anything other than the poors plight but you have in your previous post
Matt Barrett wrote: » Maybe we should elect a party beside FF/FG?
Blaze420 wrote: » Not at all, I have nothing but sympathy for genuine homeless on the streets regardless of why they are there. I do not believe the 10k figure though and never will because I personally know of people who have figured the game out and are on their way to “foreva homes”.
Blaze420 wrote: » Where is the party calling for an end to welfare increases, or capping child benefit at 2 kids? There is none and SF in particular are simply saying **** these people want to hear.
McMurphy wrote: » Which party is calling for this? Take your time.
Blaze420 wrote: » Nobody, that’s the problem.
McMurphy wrote: » neither [FF or FG] 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.
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.
RandomName2 wrote: » Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it. Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments. Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare. McMurphy shows no mercy It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.
Granny15 wrote: » I sincerely doubt people go homeless to “game” the system. You reducing it to such terms shows you lack of empathy and shows you have psychopathic tendencies towards the less well off. Get real
Blaze420 wrote: » Maybe we should but there is no realistic alternative - I view SF as being the local witch doctor while FF/FG unfortunately are the qualified GP. Why take the risk just for a change?(which will very likely be for the worst)
Blaze420 wrote: » Why do you think we had the recent headline of “increase in children being born in to homelessness”? Why do you think someone living in a hotel would willingly become pregnant in such circumstances when any logical person would ****ing wait until they had a secure environment? No empathy needed, just a brain and eyes and the ability to see a ****ing chancer for what they are. Because every additional kid bumps you a few steps up the ladder to the free house of your dreams (and a house that ****ing mugs like me can only dream of being in anytime in the next 5 years).
Granny15 wrote: » You have obviously been reared to see the worst in people, assume the worst and therefore project your own motives onto people. Nobody goes homeless to game the system. Of that I am 100% certain. Don’t project your lack of empathy into others motives.
frillyleaf wrote: » Surely if someone likes a candidate and what they stand for they should vote for them? Please explain
FrancieBrady wrote: » But not a word of criticism or ridicule for a poster fulminating and swearing (refined oratory skills?) at other posters while ranting on a forum and yet can't be arsed to vote? Says a lot about RandomName.
Berserk5kk wrote: I seen gerry Adams in krispy kreme today.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Gibberish and schoolyard-Varadkar level insight.
RandomName2 wrote: » You have some bloody nerve. McMurphy did a far better job than that.
suicide_circus wrote: » FFG need to go but i cant force myself to believe that SF will make anything better and i'd have a strong suspicion they would make things worse.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The power swap cartel needs to broken up. Then we might have a chance of building something that works in some way, for everyone.
RandomName2 wrote: » You are right. Posters who write a one line post just taking the piss out of another poster really are bottom feeders. Hunnngh. Sorry, it's a bit heavy, but I thought I'd bring it along. I brought you a mirror, not sure if you are going to use it, but I'll leave it here. Edit: posted after the bolded mod post You could describe almost every western government as a power swap cartel. The only difference in Ireland is that FF and FG don't follow a normal left-right pattern.
Bishop of hope wrote: » True enough, but we aren't going to get a left wing Govt this time either, even if SF do get all their candidates elected.
OSI wrote: » How are Sinn Fein going to achieve that when they’re only contesting a quarter of available seats? They can’t even make a majority coalition partner.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » My Facebook feed is quite telling about the type of people who support SF. They're the only ones posting political crap. It's very cult like behaviour, and as I am familiar with their personal circumstances, it's clear that there the ones who wine be finding through their tax all the goodies that SF are promising.
