Messages

You're quoting The Spectator ffs. You don't even acknowledge that. A right wing war hawk editorial that has a disgusting history of islamaphobia and has a disgusting history of whitewashing and supporting genocide.

You have lost all credibility here.

My first engagement with you was because you took issue with a post I made on the Irish President thread. I read a few posts from you and others which sought to completely misrepresent and smear the Irish President due to the fact she is quite rightly critical of Western foreign policy. You smeared her with utterly baseless allegations because you disagree with her perfectly valid points.

You are now putting forward articles for a disgraced right wing editorial that looks to further smear a left wing politician of the utmost integrity because she is also critical of the Wests neo liberal war hawk policy.

Further to that I have exposed you of being utterly obsessed with Ukraine but completely ambivalent to a genocide in Gaza. You have taken to putting forward the views of genocide deniers as credible, as we have seen with your referencing of The Spectator as credible. You have relentlessly and baselessly smeared left wing politicians who have been a great advocate for Palestine and have also been consistent with their condemnation and objection to Putin.

You are not sincere. How on earth could any decent human being think that what is happening in Ukraine is worse than the Genocide in Gaza.. you're like Piers Morgan - just a right wing troll who believes in nothing.

I will leave you to this thread now and your fascist rantings.

1. You haven't been able to rebut a single thing in the article by the Ukrainian journalist -> you resort instead to cry about the Spectator. Deflection, pure and simple.

2. You haven't been able to rebut any of the valid criticism I made about president elect CC -> you resort instead to baseless claims about 'smears'.

3. CC's points aren't valid and I outlined why - you and others were unable to rebut what I said - > you resort then to just repeat your baseless claims about 'smears'.

4. You make various claims and then when challenged you are unable to rebut -> You are unable to provide a single example of an agreement Ukraine has broken with Russia. (And ignore that Russia has broken EVERY agreement with Ukraine.

5.I am not ambivalent to the genocide in Gaza -> I have condemned it. I don't need to post about it. There are no braindead genocide deniers and apologists mucking up the Gaza thread.

6. I have never once stated that what is happening in Ukraine is worse than Gaza -> more made up shite from you.

7. Your first engagement with me..., aye no worries numbSkull.

8. Run along then. If you don't to engage with me don't make piss poor attempts at trolling on this thread.

Darth Putin
The "pro Hamas tankie 2.0". Says you have to let a nuclear power take over territory and remove the inhabitants to prevent nuclear war. Gets very angry, overloads & then reboots as the "what about tankie" when told about the irony of this.

does darth Putin have a label for "pro Israeli Ukrainians"? 

And if, when all a vigil keep
The Left's asleep! the Left's asleep!
Alas! and well may Erin weep
That the left lies in slumber deep
But, hark! a voice like thunder spake
The Left's awake! the Left's awake!

https://m.sundayworld.com/news/irish-news/mary-lou-mcdonald-reacts-as-catherine-connolly-supporters-allegedly-assaulted-in-dublin/a2065063052.html?fbclid=IwZnRzaANopbVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvOn7NdMm_qf4fnVS4cF5eDDf4D-kR0a0uPK3_PBIfHrPkzi19eAfhw_HOK6_aem_Iwcfc7qRRzlKLI6De0tWOA#vmr2l022z4r2ks338onanrrffjoyfa0mh

Looking forward to all the heroes worried about protecting women and children rioting over this one.

https://x.com/dubslife1/status/1981747885931676005?t=zKrfJ5DJ8gXFRU6Kkl5OMw&s=19

It needs addressing for two reasons.
One it gets some money that can be used for a proper purpose
Two it reduces discouragement of people who are doing their bit

Thinking housing and health needs far more addressing than targeting the poorest and most vulnerable.

There's a reason FFG governments target those on welfare in this way.

Can you see the issue with the mass deregulation FFG governments have overseen that led to a banking crisis, that led to billions in expense for crumbling houses in Donegal? The people responsible here by and large walked free from their crimes with millions in their bank account but the FFG governments made a very loud voice of pursuing working class people for welfare fraud.

A narrative has been pursued by neo liberal parties that it's the working class fraudster that we need to be wary off and not the bankers, lobbyists, MNCs etc. You subscribe to that.

Maybe if govts gave low income workers more rights, more protections, more pay then that might be a positive way to reduce welfare fraud. A lot of low income workers would nearly be no worse off on income - maybe fix that issue before moving onto welfare fraud?

Why not do both

there is not infinite resources, people and money so there needs to prioritisation.

Is it feasible? does the additional burden on an already vulnerable cohort of people make sense.

If the costs outweighs the benefits is it worth it just to send a message, also there could be diminishing returns year on year as "chancers" are found  out too.


Could a slight increase in corporate tax bring in more finances or other alternatives bring better cost/benefits?

Then there is alternative approaches as outlined by hog, investments that improve opportunity for those in the most need, thereby reducing welfare costs into the future.

can you point out where you said "that disability advocates did understand real disabilities"?

You did not say their advice should be sought  you said "disabled advocates should concentrate on is designing proper criteria to identify the genuine from the chancers". Disabled advocates now have to solve "chancers"

I didn't reverse what you said, you have articulated yourselves very well and second post is completly.different to what you said in the first..

What do you suggest is done about the chancers/bluffers?

not my area of expertise either, if I was tasked with that, initially  I would consult with those who had the  expertise, alongside looking at data to determine the extent of the issue and also review similar countries etc. in Europe

About today's election .......
Will it reach 40% of the electorate?

Don't think do. I expect 35 to 38%

Not that it matters as decisions are made by those who vote but no doubt the Steen and similar factions will claim that up 80% of the people didn't vote for Connolly.

i think it will be closer than people think, I am very interested to see the spoilt vote above the norm and what areas of the country vote for each candidate.

While I don't think anything was wrong with how the 3 candidates were selected I would have liked to see more, and I believe more candidates would have reduced Connollys chances, something I would not like to see

can you point out where you said "that disability advocates did understand real disabilities"?

You did not say their advice should be sought  you said "disabled advocates should concentrate on is designing proper criteria to identify the genuine from the chancers". Disabled advocates now have to solve "chancers"

I didn't reverse what you said, you have articulated yourselves very well and second post is completly.different to what you said in the first..

comparing what was proposed for people with disabilities to to an NCT and returning from sick leave!!!

Proposing dropping people out of wheelchairs to see if they can walk!!!!

As I stated when making that comment it was to show you and others  how stupid those other comments were

comparing what was proposed for people with disabilities to to an NCT and returning from sick leave!!!

[should people in wheelchairs because of disabilities but lifted out and drop to see if they fall or walk]

Disability activists said the plans were a "degrading and humiliating" value judgment that would give the impression that some people were falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness.

I'm not that familiar with this. However, it seems to be that some people are falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness. Some people, not most people.
So you need the power to investigate, but use that in  directed way so as to not investigate the really disabled, but do check others.

Anyone can be breathalysed at a checkpoint, because some people are drink driving. Anyone can have their taxes audited, because some people are not paying their taxes. But in reality, the Revenue have criteria to focus their efforts on actual offenders.

What the disabled advocates should concentrate on is designing proper criteria to identify the genuine from the chancers, then more money can be spent in those who actually are deserving because it has not been appropriated by those who are not.

It'a trait of Thatcherites to ONLY punch down. Becuase it's definitely the disabled who are the problem, eh?

The growth in payments to disabled people has to be extracted from those who work. People are happy to pay for people with genuine disabilities, but the growing number of people designated as such contains many who are less deserving.

are the disabled activists falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness (or families members] do you think?  they made the comment, you mention you are not familiar... I would think they are..

Some really vile posts but not surprising. Ill take a leaf from those arguments by asking should people in wheelchairs because of disabilities but lifted out and drop to see if they fall or walk.

Absolutely vile disgusting comment. Should be ashamed of yourself

just stooping to your level. degrading and dehumanising wouldn't it be. something you have spent the last few posts mocking!!!

Disability activists said the plans were a "degrading and humiliating" value judgment that would give the impression that some people were falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness.

I'm not that familiar with this. However, it seems to be that some people are falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness. Some people, not most people.
So you need the power to investigate, but use that in  directed way so as to not investigate the really disabled, but do check others.

Anyone can be breathalysed at a checkpoint, because some people are drink driving. Anyone can have their taxes audited, because some people are not paying their taxes. But in reality, the Revenue have criteria to focus their efforts on actual offenders.

What the disabled advocates should concentrate on is designing proper criteria to identify the genuine from the chancers, then more money can be spent in those who actually are deserving because it has not been appropriated by those who are not.

It'a trait of Thatcherites to ONLY punch down. Becuase it's definitely the disabled who are the problem, eh?

The growth in payments to disabled people has to be extracted from those who work. People are happy to pay for people with genuine disabilities, but the growing number of people designated as such contains many who are less deserving.

are the disabled activists falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness (or families members] do you think?  they made the comment, you mention you are not familiar... I would think they are..

Some really vile posts but not surprising. Ill take a leaf from those arguments by asking should people in wheelchairs because of disabilities but lifted out and dropped to see if they fall or walk.

Some really nice guys on this thread... i wonder would they make those comments to disabled people...

[degrade and dehumanize]

Better a useless President than a dangerous offensive one.

Hymphreys tried to force disabled people to go through degrading examinations to test their fitness for work. That's the sort of Thatherite policies that I find offensive, but each to their own.

So if a fella is playing the system, he's entitled to benefits for the rest of his life unchecked?

They are checked.

The issue was the same crowd who let big business go unregulated want to degrade and dehumanize people getting benefits.

That's a bit much. So when a doctor signs off on them going on the sick that's ok. But if they go in for a re-check and he says they're fit for work that's degrading and dehumanizing.

It wouldn't be like left wingers to have a hysterical over reaction to distract from a touchy subject.
How dare you!

it was a quote from disability activities... no one here knows their political leaning but Doghsite knows best!

Wasn't there 50,000-80,000 at water charge protests...   

Disability activists said the plans were a "degrading and humiliating" value judgment that would give the impression that some people were falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness.

Mr Clonan has described the Green Paper as a "cut and paste" of a "very discredited austerity measure" in the UK called the workplace capacity assessment.

He said the document would mean 250,000 recipients of disability allowance would need to be medically examined every five years.