Forum menu
I thought it rather illustrated ulysse hipocracy, the poster has become very vocal about people they don't agree with and then goes and posts unwarranted bile like that.
Of course I'm judgemental... Where have I implied otherwise
Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism, i'm supposed to be a yoghurt knitting handwringer?
I've more in common with Ian Bone...
"Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism,"
Just out of interest why Green and not Labour?
And hypocrisy? I promise you, no footballers or football club has ever knowingly made a brass bawbee from me. A nice side benefit of boycotting or stealing Murdoch media products. So I don't complain about their salaries.
If you want to splurge your disposable income up the wall following football, that's your prerogative, but don't complain about the salaries if you do
Why not Labour? Is that a serious question after my views aired through out this thread.
Do keep up!
Google:
Frank Field
David Freud
Rachel Reeves
Liam Byrne
They are the engineers in the first instance of benefits deaths and the second 2 are the cheerleaders assisting Tory enabling of benefits deaths.
I am however intending voting against the party of which I'm a member for David Crausby , as however toxic the Progress element of Labour, I cant sit back and allow this Tory genocide of our most vulnerable
[i] Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism[/i]
Glad I'm not the only one trying to float this boat in a sea of capatalist neo-liberalism. 😀
"Frank Field
David Freud
Rachel Reeves
Liam Byrne
They are the engineers in the first instance of benefits deaths and the second 2 are the cheerleaders assisting Tory enabling of benefits deaths."
Ta.
There are more Progress Labour elements to be added to the above, but those are the ones that spring to mind for the purpose of the direction at present of this discussion
The disabled should have been protected. Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful.
Agreed.
Genocide, though? Hyperbole ahoy. Still, fits the narrative that everyone else is like literally Hitler, maaaan.
It's not been handled in a way that is acceptable, but it's not genocide.
Like unemployment statistics where it's politically expedient, the benefits deaths are fudged. The DWP say 61 related, less as a direct result of dwp policy. Callums list conceded 8000, disability services put it above 18000
You say tomato...
I say murdering scum, enabled and voted in by the complicit
Cfh, out of interest, Google,: Mike Sivier , Vox Political, vexatious Foi request...
However you spin it, withdrawal of a benefit is not murder or genocide. By that rationale, all governments pre-welfare state were genocidal. If I get sacked and top myself, my employer did not murder me. Colossal cock-up with grave consequences yes, but I don't think hyperbole helps your argument.
?Colossal cock-up with grave consequences yes,
Airtragic, let's take the Clapson case. A diabetic on insulin.
What do you think happens when an insulin dependent is sanctioned of entitlement, forced in to starvation, electricity meters can't be fed, meaning the fridge holding the insulin can no longer, yer know, refrigerate?
Found dead through ketoacidosis with a stack of Cv's by his body and £3 in the bank he couldn't withdraw.
That my friend once aid was withdrawn, was inevitable.
Does anyone think we would be discussing this subject if it wasn't for ulysse's 'hyperbole'?
No, it would have been ignored.
Again.
However you spin it, withdrawal of a benefit is not murder or genocide. By that rationale, all governments pre-welfare state were genocidal. If I get sacked and top myself, my employer did not murder me.
Not murder or genocide but "grave and systematic violations" of disabled people's rights, according to the UN.
Two people have answered the question now, Airtragic and Flash.
Any more?
Dp.
[quote=ninfan ]
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
Because they pissed off abroad
Because if they'd stayed here and paid their taxes they wouldn't be?
(no - don't answer that - I know you won't anyway, so might as well make the point now)
Airtragic ducked the question by not accepting the two premises.
Also you haven't answered it yourself, and nor has Grum.
What do you want me to qualify?
I don't agree with the way people with disabilities are being 'assessed'.
I don't agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.
I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.
Those who can best bear the burden should do so.
Which bit is unclear?
"What do you want me to qualify?"
Just explain 'how'. That was your question. You can't get out of it by refusing to accept the premise.
EDIT: Corrected 'can't' typo
Well well.
Despite all the attention on local elections as a test of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the Conservatives have lost more council seats than Labour
How what?
It was your question, just answer it. How.
Check the date ulysse
[quote=ulysse said]Well well.
Despite all the attention on local elections as a test of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the Conservatives have lost more council seats than Labour
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-elections-2016-results-in-full-council-seats-conservative-tory-labour-jeremy-corbyn-a7019041.html
br />
Date: Sunday 8 May 2016 12:24 BST
Well well indeed.
My own fault, in my defence there's a 3 year old balancing on my arm as I read newfeeds...
I suppose the lesson is to beware of conformation bias
outofbreath - Member
It was your question, just answer it. How.
Here is the question again:
I asked you and the other people contributing to this thread
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
It's a very simple question.
If you aren't prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.
It'll save me the bother of
a) Asking it again.
b) Reporting you for trolling.
Rusty, as I said pages back, complicit, either by ignorance or design.
And for the last few pages ignorance is no defence
I apologise, Rusty Spanner. When I said 'How' I meant 'Why'. Entirely my mistake. Now explain 'why', please, without ducking the question by saying you don't accept the premise.
If you aren't prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.
I would say your expectations are too high if you think everyone will answer a question or let you know they don't want to engage in it.
Some people don't want to answer questions that will give away what they are so you have to assume (if you haven't already from past history)
Some people don't want to answer questions that will give away what they are
I think his responses have clarified that quite eloquently.
🙂
I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I expect it's because nobody understands exactly what the question you're asking is - you could just type it out in full rather than drip feeding...
Come on Rusty, don't be shy, tell why.
[quote=outofbreath said]I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I think it would help if you posted the question you'd like answering OOB.
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I don't agree with the way people with disabilities are being 'assessed'.
I don't agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.
I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.
Those who can best bear the burden should do so.
A clear copy/paste but in total agreement.
I don't really want it answering, I'm just teasing Rusty because he can't answer it either.
In that case, whilst I can't speak for all the people you're challenging, I can give you a big hint - I don't think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn't.
Though I presume you're actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn't an answer to the question 🙄
Keeley stop dodging the question. The question is 'why'. You're just ducking the question by saying you don't accept the premise.
"I don't think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn't."
Which is just ducking the question by saying they don't accept the premise.
"Though I presume you're actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn't an answer to the question"
I think there is an answer, you just have to make the case, without accepting it.
Here's one for you then, oob - why is it justifiable to execute you? Don't duck the question by claiming you don't accept the premise.