1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Essential Trump/Alt-Right Ridicule Thread

Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by pk, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. Happy Larry

    Happy Larry Banned Banned

    Correct. Because I feel they should get more help from the government, but they won't get it as long as people are using up our welfare budget, both legally and illegally, when they could quite easily get by without government aid.

    If you really don't understand the term "genuinely in need" then you need far more help with English than I have the time to give you.
     
  2. NoXion

    NoXion Give me space communism or give me death

    Billions in benefits go unclaimed, so this notion you're propagating that people are missing out due to a bunch of freeloaders choking up the system is complete and utter bollocks.
     
  3. Happy Larry

    Happy Larry Banned Banned

    Not at all. You seem totally ignorant regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the article. As the article rightly says :

    "Eligible people don’t always claim as much as they should"

    The reason being is that there are millions of people in the UK who think like like myself and who thankfully don't use up government funds by claiming benefits when they can get by without them, thus leaving more for those who are desperate for aid.

    Nothing pisses me off more than those selfish twats who don't really need help from the government but put in claims "because I'm entitled to it as I've paid in for years".
     
  4. NoXion

    NoXion Give me space communism or give me death

    It doesn't matter whatever reason people say they make a claim for. It's not their call to make as to whether they are eligible, it's the DWP that does that. They are the ones who decide whether one receives benefit or not, not claimants. So you getting angry at people for claiming benefits is just you being the piece of shit that you are.

    People are not failing to make a claim because they rugged individualist wankers like yourself. They're failing to claim their entitlement because the DWP aren't a helpful bunch at the best of the times, and because of various "reforms" made to the benefits system over the years to remould it into being as unfriendly and discouraging as they think they can get away with.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
    Humirax, campanula, ddraig and 5 others like this.
  5. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby The Machine Stops

    Fake news
     
  6. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby The Machine Stops

    Why do you keep bringing people up on their command of English?
     
  7. Louis MacNeice

    Louis MacNeice Autumn Journalist

    1. Just because 'success isn't down to money' doesn't mean that wealth is unproblematic.

    2. Poverty is relative both in terms of geography and history; this shouldn't be news.

    Cheers - Louis MacNeice
     
    NoXion, Libertad and Nylock like this.
  8. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    Like pensioners, eh? Many if not most could easily go on working till they die but instead they make themselves a burden on the rest of us with their sense of entitlement.

    You have no idea what you're arguing, do you?
     
  9. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.


    I'll just leave this here, shall I?

    [​IMG]

    Irritatingly, they've not bothered to balel the x axis.

    It's the DOW. For the record; it's their stock market record Larry.


    [​IMG]

    By the popular vote, he wasn't actually voted in at all in fact


    I understand what it's *come to mean*...


    ...but now I stop to consider it, all this really means is 'takes care not to offend people.'

    I'm alright with that, personally. I'm alright with that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  10. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.

    Happy Larry

    When you, graphs that show a much steeper rise under Trumpa than Obama by the way...

    ... you'd be wise to take note of the y-axis.

    [​IMG]


    And this concludes the first Lesson on why the data-illiterate shouldn't be allowed to look at graphs.
     
  11. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.

    And the y-axis too, for that matter...

    [​IMG]
     
    petee and campanula like this.
  12. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

     
    Corax likes this.
  13. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.

    Happy Larry

    To any other graphs or data you use in an attempt at backing up your grossly ignorant and/or willfully disingenuous assertion, I could show you plenty of illustrations as to why it's unrequited bollocks. But instead I'll say either:

    a) Go look up the figures yourself, I'm not your fucking researcher
    or
    b) Start a separate thread

    Take your pick.
     
    krtek a houby and NoXion like this.
  14. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  15. Nylock

    Nylock I hate 'these days'...

    Oh Larry... You slippery fucker... You know full-well that you are being asked to provide your demarcation line of where legal claimants who use up the budget lie. Illegal claimants in this context is a non-issue as (a) the instance of benefit fraud is so small as to be a virtual irrelevancy and (b) no one advocates people illegally claiming and deliberately defrauding the benefit system; the latter is a figment of the fruitcake right's fevered imaginings.

    So, in the interests of having some actual candour from you on this issue: who are the 'deserving' and who are the 'undeserving'? Are in-work benefits using up monies that could be more productively channeled to those 'most in need'? What is the income threshold above which people are being 'greedy' despite being able to 'get by'? Should people on benefits be able to purchase things like TV's and white goods on long-term HP? Or should benefits be subsistence-only payments that cover food, heating, lighting and rent and if anything goes wrong with an appliance the claimant should apply for a crisis loan that takes several weeks to clear and 'suck it up' in the meantime?

    This time try and provide a direct answer instead of pathetically calling into question people's grasp of English; all you achieve with that line of attack is making yourself look an even bigger tool than you already are.

    I understand it full-well, I am waiting for you to elucidate on what you think the term means. Again, you know this full-well you evasive tool.
     
    campanula, NoXion and krtek a houby like this.
  16. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

    IMG_20171209_140136.jpg
     
    spring-peeper likes this.
  17. Happy Larry

    Happy Larry Banned Banned

    I have already told you, grasshopper. The meaning I attach to the words are exactly in line with that applied by either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionary. Look it up and learn. It's not that hard.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  18. Happy Larry

    Happy Larry Banned Banned

    Again, I have already told you. You really need to concentrate.

    The deserving are those who cannot get by without government aid.

    The undeserving are those who can, but choose to apply for government aid anyway.
     
  19. Libertad

    Libertad Sweetie

    Said Humpty Dumpty.
     
    krtek a houby and mojo pixy like this.
  20. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

  21. existentialist

    existentialist Spartacus? No, never heard of him.

    Clever. Snide insinuations about the intellectual ability of your interlocutors is always worth a few pages ;).

    As is a handwaving fact-free assertion of something complex, presented as a simple binary choice. You're on fire this morning - must have been a good night last night!
     
  22. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  23. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  24. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  25. NoXion

    NoXion Give me space communism or give me death

    The DWP decides who is "deserving" and who isn't. If people apply for benefits and the DWP accepts their application, then they deserve those benefits by definition.
     
  26. Nylock

    Nylock I hate 'these days'...

    You don't get away with it that easily. If you were attributing the same meaning as the Oxford/Cambridge dictionaries then you wouldn't be spouting the shite you do about those you feel are deserving/undeserving.

    If they fall under the threshold that triggers their entitlement to benefits then they are, by definition, 'deserving'. So, again, what do you deem to be the fabled threshold for deserving/undeserving? Let's make it easy for you:

    * State an earning threshold for in-work benefits and state whether the benefits should track income (the more you fall under the threshold the greater your entitlement) or whether it should be just a fixed amount regardless.
    * Then move on to out of work benefits and state a cumulative figure for those (subsistence payments, housing benefits, council tax relief) and whether or not non-subsistence entitlements (HB/CTR) should vary depending on region and 'market rent'/council tax band values).
    * Finally, let's hear your thoughts on disability benefits (that should be 'entertaining')...

    Whilst it's amusing in its own sad way to keep dancing around on this with you, at some point you are actually going to have to commit and give your definitive 'line in the sand' which divides the deserving/undeserving -otherwise you just come across as a snide with nothing of substance to say about the subject beyond the nebulous waffle and feeble attempts at belittlement that you have thus far engaged in.

    Best of luck.
     
  27. spring-peeper

    spring-peeper Well-Known Member

    To Make America Great Again, You Have To Make Christmas Merry Again
     
  28. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  29. CRI

    CRI Registered Chooser

  30. Happy Larry

    Happy Larry Banned Banned

    US electoral candidates ignore the popular vote and target their efforts on what they need to do to win the presidential race according to the rules. This usually includes concentrating their efforts on key states which may go either way. Thus their direct efforts are targeted at a relatively small number of people.

    People have a far more accurate picture than the DWP of whether they are genuinely in need or not. Their opinion of whether they are "deserving" or not may be totally different than the DWP. For example, my partner and I could qualify for a number of benefits if in need, but would never apply for them as we would always support each other, rather than run to the government for aid. I have also supported my kids and my parents even though, at times, they could also have claimed benefits. It's just the right thing to do, in my opinion. If more people took this view, there would surely be more funds available for old age pensioners and others genuinely in need.
     

Share This Page