If you could cut one welfare payment, what would it be ?

califano

Im not sure about government policies on welfare payment but im sure theyre good ones.

arybvtcw0eolkf

smash wrote: »

Either way, the high horse opinions of a self proclaimed ex nazi aren't worth much. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Awww what's wong ickle twinkle toes, you no like me much?.

smash

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

Awww what's wong ickle twinkle toes, you no like me much?.

Like I said, considering your beliefs or previous beliefs, it makes your opinions not worth a lot.

micropig

smash wrote: »

It's a very tiny minority that get pregnant in order to receive benefits. It's also up the the male to use contraception too.

Either way, the high horse opinions of a self proclaimed ex nazi aren't worth much. Sorry, but that's the truth.

This is perfectly true. But the male can walk away as we know. It is the girl who has to go through pregnancy and give birth. Shes bears more responsibility than the bloke ... I mean he could be an irresponsible ****. This is too important and has too many consequences for the female,for her to hand it over to anyone else

arybvtcw0eolkf

smash wrote: »

Like I said, considering your beliefs or previous beliefs, it makes your opinions not worth a lot.

To you, but then you and your opinions mean even less - to me :cool:

Either way I'm not going down this route with you.

Goodnight sunshine.

Balmed Out

smash wrote: »

It's a very tiny minority that get pregnant in order to receive benefits. It's also up the the male to use contraception too.

Either way, the high horse opinions of a self proclaimed ex nazi aren't worth much. Sorry, but that's the truth.

its a small minority but it does exist, i think theres something about attack the pst not the poster. Hes entitled to his opinion. Everyone can make mistakes not just a single parent. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc

smash

Balmed Out wrote: »

its a small minority but it does exist, i think theres something about attack the pst not the poster. Hes entitled to his opinion. Everyone can make mistakes not just a single parent. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc

Well his posts were pretty much insulting to every female mother on boards. And to females in general actually.

And look at the figures here. The government lost more money by adjusting the motor tax bands than they've spent on single parent benefits.

Why is every single parent tarred as a loser who's out to rob the state? It's a small enough minority that the welfare officers should be on the case doing their jobs!

arybvtcw0eolkf

smash wrote: »

Well his posts were pretty much insulting to every female mother on boards. And to females in general actually.

Then why didn't you attack my posts instead of attacking me, your here long enough to know that.

smash

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

Then why didn't you attack my posts instead of attacking me, your here long enough to know that.

I didn't attack you. I gave my opinion about yours. I also commented on your posts and how wrong they were.

Stuck Cone

Id say id have to agree with this Abi lady and her tit lathering, if only for giving me that image


http://community.o2online.ie/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1032i4E0B9A47D8C51C43/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

steddyeddy

I think the welfare system is too generous its a disgrace. People just dont want to work. Having a good welfare system definatly disincentives people to work!!

We can clearly see the evidence for this during the boom years when the welfare was higher than it is now! Employment must have been low right? Wrong it was near full employment which sort of destroys the idea that anywhere close to a majority of people on welfare dont want to work. People rarely choose to be on welfare its a ridiculous attitude to have.

arybvtcw0eolkf

smash wrote: »

I didn't attack you.

Actually I feel you did, you used what I've posted in the past to try to discredit something I post about now.

Either way, I reported your post as I believe it contravenes THIS RULE the charter is very clear in relation to this..

We all know how easy it is to lose the head in an internet argument and pour scorn on another poster. If you do this then be prepared for the intervention of a moderator. "Attack the post and not the poster" is a guideline you'll hear trotted out rather a lot. Try and keep to this rule.

Do not use posters posts in other forums here to insult them.

So I'm not discussing it with you any further.

Like I said, goodnight.

smash

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

Actually I feel you did, you used what I've posted in the past to try to discredit something I post about now.

I think you discredited your own post by the tone you used towards single parents and how you tarred them all as social welfare frauds or incompetent tarts.

Anyway I doubt I hurt your feeling, but I know you've hurt a lot of people's feelings with what you said.

up for anything

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

So if a chic is up the duff now, then F'you ya silly bint don't expect the tax payer to bail you out of it this time!.

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

No, but I'm tired of paying for their parents mistake's.

There is no reason why Mary Jane Rottencrotch should be having multiple births for multiple partners and the tax payer picks up the cost (in the vast majority of cases).

Unless a girl either doesn't give a rats arse if she's pregnant or its planned as part of our little cottage industry of child-support then there is absolutely no reason why a girl can't get contraception and take precautions.

Stop payments on new births I'd say.

You must get quite dizzy up there on your high horse! :rolleyes:

There are plenty of reasons that a woman might not be able to use the various forms of contraception. As for condoms...

The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently.

micropig wrote: »

This is perfectly true. But the male can walk away as we know. It is the girl who has to go through pregnancy and give birth. Shes bears more responsibility than the bloke ... I mean he could be an irresponsible ****. This is too important and has too many consequences for the female,for her to hand it over to anyone else

Ah yes, the old the girl bears more responsibility than the bloke saw. I suppose when it comes to abortion you would be in the she has every right not to consult the father as it is too important and has too many consequences for her to hand it over to anyone else.


Maybe more boys and men need to learn to keep it in their trousers until they can use it responsibly. A good use of state money would be to make all males over the age of 15 have vasectomies and then if they want them reversed they would have to prove that they could support a child until the age of 18.

Stuck Cone

up for anything wrote: »

You must get quite dizzy up there on your high horse! :rolleyes:

There are plenty of reasons that a woman might not be able to use the various forms of contraception. As for condoms...



Ah yes, the old the girl bears more responsibility than the bloke saw. I suppose when it comes to abortion you would be in the she has every right not to consult the father as it is too important and has too many consequences for her to hand it over to anyone else.


Maybe more boys and men need to learn to keep it in their trousers until they can use it responsibly. A good use of state money would be to make all males over the age of 15 have vasectomies and then if they want them reversed they would have to prove that they could support a child until the age of 18.

Your username doesnt lend its self well to your arguement

steddyeddy

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

Actually I feel you did, you used what I've posted in the past to try to discredit something I post about now.

Either way, I reported your post as I believe it contravenes THIS RULE the charter is very clear in relation to this..





So I'm not discussing it with you any further.

Like I said, goodnight.

Nice way to stand by your convictions by reporting a post which objected to the offensivness of your post.

arybvtcw0eolkf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nice way to stand by your convictions by reporting a post which objected to the offensivness of your post.

From Smash;

Either way, the high horse opinions of a self proclaimed ex nazi aren't worth much. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Read the charter, its very clear on this matter;

Do not use posters posts in other forums here to insult them.

Simple as, now stop trying to bait me into an argument please.

up for anything

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Your username doesnt lend its self well to your arguement

Damn and there was me thinking that it added gravitas to my posts.

I'm heading round to the CWO in the morning to see can I get a sub from him to pay for a Boards member in order to change my name.

micropig

up for anything wrote: »

You must get quite dizzy up there on your high horse! :rolleyes:

There are plenty of reasons that a woman might not be able to use the various forms of contraception. As for condoms...



Ah yes, the old the girl bears more responsibility than the bloke saw. I suppose when it comes to abortion you would be in the she has every right not to consult the father as it is too important and has too many consequences for her to hand it over to anyone else.


Maybe more boys and men need to learn to keep it in their trousers until they can use it responsibly. A good use of state money would be to make all males over the age of 15 have vasectomies and then if they want them reversed they would have to prove that they could support a child until the age of 18.

Its a simple fact of biology

A better would be to provide good sex education to all teenagers, condom vending machines available to them in the street. More awareness made of other more reliable contraception, the pill, implants etc.....and teaching young girls to have more respect for their bodies

Young boys must see how society cleans up the mess of other men who don't take responsibility for their kids, Show them by example, that they can't walk away easily and if they have children they have to take on the responsibility by making all current non-contributing parents take responsibility

Stuck Cone

up for anything wrote: »

Damn and there was me thinking that it added gravitas to my posts.

I'm heading round to the CWO in the morning to see can I get a sub from him to pay for a Boards member in order to change my name.

Sure why not, throw on your pjs and take your 40 children by 26 different men and tell him how poor jaaaaaccccintah needs a wedding dress aged 16.




Also it would help if you were single.


And a foreigner

And black.


Look at what this thread has done to me

smash

Josephine Ripe Shrub wrote: »

Read the charter, its very clear on this matter

Lets do that

"Similarly please do not insult other forums or groups of posters here in after hours."

I'm pretty sure women, and single parents are pretty large groups.

Stuck Cone

smash wrote: »

Lets do that

"Similarly please do not insult other forums or groups of posters here in after hours."

I'm pretty sure women, and single parents are pretty large groups.

Not all overweight surely?

up for anything

micropig wrote: »

and teaching young girls to have more respect for their bodies

You're still doing it! The onus on the girls.

up for anything

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Sure why not, throw on your pjs and take your 40 children by 26 different men and tell him how poor jaaaaaccccintah needs a wedding dress aged 16.




Also it would help if you were single.


And a foreigner

And black.


Look at what this thread has done to me

You've just insulted me three times! :eek:

Her name isn't Jacinta. :pac:

Stuck Cone

up for anything wrote: »

You're still doing it! The anus on the girls.

FYP


That would solve everything, one up the....

up for anything

Stuck Cone wrote: »

That would solve everything, one up the....

Sorry, but we have more respect for our bodies.

gcgirl

up for anything wrote: »

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Sure why not, throw on your pjs and take your 40 children by 26 different men and tell him how poor jaaaaaccccintah needs a wedding dress aged 16.




Also it would help if you were single.


And a foreigner

And black.


[SIZE="2"]Look at what this thread has done to me [/SIZE]

You've just insulted me three times! :eek:

Her name isn't Jacinta. :pac:

It's Charmaine

micropig

up for anything wrote: »

You're still doing it! The onus on the girls.

There is more consequences for the girl:rolleyes:

Stuck Cone

up for anything wrote: »

Sorry, but we have more respect for our bodies.

On a serious note nothing wrong with anal if done in a safe manner, the safest contraceptive method there is

gcgirl

Stuck Cone wrote: »

up for anything wrote: »

You're still doing it! The anus on the girls.

FYP


That would solve everything, one up the....

What you saying
Instead of going for the pink
Go for the brown

Stuck Cone

gcgirl wrote: »

What you saying
Instead of going for the pink
Go for the brown

If in doubt, pot the brown in the middle pocket yes

up for anything

Now I'm getting a sense of why you picked your username. :eek:

micropig

Stuck Cone wrote: »

On a serious note nothing wrong with anal if done in a safe manner, the safest contraceptive method there is

State sponsored free vaseline for all:D

gcgirl

Stuck Cone wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

What you saying
Instead of going for the pink
Go for the brown

If in doubt, pot the brown in the middle pocket yes

Lol
It's grand on rag week


Wouldn't want to make it a regular occurrence though

Stuck Cone

micropig wrote: »

State sponsored free vaseline for all:D

I there was a cultural shift amongst teens to bumming as the primary method of intercourse it would solve the single parent problem, with natural intercourse reserved for its primary purpose.



Either that or go back to fingering

gcgirl

micropig wrote: »

Stuck Cone wrote: »

On a serious note nothing wrong with anal if done in a safe manner, the safest contraceptive method there is

State sponsored free vaseline for all:D

God no ky gel
Vaseline is asking for trouble with condoms

Stuck Cone

gcgirl wrote: »

God no ky gel
Vaseline is asking for trouble with condoms

narddog

Cut childrens allowance. You want to have kids, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to help cover the cost of raising them. You are squirting out a child honey, not splitting the ****ing atom. Get over yourself and stop expecting free money.

Closely followed by rent allowance. As a house owner who has rented out a house to someone receiving RA, they treat your house like ****, have no respect for anything and expect someone else to pick up the pieces after they have wrecked havoc.

up for anything

micropig wrote: »

State sponsored free vaseline for all:D

Ah no, Micropig.... it'll rot the condoms! :eek:

gcgirl got there before me!

gcgirl

Stuck Cone wrote: »

micropig wrote: »

State sponsored free vaseline for all:D

I there was a cultural shift amongst teens to bumming as the primary method of intercourse it would solve the single parent problem, with natural intercourse reserved for its primary purpose.



Either that or go back to fingering

It's parenting alone not all single parents are "single" their ex wives ex husbands widows widowers and long term relation ships !

micropig

Stuck Cone wrote: »

I there was a cultural shift amongst teens to bumming as the primary method of intercourse it would solve the single parent problem, with natural intercourse reserved for its primary purpose.



Either that or go back to fingering

We need to think outside the box:p

Stuck Cone

micropig wrote: »

We need to think outside the box:p

Youll end up in shít creek otherwise

up for anything

narddog wrote: »

Cut childrens allowance. You want to have kids, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to help cover the cost of raising them.

Even if you help to make them! It's that attitude that has this country in the red.

micropig

up for anything wrote: »

Ah no, Micropig.... it'll rot the condoms! :eek:

Yes sorry mistake on my part there

KY jelly so

& only up the bum remember

token101

gcgirl wrote: »

Seriously this is getting a little tedious now you cannot compare x y and z because they are different structures and it's plainly pointless exercise and nepotism come on unless your a vested interest this country has been continually brought down its defiantly not what you know it's clearly who you know .

Yeah I'd agree it's tedious. The summary of your argument: Everyone's against single mothers because we're all misogynists. We can't get jobs because of nepotism and 'vested interests'. Get off the stage FFS. :rolleyes:

gcgirl

token101 wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

Seriously this is getting a little tedious now you cannot compare x y and z because they are different structures and it's plainly pointless exercise and nepotism come on unless your a vested interest this country has been continually brought down its defiantly not what you know it's clearly who you know .

Yeah I'd agree it's tedious. The summary of your argument: Everyone's against single mothers because we're all misogynists. We can't get jobs because of nepotism and 'vested interests'. Get off the stage FFS. :rolleyes:

This personal attack is quite funny have you been wondering what to come up with ?

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

This is perfectly true. But the male can walk away as we know. It is the girl who has to go through pregnancy and give birth. Shes bears more responsibility than the bloke ... I mean he could be an irresponsible ****. This is too important and has too many consequences for the female,for her to hand it over to anyone else

You're joking, right? Right?

micropig

Millicent wrote: »

You're joking, right? Right?

No sure how, are you disagreeing that the consequences are greater for the girl?

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

No sure how, are you disagreeing that the consequences are greater for the girl?

This part is actually what I object to:

Shes bears more responsibility than the bloke ... I mean he could be an irresponsible ****

They're both equally responsible. That's kind of how procreation works.

To be honest, I'd rather see the absent parent's wages or welfare payments garnished if they are not supporting children they have made and a punishment for non-payment, like revocation of driver's licence/jail as in some U.S. states. Then, I think, single parent allowances could be cut.

gcgirl

Millicent wrote: »

micropig wrote: »

This is perfectly true. But the male can walk away as we know. It is the girl who has to go through pregnancy and give birth. Shes bears more responsibility than the bloke ... I mean he could be an irresponsible ****. This is too important and has too many consequences for the female,for her to hand it over to anyone else

You're joking, right? Right?

Time to start sending all good looking girls to the laundries because they are basically corrupting the men folk