SA Footy

The Rudd government is or has introduced an income management policy for welfare recipients, that has been condemned by the Greens, read all about it below:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26399091-29277,00.html
My feeling is that welfare recipients who have children should spend a reasonable amount of their payments on the kids. I think this policy illustrates how the ALP is moving to the right, this could be a Howard government policy

Yeah, fancy wanting recipients to spend their welfare on food and clothes - it should be spent on booze and smokes

Mr Beefy wrote:Yeah, fancy wanting recipients to spend their welfare on food and clothes - it should be spent on booze and smokes

Unless you can double it on the pokies, then that should cover both.

mick wrote:The Rudd government is or has introduced an income management policy for welfare recipients, that has been condemned by the Greens, read all about it below:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26399091-29277,00.html
My feeling is that welfare recipients who have children should spend a reasonable amount of their payments on the kids. I think this policy illustrates how the ALP is moving to the right, this could be a Howard government policy

Good post, Mick. No could really argue that those on welfare need to spend x amount on their kids but this is 50% of their payments being quarantined. I understood this to be for everyone on unemployment payments regardless of having children or not?

You'd expect far-right garbage like this from the Howard government what with his promise to never bring in Work For The Dole which of course turned out to be one of his "non-core" promises. Stuff like this is why the Liberal Party both federally & locally are now irrelevant, Labor under Rann & Rudd have not only taken over the middle ground but have started going towards the Right which makes the Liberal's unelectable.

Gingernuts wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Yeah, fancy wanting recipients to spend their welfare on food and clothes - it should be spent on booze and smokes

Unless you can double it on the pokies, then that should cover both.

Yeah hilarious poor people being sucked in by pokies in an attempt to improve their lot. Staunch Christian right?

Gozu wrote:

Gingernuts wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Yeah, fancy wanting recipients to spend their welfare on food and clothes - it should be spent on booze and smokes

Unless you can double it on the pokies, then that should cover both.

Yeah hilarious poor people being sucked in by pokies in an attempt to improve their lot. Staunch Christian right?

Give me a break Gozu, I was just having some light hearted fun.

I actually think pokies do a lot of damage and am not ignorant to the issues of those not as well off as I am.

You keep wanting to put me in the staunch Christian box too, what the hell is all that about?

Keep this form up mate and you'll be having polite discussions with yourself on here.

Gingernuts wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Gingernuts wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Yeah, fancy wanting recipients to spend their welfare on food and clothes - it should be spent on booze and smokes

Unless you can double it on the pokies, then that should cover both.

Yeah hilarious poor people being sucked in by pokies in an attempt to improve their lot. Staunch Christian right?

Give me a break Gozu, I was just having some light hearted fun.

I actually think pokies do a lot of damage and am not ignorant to the issues of those not as well off as I am.

You keep wanting to put me in the staunch Christian box too, what the hell is all that about?

Keep this form up mate and you'll be having polite discussions with yourself on here.

Didn't seem all that light hearted to me considering the post you responded to that with. I think you know perfectly well what it's all about, I haven't forgotten your disgraceful thread ("another apology" or something) where you tried to attack Rudd for having the audacity to apologise to all those raped & abused in the care of the state & christian groups but then did a complete 180 the second I told you the apology had full support from the Opposition and subsequently you then deleted your post. I thought Christian's were meant to have at least an ounce of compassion.

Righto Gozu, I didn't realise I had to submit my 'political resume' to post on this board, but here is:

1. I have voted for the Liberals federally in the past, but in the last election I voted for Kevin Rudd in the hope that he could instigate some change. I thought Howard and the Liberals were stale and arrogant to a degree, and Rudd promised the sort of social change that I thought was needed.

2. I have voted for the Liberals at the state level in the past also, but in the last election I was so dis-enchanted with both major parties that I voted for independents, I have not changed this view.

Regarding my now infamous (and very poorly worded) apology post - you took it that I was trying to suggest that that particular apology was not necessary. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. The point I was trying to make was not that they did not deserve an apology, but that apologising is the easy part. What happens afterwards is what matters, and tell me, Gozu, what exactly has happened to the plight of our indigenous population since Rudd apologised to them? How has their situation changed for the better in the last 2 years?

I get the feeling Gozu that you would love nothing more that for me to be a conservative Christian, Howard loving, Homo hating, church defending extreme right Liberal because that would mean I could be your little toy to play with on this politics board.

Well I'm not going to be your resident Liberal b1tch sunshine. Put down your flaming torch and take your effing witchhunt elsewhere.

Gingernuts wrote: Give me a break Gozu, I was just having some light hearted fun.
I actually think pokies do a lot of damage and am not ignorant to the issues of those not as well off as I am.
You keep wanting to put me in the staunch Christian box too, what the hell is all that about?
Keep this form up mate and you'll be having polite discussions with yourself on here.

Gozu seems to categorise and to want to put everyone in a extreme something simplistic box, as if he is the only reasonable moderate on the site.
He also seems to assume you can't have a right wing view on one issue, a leftish one on another, and a moderate on a third.
[Once you are in your box you are, presumably, supposed to stay there as a fixed target.]

Psyber wrote:

Gingernuts wrote: Give me a break Gozu, I was just having some light hearted fun.
I actually think pokies do a lot of damage and am not ignorant to the issues of those not as well off as I am.
You keep wanting to put me in the staunch Christian box too, what the hell is all that about?
Keep this form up mate and you'll be having polite discussions with yourself on here.

Gozu seems to categorise and to want to put everyone in a extreme something simplistic box, as if he is the only reasonable moderate on the site.
He also seems to assume you can't have a right wing view on one issue, a leftish one on another, and a moderate on a third.
[Once you are in your box you are, presumably, supposed to stay there as a fixed target.]

Yep, that picture is becoming very clear, however I'm afraid I don't take to kindly to being boxed or targeted.

I just think he's a ****

Well - that's a shame - it wont let me say the word but I think Gingernuts and Psyber have summed him up pretty well

Gingernuts wrote:Righto Gozu, I didn't realise I had to submit my 'political resume' to post on this board, but here is:

1. I have voted for the Liberals federally in the past, but in the last election I voted for Kevin Rudd in the hope that he could instigate some change. I thought Howard and the Liberals were stale and arrogant to a degree, and Rudd promised the sort of social change that I thought was needed.

2. I have voted for the Liberals at the state level in the past also, but in the last election I was so dis-enchanted with both major parties that I voted for independents, I have not changed this view.

You don't have to submit your political resume at all although some like constance perm seem to think it's a requirement.

Gingernuts wrote:Regarding my now infamous (and very poorly worded) apology post - you took it that I was trying to suggest that that particular apology was not necessary. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. The point I was trying to make was not that they did not deserve an apology, but that apologising is the easy part. What happens afterwards is what matters, and tell me, Gozu, what exactly has happened to the plight of our indigenous population since Rudd apologised to them? How has their situation changed for the better in the last 2 years?

Try speaking to a few Aboriginal people and ask them how they feel about the apology.

Gingernuts wrote:I get the feeling Gozu that you would love nothing more that for me to be a conservative Christian, Howard loving, Homo hating, church defending extreme right Liberal because that would mean I could be your little toy to play with on this politics board.

Well I'm not going to be your resident Liberal b1tch sunshine. Put down your flaming torch and take your effing witchhunt elsewhere.

Nice rant, I'm not intersted in having a "toy to play with" and given your obvious lack of compassion towards the less fortunate I find it more than a little ironic that you're now playing the poor victim card.

Psyber wrote:Gozu seems to categorise and to want to put everyone in a extreme something simplistic box, as if he is the only reasonable moderate on the site.
He also seems to assume you can't have a right wing view on one issue, a leftish one on another, and a moderate on a third.
[Once you are in your box you are, presumably, supposed to stay there as a fixed target.]

Nice try and just because I don't share all of my views on here (for pretty obvious reasons) it certainly doesn't mean I see everything in black or white, unlike some.

Jimmy_041 wrote:I just think he's a ****

Well - that's a shame - it wont let me say the word but I think Gingernuts and Psyber have summed him up pretty well

Speaking of black or white.

Love the Foe function - sweet sounds of silence

Jimmy_041 wrote:Love the Foe function - sweet sounds of silence

I've never looked at it.
How does it work? Does it make the Foe's posts not appear on your screen?

Comes up with the following instead of his rant:

This post was made by Gozu who is currently on your ignore list.

although I think it should read:

This post was made by Gozu who is currently on your ignorant list.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Love the Foe function - sweet sounds of silence

It seems Gozu doesn't need one of those. He only reads what he wants to already without technological assistance. He certainly didn't read a word I posted above that's for sure.

Gozu, I thought Gingernuts showed some class by immediately apologising for his post about the apology and deleting it.

I didn't agree with his original post, of course, but I gave him full marks for the way he responded.

redandblack wrote:Gozu, I thought Gingernuts showed some class by immediately apologising for his post about the apology and deleting it.

I didn't agree with his original post, of course, but I gave him full marks for the way he responded.

Even I didn't agree with my original post, that's why I took it down.