ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Getty]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

If the state (ie decent hardworking taxpayers) is providing accommodation, it can actually do so most efficiently by building the units concerned of hardwearing and durable materials to minimise the damage caused by feckless tenants and concentrating them in high rise blocks which can be made easier to police by limiting and controlling access points.

Gated communities are generally thought of in terms of keeping the crims away from decent people's property. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to to form gated high rises and keep the crims, druggies, and bludgers in.

There may be some concern for the welfare of the hordes of children sired by feckless and selfish transient males and popped out as a lifestyle by "welfare queens", but that could be addressed if they were concentrated, by giving welfare officers and "facility supervisors" skeleton keys to allow "without notice" inspections of the units and the children in them.

The criminal tendencies of the beneficiaries can be addressed by abandoning the woke liberal policing policies that have got us into our present trajectory towards third world status, and reintroducing the "three strikes" policy, along with generally longer sentences and tougher prison conditions.

It may even be time to consider reintroducing the birch, since the fabric of our society has frayed and behavior has markedly deteriorated since corporal punishment was banned in schools and homes by the woke left.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

I see Dover Samuel's late enlightenment has washed over onto you davflaws.

I always knew you had latent tendencies.

[davflaws]

I see Dover Samuel's late enlightenment has washed over onto you davflaws.

I always knew you had latent tendencies.

Dover has become a grumpy old man. I'm just old, and that should be blatant.

[BlackPeter]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

...

That's a very nasty statement. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or did you make that number up?

I suppose "most" is over 50% - and given that many posters here seem to think that the recipients of superannuation, family and child support, plus obviously the dole and sickness benefits are all "beneficiaries" - what you said is that more than the half of all superannuitants, university students (yes, many of them receive some benefits as well), families with children and obviously the classical "beneficiaries" like sick people and unemployed people are parasites and bludgers.

This what you are saying?

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?

[davflaws]

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?

Nastier. I eat children for breakfast. Generally I kill and cook them first, but if I am very hungry or feeling particularly grumpy, I just gnaw off a limb and eat it raw. The kids make a bit of noise, but I have earmuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

[fungus pudding]

Nastier. I eat children for breakfast. Generally I kill and cook them first, but if I am very hungry or feeling particularly grumpy, I just gnaw off a limb and eat it raw. The kids make a bit of noise, but I have earmuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Fair enough, but keep your eyes open to the dangers.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/eating-raw-meat

[ithaka]

That's a very nasty statement. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or did you make that number up?

I suppose "most" is over 50% - and given that many posters here seem to think that the recipients of superannuation, family and child support, plus obviously the dole and sickness benefits are all "beneficiaries" - what you said is that more than the half of all superannuitants, university students (yes, many of them receive some benefits as well), families with children and obviously the classical "beneficiaries" like sick people and unemployed people are parasites and bludgers.

This what you are saying?

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?

BP, I think davflaws is winding you up.

[davflaws]

BP, I think davflaws is winding you up.

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).

[Balance]

Davflaws - the do gooder who has done nothing but bad for the legions of beneficiaries and underprivileged he purports to help.

Same way he believes a NZer only has culture or heritage if they are Maori or adopt Maori culture. Class A BS worthy of Clueless woke Cindy.

[fungus pudding]

Davflaws - the do gooder who has done nothing but bad for the legions of beneficiaries and underprivileged he purports to help.

Same way he believes a NZer only has culture or heritage if they are Maori or adopt Maori culture. Class A BS worthy of Clueless woke Cindy.

He doesn't discriminate between Maori and Pakeha children in his dietary requirements. Can't be fairer than that.

[justakiwi]

Maybe that's your fault. People like me always felt you were one of the good guys, so yeah, we trusted you at your word. Don't blame us for being "sucked in" because you suck at satire. Stick with what you know. It was working fine.

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).