As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
Today:
debra9275 wrote:
"You must have a very poor memory and no, I'm not going back in the thread to find it. You've also posted numerous (un-named resource) comments from the Daily telegraph you posted them, you find them. I remember them very well so not neccessary for me to search for them."
monman12 wrote:
What do I say other than: you are full of "codswallop" . If you are challenged in a debate to confirm/authenticate a statement and are unable to, or avoid so doing, the conclusion is that you are fabricating that statement.
The Board Advanced Search protocol is adequate, use it, otherwise frankly without (believable) authentication I find it hard to believe I posted a Dean article. So I do not believe you. (ask the captain to search).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
monman12 wrote:
Talking about bizarre speeches, I found one in the AFR purely by chance from Shorten, who rumour has it is allegedly the Leader of the Opposition.
Excerpt:
"Critics point to Mr Shorten's woeful Jon Faine interview as the moment that galvanised the backbench to act, although others point to an earlier interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales as when the mood in the party room turned savagely against Mr Shorten.
"He got all the way through the Sales interview without saying a single thing, which was fantastic, and that is of course his job," another disgruntled backbencher said, "but then with two stupid words he went and blew the whole thing completely! 'Inclusive growth'. What a disaster. Now people will start to think we know how to manage the economy!"
Others mentioned the profound unease within the party over Mr Shorten's continued use of the word "values". "He keeps on banging on about 'Labor values' but of course as everyone knows, the only thing we value is getting back into power as fast as we can so we can get our hands on the loot and start dishing it out to dead people, public servants and paying off those union credit cards."
The AFR article was titled:
Bill Shorten's leadership tottering after 'let's have ideas' gaffe
More apt would be Bill Shorten's 'let's have ideas' chuckle
Oh Gosh the timing is within the acceptable history period, but it is applicable to an Opposition not a Govt. Would that make it proscribed? Anyway as there are likely to be very few Shorten ideas, or policies to C&P, I can not see it becoming a problem within The Sandpit!
.....
@monman12 wrote:"You must have a very poor memory and no, I'm not going back in the thread to find it. You've also posted numerous (un-named resource) comments from the Daily telegraph you posted them, you find them. I remember them very well so not neccessary for me to search for them."
What do I say other than: you are full of "codswallop" . If you are challenged in a debate to confirm/authenticate a statement and are unable to, or avoid so doing, the conclusion is that you are fabricating that statement.
Try the defence : " it was a test to see if you and others picked it up."
The Board Advanced Search protocol is adequate, use it, otherwise frankly without (believable) authentication I find it hard to believe I posted a Dean article. So I do not believe you. (ask the captain to search).
I do wonder why the DT , or Dean, is considered "un-sourceable", well apart from your affiliations, when you blithely quote a Jakarta Post article that is obviously nonsense:
(using Board "search" try it) D9275 (23 March 2014)
"here is something interesting I noticed last night"
I know, " it was a test to see if you and others picked it up."
@am*3 wrote:Today:
@debra9275 wrote:
"You must have a very poor memory and no, I'm not going back in the thread to find it. You've also posted numerous (un-named resource) comments from the Daily telegraph you posted them, you find them. I remember them very well so not neccessary for me to search for them."
@ monman12 wrote:
What do I say other than: you are full of "codswallop" . If you are challenged in a debate to confirm/authenticate a statement and are unable to, or avoid so doing, the conclusion is that you are fabricating that statement.
The Board Advanced Search protocol is adequate, use it, otherwise frankly without (believable) authentication I find it hard to believe I posted a Dean article. So I do not believe you. (ask the captain to search).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
@monman12 wrote:
Talking about bizarre speeches, I found one in the AFR purely by chance from Shorten, who rumour has it is allegedly the Leader of the Opposition.
Excerpt:
"Critics point to Mr Shorten's woeful Jon Faine interview as the moment that galvanised the backbench to act, although others point to an earlier interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales as when the mood in the party room turned savagely against Mr Shorten.
"He got all the way through the Sales interview without saying a single thing, which was fantastic, and that is of course his job," another disgruntled backbencher said, "but then with two stupid words he went and blew the whole thing completely! 'Inclusive growth'. What a disaster. Now people will start to think we know how to manage the economy!"
Others mentioned the profound unease within the party over Mr Shorten's continued use of the word "values". "He keeps on banging on about 'Labor values' but of course as everyone knows, the only thing we value is getting back into power as fast as we can so we can get our hands on the loot and start dishing it out to dead people, public servants and paying off those union credit cards."
The AFR article was titled:
Bill Shorten's leadership tottering after 'let's have ideas' gaffe
More apt would be Bill Shorten's 'let's have ideas' chuckle
Oh Gosh the timing is within the acceptable history period, but it is applicable to an Opposition not a Govt. Would that make it proscribed? Anyway as there are likely to be very few Shorten ideas, or policies to C&P, I can not see it becoming a problem within The Sandpit!
.....
