Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@talon wrote:
Granted, we all have money and at some point we have to spend it, after all there’s no point in being the richest person in the graveyard. We all have choices to make, but some choices are better than others!!
Of course they are, some earn more money than others-doesnt mean they deserve it, but thats life. If my household has a joint income of £80,000 per year, I am entitled to do as I wish with that money (providing its legal).
@talon wrote:
I wouldn’t mind a Sky subscription, but not at £30 to £50 a month. The rubbish they serve up just isn’t worth that money, but millions rush in like lemmings thinking that they’re getting a good value product. Likewise I wouldn’t be averse to attending a top Premiership game, but if Chelsea or Man Utd think they’re getting £50 of my cash for just 90 mins of supposed ‘entertainment’, well sorry, but they ain’t.
“you wouldnt mind a sky subscription” but “the rubbish they serve isnt worth the money”.? :? :? :?
Why want something that is rubbish (and without it, how do you know its rubbish?)- its simple, if you dont want to do something, dont do it. And let others waste the money they have, its a freewill choice to have sky, not at the point of a gun!
I couldnt agree more we live in a debt ridden, materialistic society but it is driven internally by the “demand”- the supply simply meets the demand. People have to start accepting responisibility for their actions- we live in the most selfish age when everything that goes wrong is always someone elses fault!
To stop the rot, you have to remove the demand. And that is a long, painful process involving several disincentives to borrowing and to bankruptcy. It would take 2 or 3 generations to return to a form of financial self control
@waspish wrote:
its amazing how quiet some people become when they are proved wrong.people have been called names for voicing oppinions and there was me thinking this was a discussion forum. well if you can only have your say if the self elected elite agree with you i feel sorry for you. a democracy is just that, it calls for freedom of thought and speech and no matter wether you believe in what the person says, we must always allow them to say it however distasteful. i will fight to the death to allow anyone freedom of speech whoever and whatever their beliefs even the mad mullahs and suicide jockeys.so think on when trying to silence someone elses views just because you dont agree with them because before long you may not have that freedom yourself.having sarcasm as your weapon of choice only shows how truly ignorant we can be toward each other.
I assume this was aimed at me but without a quote or name, its difficult to tell
And you are indeed right, truth does hurt :wink: as i can see by your reply
Fact is, my response was 95% fact and 5% sarcasm
Truth is my weapon Wasp
@ubermik wrote:
@abitofmary_j wrote:
did anyone watch the guy sayin on BB Bigmouth with the Gorgeous George… why weren’t the other 2 kicked out for sayin the N word also…. to which GG replied they were statin what was said and not directed to anyone….
I just wonder how someone could actually turn round and let a word like that which isnt used in the English Language roll of one’s tongue so easyily…. says alot for her upbringing I say…
In which alternate reality ISNT the word nigger either A) not part of the english language OR B) Isnt used daily?
Coz it sure aint this one lol
If A) it wasnt part of the english language it wouldnt exist to begin with
If B) It wasnt used nobody would say it, nobody would have an overreactive tizzy fit about it and we wouldnt even know what the word was or meant
But back here in REALITY it IS used, it IS part of the english language coz “shock horror” those ickly blackie people ALSO speak english you know, its NOT an entirely different language when its spoken by a black to the language it is when spoken by a white, its STILL english
The word nigger IS used daily BY niggers the world over, its ALSO used by wannabe white niggers who have probably bumped their head or had a bodged labotomy and just THINK theyre black, which they then in turn learn that way of talking and use that word BECAUSE they hang around with BLACKS
So screw a persons upbringing, its more to do with peer groups, so UNLESS youre saying “GOOD WHITE PARENTS” shouldnt let their kids EVER hang around with black kids they WILL both learn and use the word nigger the same as black kids who hang around with the same groups will ALSO learn
So to then turn around and says its bad ONLY when a white kid says it is not only lacking in any form of intellect, its also inherently racist
Now did you think I would leave this unchallenged :)
The main issue I have is justifying the use of a word simply because some people use it who you would expect to be offended by it. Uber, you may have as many contacts (daily) with people of all different races, ages and sexes. I do, all the time. And, wihtout exception I do not know of a single non white person who A) uses the word and B) Isnt offended by it.
Now jus cos some jumped up lil pop/rap star decides its cool to use it n all the kids follow the pied piper as he plays his tune dont make it right.
Its an offensive word, no matter who uses it- jus cos you’re black n use the word dont make it right.
To take a more extreme example but identical ethos- in WW2, the most jewish ghettoes and concentration camps had Jewish guards- by the very fact that they were jewish and assisting the Nazis, did that make the holocaust ok? Because some jews were part of it, it makes everything ok
Jus cos someone black uses a word which is offensive no matter who uses it, dont suddenly make it right…ever
@talon wrote:
Well said Zaxx, I couldn’t have put it better myself.
The frightening thought is, if you take the human race as a whole, is that approx 90% of people on this planet of ours exist simply to make the other 10% extremely wealthy and powerful, and no other reason.
It sounds a bit sweeping but think about it: how do the rich keep on getting richer?
Because all the poor old Joe’s on this planet don’t have a clue on how to hang on to their money but are ready to give it away at the slightest excuse! Examples: paying £30-£50 a month to Sky tv just to watch a load of tosh. Well, if you’re a subscriber you ain’t getting richer but Murdoch is and so are the shareholders in his company. Are you happy to pay £50 to go and watch a top Premiership football match? Guess what it’s the players and everyone else involved in the business of football that are laughing all the way to the bank whilst probably taking the p*ss at all the mugs that buy tickets, and it’s football fans that are lighter in the pocket week in week out. Sad but true! If you’re after that new car just to keep up with the Joneses, remember, cars just eat money like there’s no tomorrow, but try telling that to ‘ordinary’ people. I could go on with the examples but I won’t, I think you get the picture.
Having said all that there are a few enlightened people around, who, whilst they might never achieve serious wealth or power, are not in that 90% group, they have their eyes open to what is happening around them, and are savvy enough to be quietly making money for themselves without making too many waves, and don’t get conned into a lifetime of debt or servitude.
Modern slavery. INDEED!!
So, we are all forced, at pain of death and with no freewill, to subscribe to SkyTv and everyone has a legal obligation, with no exceptions to attend a premiership match.
The process you are describing is call market economics- its been around for the last 2,000 years- person A has a product, person B buys the product, person A makes enough money to carry on supplying person B with the product and have enough left over for his piggy bank. Bing Bang Bosh
FFS, talk about jealous anti capitalist.
Let me give you some advice
There are so many ways you can save money these days (no smoking or drinking pays for 2 of my holidays a year) by simply doing as little as possible socially or materially. BUT at some point you have to spend the money- you buy food, you are a “slave to the grind”, you buy petrol, you buy a newspaper, you buy house insurance, you buy swarfega for your rough hands- it doesnt matter, if you buy anything, someone, somewhere benefits- its jus you cant stand those that actually are successful at what they do
N it would be really really interesting to see any link, any link at all, which substantiates an outlandish claim of the 90/10 split
Wasp
It comes back to the same point- we all have employment law which is the dogs bo/llox if used correctly and it is impossible to legally dismiss someone for doing “nothing” wrong in terms of their employment other than redundancy (and employment law covers that too)
This doesnt mean its NOT happening however if English people (of all colours and creeds) sit back and allow themselves to be illiegally dismissed without a cost free legal fight then the employers will carry on.
However on the other foot, there was a news article yesterday (local) about the strawberry crop here, half of which is going to waste- why? because the farmers cannot get any local employees to work picking strawberries, only migrant labour and the farmers cant get enough of those to pick all the crops.
Y’see Wasp, half the time, we get what we deserve and tbh, there are some real lazy shytes out there- dont forget we are seeing here the migrant labour who have the get up and go to come over and find work- no wonder they ae taking it off the lazy bast/ards over here who cant be ar/sed to get out of their chairs
I dont entirely disagree but feel the internet has given global access to all and almost every scientific view has a contrary one published somewhere. I think the government support for almost any view, particularly scientific, has been seen almost as a death knoll in light of the Hutton fiasco and the 45 minute WMD (intelligence led I know but underpinned by scientific foundation).
It is an interesting hypothesis all round- from my view, as contrary, I think we are almost at the stage where there are so many theories bounded as fact, irrational ideas bounded as rational evidential and tested and the public dont know what to believe.
Accepted the 9/11 isnt necessarily the best example, I have seen some incredibly detailed documentary stuff (the one on download which I cant remember the title of) which plays like it is almost irrefutable evidence but which I have no idea if it is fact, fiction or both.
I would agree a political consensus, such as global warming, does see dissenting voices hounded as barking mad professors with nothing better to do and cross party support does give political credence (generally speaking) to a scientific view and hence public acceptance.
@ubermik wrote:
No you are still missing the point and getting caught up in the specifics of this one case
I am NOT saying all the other mothers will do anything like suing, the comparison revolves around the fact that we are being asked to believe that THIS father not paying is MASSIVELY and NEGATIVELY affecting his daughters life and is SOLELY to blame for a whole list of trauma worthy occurences
But what if instead of just not paying he was UNABLE to pay for many reasons?
The daughters life would not only be EXACTLY the same financually, but it would ALSO be IDENTICAL in every financial aspect to the life of countless other kids who are fatherless, whos fathers just CANT Contribute towards them and obviously the ones who just dont
The reason for not paying isnt important here, its the claims of the significance of the lack of support, because if true then every non supporting single parents child whether through death, unemployment, dissability, incarceration OR lack of botheration of the father is EQUALLY guaranteed this level of trauma and negative psychological impact PURELY because as a single parent they dont get enough money for their kids
If it helps with you understanding the point just pretend for a moment that the father hasnt been found at all and NOW they finally discover he died 10 years ago but wasnt identified at the time
The exact same scenario would be there, but without any unwillingness to pay, he was simply living impaired
Would that now magically remove all of the claimed traume at the root of the case?
And what of a child whos father died the day after they were born? They didnt have a sperm donor/biological wallet to contribute to them. So are we to assume they are unnavouidably negatively traumatised without exception because of that?
Or is this just a mother who is either a crap mother, has had a lot of bad luck and has now seen an opportunity to try and lay the blame for that onto someone else?
Because scores of other people live with the same level of financial input and DONT have the long list of “causalities” of not having that extra money to splash around, they seem to do just fine and dandy. Just not this one it would seem
But in suing the CSA, I assume she is taking the line that the CSA have failed to deliver on their statutory obligation and are hence answerable (in this mothers view, they will answer in court).
The impact on the mother surely is an irrelevance unless she is using her circumstances as some form of evidence to demonstrate how she has suffered because of the CSA’s failure.
That seems ridiculous (and if this is part of your point, then we may even agree)- it is not the suffering she has suffered, it is the failure of the CSA to deliver on its obligation that should be the result of the legal action- the effect may be mentioned in passing but that should be all
still quite clear
Employers cannot dismiss someone just cos they “want to”- no matter how much they want to. Employment law is tighter than a ducks arse- it costs the (ex) employee nothing to take an employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.
Perhaps it would be informative to state how many have done this, as you so clearly state they have been unfairly dismissed
So they break company rules, are warned, continue to break rules, are disciplined and sacked- hmmm
FFS, its not rocket science to keep your nose clean at work, do yer job and take yer pay.
But in the current age, when access to information via a multi media global highway, surely the main reason for this scenario is not so much an inability to understand what is happening and hence it occur through acceptance but an understanding of what is happening through reading, research and discovery (espcially via the web which is not controlled in terms of content) and an acceptance of the inability to change what you know. It is more apathy than ignorance.
This is why we barely have 60% of the electorate vote- the apathy that it is going to happen, you know power corrupts and you know your vote counts for jack unless you’re in a very marginal area. You accept what is going to happen in the knowledge it is and prepare yourself to survive, thrive and evolve within the boundaries you know to exist.
Take 9/11. The “official” version is science led, the twin towers collapsed through internal structural meltdown- all sounds very right and proper. Through the internet particularly (in light of the republican dominated media, especially TV), many many challenges have been posted and read. Theories about etc which has led to the incredible statistic that only 4 in 10 americans believe the government had NOTHING to do with 9/11. BUT even though the majority have their doubts and many do not believe the official version, Bush will not fall because of it but it is apathy and a lack of concerted will to coordinate the opposition, not the ignorance of the masses that believes, carte blanche, the official line.
I would strongly oppose the view that this country blindly accepts scientific reason (MMR as a prime example)- 50 years ago when the “masses” were told something or asked something, the response was “how do you want it done and what do we need to do”. Now when the masses are asked or told something the answer invariably is “why”. This infects the workplace and the home- children question everything to a degree which would have been unheard of 50 years ago. We are now brought up to disbelieve rather than believe what we are told, I encourage all my staff at work to challenge and confirm everything and not blindly accept without question.
Of course this has its drawsback, individually, collectively and for society- continuing questioning and a lack of cohesive direction of travel leads to disenchantment, disillusionment and apathy. It leads to a selfish, “me, me,me” attitude rather than a mutually supportive community attitude
Naturally politicians are not unaware of this change in our society and would suggest they view the mass media (TV especially) as a greater way of social control such is the scepticism by which most of what the government says is greeted. (A good day to bury bad news!).
Evolution is constant- 40 years ago we were a class ridden society which voted in accordance with your social class, lived and worked in accordance with your social class and married and died in accordance with your social class. Thatcherism and free market economics brought with it triumph and tragedy (whether this evolution therefore was forced via policy or natural through societies reaction to the external environment I am open to debate) and we saw a societal evolution not experienced since the industrial revolution (even greater than that following the Great War)
IMO :D
