Deleted

RenovationMan

nomoreboomandbust wrote: »

Are any of your posts unedited ?

He writes them in his usual manner and then goes back and edits in his mistakes in order to disguise his writing style. An often seen tactic used on this sockie-riddled board.

he rites vem in is youshall way and then goos bak and edits in his wrongnesses in udder to discgeese his riting stile an offen scene tictoc used on this sokky-ridle bored.

bankhater_1965

Quasar wrote: »

Then the powers that be will have to change this mindset by cutting benefits to subsistence levels, and be done with xbox, plasma TV etc level. There will be riots, but damnation lies more the other way.

it will never change as past proves, because it would be a massive blow to any goverment to target these people as to vote losers , history proves that

Quasar

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

it will never change as past proves, because it would be a massive blow to any goverment to target these people as to vote losers , history proves that

Oh well, when there is no more money in the pot there will be no more benefits even for those who DO need them, no more law and order and no more government because the country will become ungovernable. It's the people who make a country what it is, NOT a government whose members are taken from the very same people anyway. If the people cannot find it in themselves to change things then they'll only get what they deserve by default.

bankhater_1965

RenovationMan wrote: »

He writes them in his usual manner and then goes back and edits in his mistakes in order to disguise his writing style. An often seen tactic used on this sockie-riddled board.

he rites vem in is youshall way and then goos bak and edits in his wrongnesses in udder to discgeese his riting stile an offen scene tictoc used on this sokky-ridle bored.

im glad you take so much interest in my comments ! i have alot of followers on here , thanks for joining !!

Quasar

Am I correct in thinking that a sockie/sokky is what in DT we call an AE (alter ego)? There's plenty in there also, meh... :rotfl:

bankhater_1965

Quasar wrote: »

Oh well, when there is no more money in the pot there will be no more benefits even for those who DO need them, no more law and order and no more government because the country will become ungovernable. It's the people who make a country what it is, NOT a government whose members are taken from the very same people anyway. If the people cannot find it in themselves to change things then they'll only get what they deserve by default.

it certainly is looking that way :mad:

Quasar

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

it certainly is looking that way :mad:

And who is to blame? The fairies, fate, the devil, god, the aliens? Or the people who excuse their own selfishness because, well, the rich are at it too (prime excuse, that one), so let's just sit on our backside and let the middle people (those who pay tax) keep us?

bankhater_1965

Quasar wrote: »

And who is to blame? The fairies, fate, the devil, god, the aliens? Or the people who excuse their own selfishness because, well, the rich are at it too (prime excuse, that one), so let's just sit on our backside and let the middle people (those who pay tax) keep us?

did you accept child benefit and child tax credits if you was eligable regardless if you needed the extra income ?

Quasar

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

did you accept child benefit and child tax credits if you was eligable regardless if you needed the extra income ?

I might. But I would also vote for a government that fosters fairness and means testing, because income (and life generally), are more than just child benefits for those who can afford to drop them.

Then again, the fact that I chose NOT to have children may have something to do with how I view the question of affording things.

bankhater_1965

Quasar wrote: »

I might. But I would also vote for a government that fosters fairness and means testing, because income (and life generally), are more than just child benefits for those who can afford to drop them.

Then again, the fact that I chose NOT to have children may have something to do with how I view the question of affording things.

you choose not have children , fair enough , BUT its my 3 children that will pay for your state pension when you retire and your nhs treatment when you retire just like you and myself are doing now for our parents, only you are a break in the chain by someone elses kids will now be paying for you ! so even though you justify your actions now , its costing others more later thats how YOU view the question of affording things , selfishness you agree ?