the Lunar Scorpion and her ongoing struggle

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Thats ridiculous! I have also been turned down for jobs because I don't have car and thats fine, if you had even the remotest understanding of economics or business you would realise that it is not feasible for an individual or company to use a taxi for work.

I am asthmatic, have had several bad attacks in recent years, in 2006 my left lung collapsed and you know what? 12 days later I was back at my desk earning my bread. Why? Because I'm an honest, hard working decent human being. Tek can confirm this, as can Furbal. I am also prone to anxiety (possibly due to the amount of cannabis I smoke, but it still doesn't stop me earning £20k a year in a high pressure role.

Is 'dizzy spells' a condition or a result of not eating properly and making sure your body is in a good condition? If you really think that dizzy spells is a reason not to work then you really are deluded.

Discrimination is useful in many scenarios. For example I work in the insurance fraud investigation industry and we have teams of surveillance operatives who will follow, observe and film you going about your daily business. Would you seriously tell me that someone who was wheelchair bound could fulfil this role effectively and covertly? No of course not.

Personally I think you're missing the whole point of this thread, an I think you should go back to the tofu bar with your eco-friends and discuss what a waste of time your miserable existance while the rest of us get on with a hard days work so we can earn the money to support the likes of the people you talk about.

As far as LS goes she sits on her PC all day every day chatting, and debating on here. She is prefectly capable of constructing an articulate, well structured argument and I therefore cannot see why these skills cannot be transfered into the workplace.

Anyway I need to get back to work and earn some money. Did you know I won't see a penny of what I have earned today thus far? Thats right I see no income until at least 1100 hours each day, but I have to work from half 8. Now thats fair, obviously.
 

db

#chaplife
damonhoppe said:
The typical strategy of the right-wing being unable to put a coherent argument together attack the person with juvenille remarks.
the typical strategy of the left-wing, being unable to actually counter the points raised so dismiss everything they say with hand waving and allusions to right-wing propaganda..

seriously, the reason you feel outnumbered here is because you are not addressing a single point anyone is putting to you! the extent of your argument seems to be "la la la i can't hear you la la la please stop being mean to lunar la la la" :roll:

damonhoppe said:
If someone points out your facts are wrong you then claim you are talking about a specific person (LS)
people have gone to great lengths in other discussions to point out that they are not attacking one specific person, but talking about the problems with the welfare state in general.. this thread was established to discuss lunar's particular circumstance - her name is even in the thread title! it was started with her blessing..

damonhoppe said:
and yet then proceed to declare that any other person who is sick and disabled is faking it and therefore we should dismantle the welfare state!
no, i am very much in favour of the welfare state.. i know a lot of people round here talk of "stealing a third of my wage packet," but i am not one of them.. i am quite happy to pay my taxes to live in this country, and am i quite willing to support those that need it.. the grievances in this thread, and others on the subject, are about those who abuse the system..

damonhoppe said:
I found the references to someone (and it was not LS) who has 'dizzy spells' as not being sick particularly offensive.
why? do you know the person tek-monkey refers to? do you know his personal circumstance? can you categorically state, as absolute fact, that he should be on benefits and he is making every effort he can to cure himself of these dizzy spells?

unless you can answer "yes" to all these questions, then you have no business being offended, or indeed having an opinion either way.. tek-monkey clearly does know this chap, and the details of his "illness," so i dare say he is far better equipped than you to comment..

damonhoppe said:
What about giving people an opportunity to work rather than sentancing them to long term unemployment?
oh dear god, you've got to be kidding? we've been over this a hundred times with lunar - look up the other threads.. suffice to say, the point of all this controversey is that we would all love for lunar and similarly afflicted people to take the opportunities of work they are offered, but instead she has got herself into a rut whereby she thinks she needs to spend her life proving she is "ill enough" to stay on benefits..

edit: i have addressed every single one of your points here, as i have done with previous posts.. don't even think of claiming i am "unable to put a coherent argument together," when it is clear that you are the one who is not even reading the posts here, instead opting to cherry-pick the odd bit here and there and then wildly misconstrue it :roll:
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Colin Grigson said:
dirtybobby said:
members of the green party spend their life arguing flimsy, irrelevant and poorly researched points...
Whoa! that's a pretty sweeping generalization!

I'll offer one myself in return.

I think you'll find that members of Political Parties are reasonably well informed, relevant and better researched than the average Joe Bloggs due to the very political activity and literature that goes with Party membership (unless your membership is SWP or BNP)
I disagree, the Green Party folk are just as bad as the Lib Dems IMO - they are a bunch of useless cretins who have no idea of the concept of a 'full package' and as such promote one or two ill founded policies. It's no different to UKIP either, I don't think they have an economist between them.

Whilst they might be better researched than Joe Public, the research they have is flawed and as such makes them no better than Joe Public.

Of course, this is all IMO and everyone has and is entitled to their views. Even those who scam the system, unfortunately.
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
dirtybobby said:
members of the green party spend their life arguing flimsy, irrelevant and poorly researched points...
Whoa! that's a pretty sweeping generalization!

I'll offer one myself in return.

I think you'll find that members of Political Parties are reasonably well informed, relevant and better researched than the average Joe Bloggs due to the very political activity and literature that goes with Party membership (unless your membership is SWP or BNP)
the research they have is flawed and as such makes them no better than Joe Public.
And your evidence for this flawed research is?
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
P101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised

P106 The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.

How's that for starters?
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
P101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised

P106 The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.

How's that for starters?
That's not research, it's a policy document, something completely different.

I notice that you selectively missed out

"P102 'Carrying capacity' is the term used to describe the population that can be sustainably supported in any given region. It is not a fixed number but depends on consumption patterns."

which is between 101 & 106 and explains the contradiction which may be read between the two you have quoted.
 

cookie_monster

Well-Known Forumite
dirtybobby said:
the extent of your argument seems to be "la la la i can't hear you la la la please stop being mean to lunar la la la" :roll:
hey, it worked for bojo according to the clips they showed on fridays have i got news for you!

tek-monkey said:
Anybody who wants to be in a position of power probably shouldn't be allowed to.
please see my above comment re: bojo....although being as one of the panellists was red ken, i think tek probably has a point!


x
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Colin Grigson said:
shoes said:
P101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised

P106 The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.

How's that for starters?
That's not research, it's a policy document, something completely different.

I notice that you selectively missed out

"P102 'Carrying capacity' is the term used to describe the population that can be sustainably supported in any given region. It is not a fixed number but depends on consumption patterns."

which is between 101 & 106 and explains the contradiction which may be read between the two you have quoted.
Policy comes from research, surely? Or do they just pluck policy out of thin air like our current government?

With regard to 102 its a load of bull, how can that even be considered policy? Surely, by definition, policy is a definite course of action. Regardless of whether it backs up my view of poor research it pretty much sums up the cretinous ideals of the party.

gk141054 said:
As opposed to Labour and Conservatives.....
Fair point. As a Conservative myself I am disappointed at where the party is going, although I will still support them on the whole.
 

db

#chaplife
cookie_monster said:
dirtybobby said:
the extent of your argument seems to be "la la la i can't hear you la la la please stop being mean to lunar la la la" :roll:
hey, it worked for bojo according to the clips they showed on fridays have i got news for you!

tek-monkey said:
Anybody who wants to be in a position of power probably shouldn't be allowed to.
please see my above comment re: bojo....although being as one of the panellists was red ken, i think tek probably has a point!


x
"bojo"? is that what heat magazine is calling boris johnson, or something?? lol
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Does that mean that Ted Heath was Tehe? How jolly would that have been?

But I don't think that John Kennedy would have approved if we'd done it to him.
 

cookie_monster

Well-Known Forumite
dirtybobby said:
"bojo"? is that what heat magazine is calling boris johnson, or something?? lol
nope- its my pal in the paymaster general's office's pet nickname for him.

im more offended by the fact you think i would read heat magazine! i should strike you down for that....instead im going to cuffy you up.


x
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
damonhoppe said:
Futher I might ask how many of you have taken out private insurance?
I have for one, although every year my premium costs more and more because people fraudulently claim.
 

Author! Author!

A few posts under my belt
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
shoes said:
P101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised

P106 The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.

How's that for starters?
That's not research, it's a policy document, something completely different.

I notice that you selectively missed out

"P102 'Carrying capacity' is the term used to describe the population that can be sustainably supported in any given region. It is not a fixed number but depends on consumption patterns."

which is between 101 & 106 and explains the contradiction which may be read between the two you have quoted.
Policy comes from research, surely? Or do they just pluck policy out of thin air like our current government?

With regard to 102 its a load of bull, how can that even be considered policy? Surely, by definition, policy is a definite course of action. Regardless of whether it backs up my view of poor research it pretty much sums up the cretinous ideals of the party.
Sorry to correct you both, but they are principles, not policies (what was that about poor research? ;)). P101 and P106 are not mutually exclusive, and what exactly do you disagree with there Shoes? There's a policy pointer document about population on the Green Party website http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspp.html

shoes said:
gk141054 said:
As opposed to Labour and Conservatives.....
Fair point. As a Conservative myself I am disappointed at where the party is going, although I will still support them on the whole.
Yes, they are trying to rid themselves of the 'nasty party' tag, aren't they?

Anyway, should we carry on this conversation on a new thread? I'd do it but I'm new to the forum and I'm not au fait with how it all works yet. Ta.
 
Top