Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In defense of Clang , et al
#2
Apart from the rather insipid and tiresome reference to “cynical ninjas spending allowance” (yes yes we all know you think a “real man” tells his wife to “go fuck herself” before leaving the house to blow fuck knows how much on a 22ct gold ass scratcher) I am much in agreement with your sentiments.

Benefit recipients do inject money into the local economy, in the UK some local businesses are worried about the government crackdown on benefits because the less claimants have in their pockets the less they spend.

At the same time though I don't think the benefits system should be such that some claimants are better off claiming than they are working. Claimants with lots of kids are often better off not being in employment and that's creating a benefit culture and that can't be right.
We need to punish the French, ignore the Germans and forgive the Russians - Condoleezza Rice.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Cynical Ninja - 05-28-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Mohammed - 05-28-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by crash - 05-29-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Midwest Spy - 05-28-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Maggot - 05-28-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:22 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:23 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 01:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 06:57 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-29-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by HairOfTheDog - 05-29-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by aussiefriend - 05-30-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 04:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 06:24 PM