Webbo Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 The Daily Mail wouldn't lie. Archaeologists have found carvings in a stone staircase at the La Corona dig site in Guatemala which confirm the ‘end date’ of the Maya calendar, December 21, 2012. It is only the second known inscription which confirms this 'end date'. Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1zCgQ9oMK
The Doctor Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 But that calender doesn't account for leap years, so we'd be well past December 21st 2012 on that calender.
Webbo Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 But that calender doesn't account for leap years, so we'd be well past December 21st 2012 on that calender. So you're telling me that that lead lined bunker I spent my life savings on building was a waste of money?
Captain... Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 So you're telling me that that lead lined bunker I spent my life savings on building was a waste of money? Don't worry Webbo, the apocalypse is coming, it just won't be expected.
Webbo Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 Don't worry Webbo, the apocalypse is coming, it just won't be expected. That's made me feel better.
BoneDog Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 The world is going to end on December 21st, it's in the Mayan calendar. Nah, the world's atmosphere is going to change by then, but the world would not end. We're moving into a new part of the universe with unknown cosmic forces at play (the effects of which, even the mighty NASA admit they don't have a clue about). Most likely just big weather changes with a few catastrophic events (earth sinkings, fires etc.) chucked in. Only a loon believes the world will end on 21.12.2012. How stupid do they look?! Jesus hasn't even come back yet for crying out loud!
The Doctor Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 Nah, the world's atmosphere is going to change by then, but the world would not end. We're moving into a new part of the universe with unknown cosmic forces at play (the effects of which, even the mighty NASA admit they don't have a clue about). Most likely just big weather changes with a few catastrophic events (earth sinkings, fires etc.) chucked in. Only a loon believes the world will end on 21.12.2012. How stupid do they look?! Jesus hasn't even come back yet for crying out loud! Long hair, slightly deranged? He is back, I went to college with him,
acooling08 Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 Nah, the world's atmosphere is going to change by then, but the world would not end. We're moving into a new part of the universe with unknown cosmic forces at play (the effects of which, even the mighty NASA admit they don't have a clue about). Most likely just big weather changes with a few catastrophic events (earth sinkings, fires etc.) chucked in. Only a loon believes the world will end on 21.12.2012. How stupid do they look?! Jesus hasn't even come back yet for crying out loud! I guess it's hard for someone non-existent to come back.
Corky Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 The world is going to end on December 21st, it's in the Mayan calendar. We'll discuss this after it's happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Rincewind Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 Webbo I'll give you 50p for all your possessions. I'll deposit the cash on Dec 20th and be around for the keys on the 22nd. It's a win win situation for you. If the world end you won't lose your house and have an extra 50p in your account. If the world doesn't end you'll be up 50p.
The Doctor Posted 29 June 2012 Posted 29 June 2012 And down a house. That's only a win-win if Webbo lives in a cardboard box.
Bugg Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 I think I can match that bet, but I'll offer one whole pound sterling if he's right. I think the highest bid wins
The Year Of The Fox Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 If he wants to stop those who are working feeling resentment for people on benefits, is not making a big hoo-ha out of cutting benefits because of the alleged cost a good start? And surely people under the age of twenty five are the people most in need of housing benefit? Yes they are, as a lot can't be arsed to work and dont know how to close their legs. These people think the world owes them. Good on Dave
absolutelegend Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 Obviousy rent is free. They just don't think to mention that because they take it as a given that they shouldn't have to pay for their own accommodation. Likewise council tax. They do have to pay for gas and electricity at maybe £50pm, so that leaves them over £250pm to spend on whatever they want. When you put it like that, that's about the same disposable income I have every month for food etc. once my rent and CT have been paid. It does make me wonder why I am working 50-60hrs a week. If you have dependents, do they get additional benefits, or is the £71 per week for the whole family? My income has to cover the household.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 There should be a law where noone is allowed to reproduce until theyre of a certain age, or until theyre earnt x amount of money (meaning they've contributed to society)
Rincewind Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 That would be great if redundancies or business failure did not exist. When people think 'It could not happen to me' they do not relise that it has happened to others.
Captain... Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 When you put it like that, that's about the same disposable income I have every month for food etc. once my rent and CT have been paid. It does make me wonder why I am working 50-60hrs a week. If you have dependents, do they get additional benefits, or is the £71 per week for the whole family? My income has to cover the household. Do you have kids? Do you include child benefit and tax credits as part of your income? Have you tried moving to a place with cheaper rent? I think that is usually the solution proposed for people on benefits.
Rincewind Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 The government set an amount that a person depending on dependants to live on. If your income is below that amount you can claim if its over it depends on how much over. They let you keep the first £10 so if I did a job that paid £82 my benefits would go or be reduced. But for that I probably would be doing under 16 hours required They would take my JSA off then calculate on whats left. Something like that.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 There should be a law where noone is allowed to reproduce until theyre of a certain age, or until theyre earnt x amount of money (meaning they've contributed to society) * LIKE * (a lot)
21st Century Fox Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 There should be a law where noone is allowed to reproduce until theyre of a certain age, or until theyre earnt x amount of money (meaning they've contributed to society) * LIKE * (a lot) I'd make it I.Q.
Daggers Posted 30 June 2012 Posted 30 June 2012 I'd make it I.Q. I've always been in favour of this as it would eradicate religion and Conservatism in one fell sweep.
MooseBreath Posted 1 July 2012 Posted 1 July 2012 Of course it is. I'm in favour of an iq based genocide/reproduction prevention programme too. I'd keep certain <80s, those with strong athletic attributes in order to form an underclass of effective labourers and soldiers. Then I'd wipe out anyone from 80 - 110, with the upper limit increasing each year. There will then be a formula which sets you a target of how many kids you have to have and hitting the target will earn you a reward (much like the current benefits system). The reward will adequately incentivise those with upper tier IQs to reproduce well and often. This is the only way forward. We pretty much do the same thing with dogs so we all know deep down that it's a good method.
Webbo Posted 1 July 2012 Posted 1 July 2012 Of course it is. I'm in favour of an iq based genocide/reproduction prevention programme too. I'd keep certain <80s, those with strong athletic attributes in order to form an underclass of effective labourers and soldiers. Then I'd wipe out anyone from 80 - 110, with the upper limit increasing each year. There will then be a formula which sets you a target of how many kids you have to have and hitting the target will earn you a reward (much like the current benefits system). The reward will adequately incentivise those with upper tier IQs to reproduce well and often. This is the only way forward. We pretty much do the same thing with dogs so we all know deep down that it's a good method. Yea! More sex for me
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.