This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Ridiculous Tales
61
« on: November 27, 2015, 12:37:35 PM »
It felt like a writer change, I don't know if that was the cause of it but one of the impressions I got was that the entire season revolved around hamstringing Underwood.
I guess you could dress it up fancily and go blah blah something showing how the most powerful man on earth is not so powerful after all blah blah blah but I honestly didn't want some sanctimonious bullshite, I wanted Kevin Spacey shaping the YooEssAyy in his image and some good banter with the russkie that was totesnotputin.
Yeah that's basically what I wanted to see too. I don't know why this new director felt the need to replace the old writers from Seasons 1 and 2 with completely new ones. The new director and writers I think was probably why the show took a nosedive.
62
« on: November 27, 2015, 12:36:04 PM »
why is this in serious
I wasn't sure if this was supposed to go in flood or serious.
63
« on: November 26, 2015, 03:12:18 PM »
I'm not really sure. The West doesn't seem to be rising nor declining, just seems to be stagnating.
64
« on: November 26, 2015, 03:06:42 PM »
Why?
I thought Seasons 1 and 2 were amazing but then it all just takes a complete nosedive with Season 3. It was almost as if the new writers never even saw the first 2 seasons. The cast all seemed different to me too, like there were missing something from the previous seasons. I did really like President Petrov however. What do you think? Did you like season 3 or did you think it was terrible?
65
« on: November 23, 2015, 03:28:46 PM »
Because they don't like modernity and want everyone to follow their primitive beliefs and ways of life.
66
« on: November 19, 2015, 02:23:23 PM »
LOL
I love how the Kock Brothers are second to last. Don't know why the fuck they're even on that list in the first place.
Anyway, I'm not sure who to vote for: Bruce Jenner or Dump
67
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:11:21 PM »
Western Muslims are a lot different than European Muslims. I've seen quite a few surveys showing that Muslim immigrants here find us to be much more friendly and accommodating than their counterparts in Europe. That being contrary to popular belief of course, I know the people on this forum who glorify Europe think of us as a cesspool of racism in comparison. I'll try to find the article I read this in.
That's pretty interesting. I heard (yes, contrary to popular belief) that people find Americans to be more friendly than Europeans in general, not just to Muslims. To address the OP: If it's so easy for Latino immigrants to cross the border from Mexico into the States, than why can't Islamic extremists? What's stopping them from traveling to Mexico and then entering America from there? Weren't 5 Syrians detained in Honduras literally just a few days ago? I once read that Al-Qaida was interested in working with Mexican drug cartels to help them cross the border. I don't remember the article because I read it a few years ago so I'm unsure if it was true or if it was just FOX-tier fearmongering horseshit.
68
« on: November 19, 2015, 11:41:03 AM »
That's a pretty good question. What will happen to the world economy when everything is eventually replaced by automatons? What will happen to not only our economy but also what will happen to economies that are completely reliant on manufacturing such as China's? Because I heard that a lot of manufacturers are returning to the US from China simply because it's becoming cheaper to automate manufacturing jobs with robotic arms/cranes apparently.
69
« on: November 18, 2015, 12:18:22 PM »
wat
70
« on: November 18, 2015, 11:36:19 AM »
Lol go figure. Of course the hickbelt and the majority of red states won't take in any.
It's not just the red states.
Glad to see you prefer Muslims over your own people though.
Literally no where in my post did I say anything about preferring Muslims over Americans. 0/10
71
« on: November 18, 2015, 12:46:10 AM »
Lol go figure. Of course the hickbelt and the majority of red states won't take in any.
"classism is okay if those I'm prejudiced against are white"
Except I'm not prejudicing against anyone...
72
« on: November 16, 2015, 10:00:10 PM »
Lol go figure. Of course the hickbelt and the majority of red states won't take in any.
73
« on: November 16, 2015, 08:02:06 PM »
I don't even give a shit that Bernie goes against nearly every core of my principles on economics I'd easily vote for him just because he has an ounce of fucking integrity and honesty unlike Shillary.
You'd prefer economic incompetence over dishonesty and flip-flopping?
74
« on: November 16, 2015, 07:56:24 PM »
On a side note: Does anyone else think it's a little sad that the top 2 people in the GOP race with the highest ratings (along with Fiorina who also seems to be doing well) have absolutely no political experience? Do people seriously believe that these 3 clowns would make for a good Potus and heal the nation? Or is it just their emotionally-charged rhetoric that's getting the stupids to bite?
It's a message that US citizens are sick of the people who've been in Washington and become a part of the problem. I don't agree with Fiorina on a lot of things, but she did bring up a good point in that even those who don't wish harm and want to do better, can't because they've been in that political cesspool forever. It's all they know.
Oh I'm not denying that Americans on both sides of the fence are sick and tired of the constant bullshit in DC, but to seriously consider either two corporate CEO's or a doctor who all have virtually no experience in political office is, well... quite unnerving tbh. And yes, despite having mostly the same typical run-of-the-mill Republican rhetoric, I did like what she said the other night about the incessant self-serving agendas that both parties have developed in Washington (I find that hypocrisy to be incredibly shameless however as I don't believe she genuinely meant a word of it though as the rampant corruption in Washington is beneficial to people like her).
75
« on: November 16, 2015, 07:31:31 PM »
2. There's a reason Switzerland has not been involved in any conflicts for the last hundred years. Tactically it would be a terrible decision to invade them; it's why Hitler never did. Armies much larger would easily be decimated trying to invade Switzerland.
I think with time this is much more a political deterrence, not a geographical. Nazis and Allies didn't have much trouble fighting legitimate standing armies in either the Caucasus or Italy, and that was 7 decades ago.
It's not even just the mountains although the country basically has a natural wall around it because of them. Not to mention the Swiss military has tunnels, bunkers, and booby-traps hidden everywhere in those mountains. The biggest reason is that every single citizen in the country is a member of the military and armed. That is such a tactical disadvantage in and of itself, it's one of the reasons the big US military got so fucked by the Vietcong. Short of nuking, any military would have a really hard time taking down Switzerland.
Well actually to address you previous comment about the Nazis not invading Switzerland- Germany and Italy did actually plan to invade and carve up Switzerland between the two. Since Switzerland had a large ethnic German population, the country was of profound interest to Hitler. Hitler wanted to incorporate the German-speaking regions of Switzerland into the Reich while the southern Italian-speaking portions would be ceded to Italy. I believe Hitler had planned the invasion after the Soviet Union was conquered. However since Operation Barbarossa wasn't going as planned and with the way the war was progressing, the plans of carving up and absorbing Switzerland never came to fruition. Eh, the more you know.
76
« on: November 16, 2015, 07:09:37 PM »
Quite a few reasons.
Swiss banks are super confidential; so much so it could be equatable to a doctor-patient confidentiality agreement. Swiss law forbids bankers to disclose the existence of your account or any other information about it without your consent.
Switzerland is also incredibly stable. The fact that they haven't been involved in any kind of conflict for a few hundred years and have one of the most stable currencies and economies in the world also lends to the appeal of keeping your big bucks in a Swiss bank account.
The biggest appeal though is that your money is virtually untouchable from your home country's government. For example doctors who might be sued for malpractice might have money in a Swiss account to prevent them being totally wiped out in the event of lawsuit.
Really? Why would the Swiss allow for such confidentiality in banking? Especially when rich people from other nations are using it to their advantage by not paying taxes in their home countries? Wouldn't Switzerland be a little nervous about that aggravating bigger, more powerful nations for the allowance of such blatant tax evasion for the wealthy in those other countries?
1. Switzerland get's rich off of it. It's one of the reasons they have such a stable economy and high GDP.
2. There's a reason Switzerland has not been involved in any conflicts for the last hundred years. Tactically it would be a terrible decision to invade them; it's why Hitler never did. Armies much larger would easily be decimated trying to invade Switzerland.
3. The US doesn't really care that rich people are evading taxes using Swiss bank accounts definitely not enough to start a war with Switzerland. That's a ridiculous notion.
Wow seriously? Why isn't everyone else following Switzerland's example with their own banks then? I agree that invading Switzerland would come at an enormous cost, but Switzerland is surrounded by Nato and the three very rich Nato countries that border Switzerland I imagine also have tax evasion problems with them. While any sort of invasion would be very costly, I just don't see Switzerland resisting a Nato invasion to be honest. And they wouldn't need to invade at all really. The three Nato countries that border Switzerland; Germany, France and Italy could just prevent Swiss trade from crossing their lands since Switzerland is landlocked. Oh I know our government doesn't care about offshore bank accounts, in fact they subtly seem to promote it. And I agree that invading and starting a war with Switzerland over confidential banking practices is completely insane. I'm just thinking of ways that countries might be able to get around the Swiss loophole.
77
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:51:15 PM »
If you became successful by means of the US infrastructure then it seems unfair to avoid any and all means of repaying that establishment.
Yeah aren't offshore bank accounts a way that people use to avoid paying taxes? If so, couldn't you just force them to pull their money out of those accounts and bring it all back here by just putting a gun to their head?
Yes.
I don't think the Swiss would recognize coercion as legally binding agreement for withdrawal. They'd probably also consider that a crime against their person, as it's sort of extortion.
In the same way that foreign banking protects corrupt richfags, it also protects people from unjust government intervention and seizure. I won't pretend to know which is the bigger problem.
No, I didn't mean using coercion against the Swiss bankers themselves. I meant for those who are stashing their money in Swiss bank accounts for tax evasion purposes. Wouldn't that be a very efficient way of closing the tax loophole and forcing the rich to take their money out of Switzerland? Because I would think a person would rather take the money out and just pay their dues than be shot. I don't know, I just can't think of another way to get around this issue.
78
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:45:50 PM »
If you became successful by means of the US infrastructure then it seems unfair to avoid any and all means of repaying that establishment.
Yeah aren't offshore bank accounts a way that people use to avoid paying taxes? If so, couldn't you just force them to pull their money out of those accounts and bring it all back here by just putting a gun to their head?
That would be immoral
How else are countries supposed to close the tax loophole for the super wealthy?
79
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:43:56 PM »
Quite a few reasons.
Swiss banks are super confidential; so much so it could be equatable to a doctor-patient confidentiality agreement. Swiss law forbids bankers to disclose the existence of your account or any other information about it without your consent.
Switzerland is also incredibly stable. The fact that they haven't been involved in any kind of conflict for a few hundred years and have one of the most stable currencies and economies in the world also lends to the appeal of keeping your big bucks in a Swiss bank account.
The biggest appeal though is that your money is virtually untouchable from your home country's government. For example doctors who might be sued for malpractice might have money in a Swiss account to prevent them being totally wiped out in the event of lawsuit.
Really? Why would the Swiss allow for such confidentiality in banking? Especially when rich people from other nations are using it to their advantage by not paying taxes in their home countries? Wouldn't Switzerland be a little nervous about that aggravating bigger, more powerful nations for the allowance of such blatant tax evasion for the wealthy in those other countries?
80
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:36:25 PM »
If you became successful by means of the US infrastructure then it seems unfair to avoid any and all means of repaying that establishment.
Yeah aren't offshore bank accounts a way that people use to avoid paying taxes? If so, couldn't you just force them to pull their money out of those accounts and bring it all back here by just putting a gun to their head?
81
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:31:55 PM »
So the big bad US can't get my money.
But you need to pay taxes.
82
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:14:09 PM »
And why does everyone whine about millionaires and billionaires stashing their money into them?
83
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:10:15 PM »
Realistically speaking
What political experience does he have?
Obama had what? 6 years as a senator. Not much experience.
I'll take a business man over a politician anyday.
6 years as a senator is pretty substantial compared to nothing.
I'll take 40 years of running businesses rather than six years of being an Illinois senator.
Oh yeah because running a private business for 40 years suddenly means you have the experience and political knowhow to run for the highest office in the country. I'd much rather have a politician at the local level who only has about a year or two of experience become POTUS over some corporate shitstain who quite clearly has an ulterior motive that thinks he can erase 20 trillion in debt and get the economy back on track despite filing for bankruptcy 4 times. -0/10 nonetheless, especially for your first comment. On a side note: Does anyone else think it's a little sad that the top 2 people in the GOP race with the highest ratings (along with Fiorina who also seems to be doing well) have absolutely no political experience? Do people seriously believe that these 3 clowns would make for a good Potus and heal the nation? Or is it just their emotionally-charged rhetoric that's getting the stupids to bite?
84
« on: November 16, 2015, 01:23:35 PM »
Well I personally don't think he'll be nominated, although there's a lot of idiot Republicunt voters who beg to differ and seem to think he's qualified for political office however.
85
« on: November 14, 2015, 01:38:03 PM »
This is what happens when you let hundreds of thousands of people into your country that worship a pedophile. Some of them were bound to be wahhabist cancer.
Islam = The religion of PISS
This is the Serious forum.
Yes I can read.
86
« on: November 14, 2015, 01:30:23 PM »
goddamn why are you always so aggressive about everything
Your attitude towards this is insufferable. That's why.
I say Islam is a problem and all you fucks can do is hold hands with your enemy and sing songs and label ME the bigot.
I haven't called a single person a bigot, for fuck's sake I understand the anger. People ignore the fact that the majority of ISIS's victims are muslim themselves, and yet people are calling for the genocide of all muslims without a second thought. Come on.
If the Middle East were to be wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow, the world would be 90% more peaceful.
87
« on: November 14, 2015, 01:28:17 PM »
This is what happens when you let hundreds of thousands of people into your country that worship a pedophile. Some of them were bound to be wahhabist cancer.
Islam = The religion of PISS
88
« on: November 10, 2015, 11:48:40 AM »
Guess its their first loss since 1975. There is ZERO chance Bernie wins anything. If he does, I'll eat vegan for a year.
So how mad are you going to be when the Democrats inevitably hold on to the White House for another 8 years?
89
« on: November 10, 2015, 11:47:03 AM »
Mississippi voting blue and Hawaii voting red? The fuck is this?
90
« on: November 10, 2015, 11:41:41 AM »
Lol isn't authoritarian right basically fascism? That's a lot of blue. Although to be fair, there'd probably be a lot of blue in America too, at least in the rural hick-land.
|
Show Posts