Panama Papers

Lol

lol deer

  On 4/9/2016 at 7:19 PM, Deer said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 2:43 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:24 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:09 PM, azatoth said:

F to the LOL

.

 

lol

 

can we get this thread back on track and talk about van halen now?

This is another deluded person drunk on popularity, you tried this joke 3 times buddy , it didn't land, time to move on.

 

lol

lol oh deer

  On 4/9/2016 at 7:10 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 4:09 AM, juiceciuj said:

really bizarre that there's still no big usa news...

 

200 people in the US exposed

 

Implications of leak for people who want to cheat the taxman

 

200 nobodies.

also, “U.S. politicians are smart enough not to get involved in this kind of thing because they know the exposure would be the end of their careers,” said Jack Blum, a veteran U.S. Senate investigator who has spent his career examining the offshore world. “If Americans are going to take their money offshore, they’re probably not going to use this firm and instead go to companies and countries that are far safer.”

...what?

Omlol I hope I misread that.

  On 4/9/2016 at 9:01 PM, juiceciuj said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 7:10 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 4:09 AM, juiceciuj said:

really bizarre that there's still no big usa news...

 

200 people in the US exposed

 

Implications of leak for people who want to cheat the taxman

 

200 nobodies.

 

also, “U.S. politicians are smart enough not to get involved in this kind of thing because they know the exposure would be the end of their careers,” said Jack Blum, a veteran U.S. Senate investigator who has spent his career examining the offshore world. “If Americans are going to take their money offshore, they’re probably not going to use this firm and instead go to companies and countries that are far safer.”

 

...what?

 

Why bother going overseas when Delaware and Nevada are a couple of the biggest tax havens.

wait what happened to alco's party at baph's house

Just as a nightcap to my 'thesis':

If you wanna learn if 'those journalists' are pro-Putin, just watch how they handle this story (and all of its future components):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/suspect-arrested-over-attempted-assassination-of-chief-forensic-expert-in-mh17-probe-a6978681.html

I agree, the important thing to take away from all of this is that Glenn Greenwald and one watmm ex member are pro putin

  On 4/12/2016 at 12:16 AM, Amen Warrior said:

I agree, the important thing to take away from all of this is that Glenn Greenwald and one watmm ex member are pro putin

Yes I'm saying the only important thing to take away is that these folks are pro-Putin

That is exactly what I'm saying

Pretty much anytime I say anything political

Someone disagrees and says like "stop acting like its the end of the fucking world" or the above comment or whatever

Stop acting like it's the end of the world LimpyLoo

:)

  On 4/11/2016 at 9:51 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Just as a nightcap to my 'thesis':

If you wanna learn if 'those journalists' are pro-Putin, just watch how they handle this story (and all of its future components):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/suspect-arrested-over-attempted-assassination-of-chief-forensic-expert-in-mh17-probe-a6978681.html

So your thesis is based on something unprovable?

PimpyPoo for best new member 2016-2030 inclusive.

Outside of the hard sciences (and perhaps then only math), everything is 'unprovable.' Since when is that a reasonable standard, Chen? I contend that the evidence supports my thesis (i.e. These journalists are fast to defend Putin, and extremely slow to criticize him), and I think any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion. But (as always) we are dealing with Bayesian analysis of evidence, and then building reasonable assumptions based on that evidence (if there is a better way, I'm all ears).

In fact, to avoid 'double-dipping' (i.e. Drawing a hypothesis from a set of data, then pointing to the data as support for my hypothesis) I am saying well, let's see what happens in the future. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's just my apophenia, but luckily we have the future. If it were just a coincidence, then one wouldn't expect it to happen for too long. An actual bias, however, would persist. We would expect these journalists to continue to seek out criticisms of Putin to defend against, and to ignore or minimize any wrong-doing. I contend that a future trend of such behavior will point more and more towards 'no coincidence.'

I don't understand why I alone am held to these standards....oh yes I do, because y'all disagree with me.

You argued something that they haven't done (not criticizing something is not the same as supporting it). And then to further support your argument you say "watch this future space".

You are not alone held to these standards, but you say ridiculous shit with no proof. And then to further your martyr complex you get all aggrieved when someone mentions you haven't shown any reasonable evidence.

I would totally agree with you, IF they didn't talk about Russia/Putin AT ALL

But that's not the case

I am not accusing them of a pro-Nigeria bias simply because they don't criticize Nigeria...however, if they made it a habit of seeking out criticisms of Nigeria to defend against (while also not criticizing Nigeria themselves) then I think it's fair to tentatively assume that there is a bias at play

Aggrieved. Good word.

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:05 AM, StephenG said:

Aggrieved. Good word.

Cool word thread IMO

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:12 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:05 AM, StephenG said:

Aggrieved. Good word.

Cool word thread IMO

 

I play words with friends on my phone.

I'm lame, I know. Trying to keep my brain working.

Dude, you gotta master all the 2-3 letter words with Z and X

You will pwn souls

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I would totally agree with you, IF they didn't talk about Russia/Putin AT ALL

But that's not the case

 

I am not accusing them of a pro-Nigeria bias simply because they don't criticize Nigeria...however, if they made it a habit of seeking out criticisms of Nigeria to defend against (while also not criticizing Nigeria themselves) then I think it's fair to tentatively assume that there is a bias at play

You have yet to show one instance of them supporting Putin. Or even doing what you claim they do - seeking out criticisms of Russia/Putin to criticise.

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:49 AM, chenGOD said:

You have yet to show one instance of them supporting Putin. Or even doing what you claim they do - seeking out criticisms of Russia/Putin to criticise.

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention.

Lol Chen keep up, m8

I mean, I'm happy to continue defending my thesis

I wasn't done anyway

But you're either not paying attention of you're being disingenuous

I do think Snowden is the exception, btw

He has managed to criticize Russia while in the precarious situation of living in Russia

Which bodes well for his integrity

(The press conference and the glowing statement of their commitment to human rights immediately upon relocating there were pretty bad, but he quickly got his head on straight)