tor

Advanced members
  • Content count

    6213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Excellent

About tor

  • Rank
    Potential Kaptcha Question
  • Birthday 07/07/71

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Fusion subpoena will be fun! And it might open cambridge too which would be hilarious (not that cambridge left everyones details on the net, that I am pretty sure was just incompetence by the US republicans). So much fun to watch the self declared greatest country in the world squander their good will so fast!
  2. Louis Theroux is great. I love his interview technique of just being so out of his depth and helpless that people stumble over themselves to answer him...
  3. Holy crap I am a millenial
  4. Heh they did the same play with Obama getting killed. I wasn't an arts student but mostly dated them because I was good at theatre games, I got exposed to many variations of shakespeares works. I am pretty sure that anything you think is good has at least once been made the subject of derision (or something after all Julius caesar was not about a bad politician as far as I understood, rather about the backstabbing of politics, something Armstrong would surely support as he believes Trump is being backstabbed [I agree]). Lots of the more vocal gun supporters were strongly in support of Obama "sucking the barrel of my gun" to quote Nugent. American politics is funny. But, and I say this sincerely, don't do f*cking interpreted works of shakespeare. My lord are they annoying to sit through as a boyfriend. Especially the risque ones where the girl with the best boobs gets them out and you have to ignore that if you want sex tonight.
  5. So he has the infallible computer and regularly craps on about human emotion always being wrong and chooses to ignore the computer (brexit) for his own interpretation, which was wrong. And then chooses to ignore the computer (and didn't even publish what it said regarding the pound quandry until afterwards) for his own interpretation, which was wrong. And then publishes an article which doesn't even mention the computer, which was wrong. I mean I get the feeling his computer should just fire him really... I guess soon he'll post an article explaining how the computer predicted it but he didn't want to show us. Hell I was more accurate than he was in that at least I had parameters you could measure.
  6. " The entire refugee crisis was created by Angela Merkel " Really? All those people left the places that were being bombed before Merkel said "we can't send you back and think of ourselves as human" and She caused it? I would argue the bombs and decades of American interference (which is only getting more fun given the Qatar situation) at least have some root cause.
  7. Come on! He claims to have the computer that knows everything (except emotion) and he said that it was part of the trifecta. What good is a soothsayer that always says if? Even worse what good is a soothsayer that didn't say if? I'm just a drunk guy that wanders around and talks to people in the countries where interesting things are happening and makes his plans accordingly. Armstrong claims he has the computer the government wants because it is perfect. Here is the full text that I quoted from. I don't see the word "if". I don't see anything remotely resembling a qualification indicating froggie could take a 60% majority. So from his trifecta he has got two wrong so far. Are you making sh*t up or referring a different article? Did the different article have the quote I posted? If it didn't what in the world made you think I was referring to that? "Macron was hoping to have a super majority that his new party would sweep the election to give him ultimate power. However, the latest poll taken by BFMTV showed a stunning 61% of French voters did not want the 39-year-old’s party to take the National Assembly. The majority of French voters have said they will vote against Macron’s party to prevent a “crushing” majority in parliament. Most have responded that they would vote for a rival party in the second round in a bid to “rectify” the the decision. It is looking more and more that the vote for Macron was not in support of him handing sovereignty to Brussels. The election point overlooked by everyone is the fact that Le Pen beat ALL mainstream parties. There is no mandate for the surrender of rights in France to a new Federalized Europe. The election is this Sunday, June 18th. We will see the results soon." And I f*cking forgot to put money against Armstrong again (I got really drunk over the weekend to avoid using painkillers). What was his third thing? If it hasn't happened let me know so I can put money against Armstrong as I said I would.
  8. It would appear Armstrong was wrong again. Wonder how he will explain this one away.
  9. Oh so you _don't_ think they are bastards raising prices and blaming whatever is in the news? You really don't like choosing a position do you?
  10. " and warned that the Conservatives may end up being replaced by Labour " Yeah, afterwards. Rest of the article has no clear idea to me. Is Corbyn going to succeed because of the fire like Blair did or is he going too far and going to destroy small business? Hell I could tell you he will either fail or succeed. It seems unlikely he will land on his edge.
  11. Ahhh see and I thought you were blaming renewables back in your original statement, now you agree they will raise prices and blame whatever is in the media like when they did during the infrastructure news cycle.
  12. " It is looking more and more that the vote for Macron was not in support of him handing sovereignty to Brussels. The election point overlooked by everyone is the fact that Le Pen beat ALL mainstream parties. " One way of reading the situation is that the only people that voted last time were the ones that loved Le Pen and those that hated her. Fortunately (I think) there were more that hated her than loved her. Given the voter turnout I can't think of a sensible interpretation any other way. With his win people then had a chance to think about what he means. If the turnout is higher and significantly anti him then I would read it as "nope don't go thinking you represent us! we just really didn't like the other person".
  13. That's a different topic. The first bit You: "they dropped the prices" Me: "Not as much as they hiked them" is what I am talking about.
  14. Not as much as they hiked them. The rest of your statement is irrelevant to my statement. I even agree with it at that high level.
  15. Oh get off your high horse, they raised prices when the carbon dealy was going through and when it was rolled back they didn't rollback the prices. From that I think they realised they can get away with price hikes for anything that is in the news. Remember when people were bitching about infrastructure and they raised prices to invest in new infrastructure, that one never got reduced either (unless they did it after I left). Your response just shows they can keep doing it really.