ESR - User: mammon

ESReality - Where Gaming Meets Reality

About | Contact | Guide | Filters
Users | Preferences | Search | FAQ

News | Forums | Columns
Journals | Articles | Polls | Wiki

Files | Galleries | Demos
Events | Coverage | Movies

ESR Shop | Betting Fixtures

Not Logged In | Login | Register

11:24 UTC - 169 users online

ESR Discord Channel

GG Bob Ross (826 viewers)
CS ESL CS:GO (553 viewers)
SC2 ESL SC2 (72 viewers)
GG xronya (38 viewers)
QL ql_quake_tv (8 viewers)
Q3 DefragLive (7 viewers)
GG drejjk (0 viewers)

Scheduled Listings

- QL European Nations Cup returns for Fall... (17)

Which site will you be using? (91)

ESR

MG Damage in TDM (83)

5 dmg

CB EC XXII: MVP (49)

4K* Krysa

SG Balance (146)

Only change spread

What QL account would you pay for ? (173)

Pro account

Best spectator 1v1 map (113)

[1] T9
[2] T7
[3] DM6
[4] ZTN
[5] DM13

Least competitive duel QL map? (160)

[1] ztntourney1 - Blood Run

DevPick Servers: Apr. 16-18 (96)

AWESOME !

IEM4 World Finals winner? (83)

Cooller

Which would you Spectate? (141)

Duel
Clan Arena

Current Web Browser (142)

Chrome

Spawns & Timelimit (168)

10 minutes
Hoony Mode

IEM American Ch. final standings (15)

[1] DaHanG
[2] chance
[3] rapha
[4] Vo0

Should we let Streetrunner post news? (35)

No

Which comeback would you rather see? (333)

Sujoy

Who will win in Dubai (poll)? (91)

mouz.Cooller

When did you start visiting ESReality? (119)

2002

Who will win QuakeCon '09? (146)

LLL*fox

gillz (59)

a troll
totally dense
french

Who will win ESWC MoA (97)

K1llsen

Latest Threads

Latest Comments

News Site summary for week ending 25 Sep (0)
Movie TF2 ingame footage and dev interview (113)
News id layoff call lasted about 50 seconds (6)
News QL European Nations Cup returns for Fall... (17)
News EGB Cup #69 splits the top 2v2 pairs (2)

Latest Forum Threads

GG GTA 6 - Full game leaked (2)
GG Visit to Tokyo japan (0)
QL Facebook Quake group with 16k users (0)
GG Proud of this community (37)
HW PSA for all MLT04 users (10)

Latest Journals

we meat again (1175) by aggnog
QuakeChampions FPS (15) by WedbulL
500. (32) by pizz
journal and photos (41) by tom
9000km - a travel diary (16) by TAFKAagardenchair

Hot Topics

News id layoff call lasted about 50 seconds (6)
News EGB Cup #69 splits the top 2v2 pairs (2)
News SyncError stops work on Quake Champions (0)
News cYpheR 4-3s k1llsen, wins EGB Cup Final ... (0)
News UK wins QL CTF European Nations Cup (0)

ESR Virtual Betting

Lamur
E$ 238,131

E$ 176,304 omek
E$ 129,238 fazz
E$ 61,723 lithz
E$ 58,635 nsx0r
E$ 57,658 nk121

List · Edit · iMsg

mammon

mammon
Posts: 3121
Popularity: Nobody (0%)

Level: Regular

Registered: 21 Jun 2003

Email: Undisclosed

Full Name: Alex Morgan

Age: 39

Location: Underground

iM Replies: Y

Timezone: Europe/Warsaw

Country: Wales

Avatar: wc3_undead

Homepage:

Config: None uploaded

Drafts: 0

Judgements: 784 made, 739 received

Bets Placed: 74 (Rank: 267)

E$ Money: 500 (500 available)

E$ Savings: 2041

Buddied by: 3 users

Last Login: 22 Oct 2023

Theme: Custom theme

Journal

LMAO @ ICELAND (148 comments)

( Journal: ESR)

Posted by mammon @ 21:36 UTC, 7 October 2008 - iMsg

This one was obligatory. You guys are gonna get bought by Russia. Kinda funny to have banking industry twice the size of your own country. Oh and didnt a lot of British people have their money deposited in Icelandic banks because of higher interest rates? Well they dont anymore...

<< prev next >>
2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20

25898 Hits

<< Comment #1 @ 21:56 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

I for one welcome our new Russian overlords.

<< Comment #6 @ 22:22 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #1

chaom1 doesn't approve

<< Comment #7 @ 22:29 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #6

hah

<< Comment #2 @ 21:58 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio '

LMAO@THE WORLD TBFH.

<< Comment #3 @ 22:00 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron

shame this isn't a thread by Jamerio

who gives a fuck, I would still live in Iceland in a fucking heartbeat.

<< Comment #4 @ 22:08 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

skint ' - Reply to #3

i imagine a man of youre size would love nothing more than to live in a supermarket

<< Comment #5 @ 22:15 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #4

too much frozen goods

anyway, get with the times, I'm fucking anorexic these days.

<< Comment #20 @ 09:21 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #3

That's because you live in one of the worse areas in the UK for housing and crime.

http://www.securedhome.co.uk/uks-burglary-hot-spots.html

http://www.upmystreet.com/property-prices/fea...ondon.html

No wonder you want to move to that self serving posicle. And lol at the Icelandic PM, they genuinely believe Russia want to help them out. Yeah right, when the fuck have Russia ever helped anyone without there being some sneaky fucking russian political thing at the helm?

Russia are just trying influence an buy as many friends as possible, and they'll make you jump through hoops now that they have you by the balls. Just wait. They'll probbly just use it asa base camp to plunder the North Pole.

I always thought of Iceland as pretty irrelevant and self serving anyway so good luck.

Edited by Jamerio at 09:27 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #28 @ 10:28 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #20

hold the phone, you're not implying that russia isnt doing this solely for humanitarian reasons?? ;)
Of course it's a part of Russia improving its image in the west, while also proving that in the midst of this economic crisis they have lots of money to spare, they're displaying great strength.

Any theories as to iceland having to pay russia back with in some sort of military purpose are fun and expected but ultimately paranoid, as people tend to be when talking about Russia. let's not forget iceland is a founding nato member.

<< Comment #43 @ 11:56 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #20

I live next to one of the worst areas in the UK

major difference.

next.

I'll add in this as I'm bored not revising:

it's just as fucking stupid as saying 'you live in one of the worst areas in the world' because someone states they live in London where they might be in Knightsbirdge (over statement but you know what I mean) as apposed to Hackney. Such statistics go by post code for a reason, you know them things called councils.

Edited by Aaron at 19:36 UTC, 9 October 2008

<< Comment #124 @ 18:45 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

ix - Reply to #20

Do you know the phrase 'little Englander'?

<< Comment #8 @ 22:38 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Can some1 explain in a short way? To lazy to google

<< Comment #9 @ 22:40 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

Liam - Reply to #8

Shit's fucked.

<< Comment #10 @ 22:50 UTC, 7 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #8

afaik:

Iceland's bank got foreigners to deposit their saving their by promising high interests, eventually the banks worked with sums many times larger than Iceland's GNP.
Now with the crisis they lost money and don't have enough to cover all those savings, thus they are steering towards bankruptcy and because of their value might take country itself with them.
Ath this point it seems to be certain that foreigner's will loose part of their savings.

That said, I guess they made a lot of money through their banks when the times were good.

<< Comment #11 @ 02:38 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #10

just to clarify there's no possibility of the country itself going bankrupt. The privately owned banks and the government are not the same, the government being completely debt free while the banks in over their head. The government will not take over the debts. Instead they have effectively nationalized two banks, much like we're seeing for example in holland, luxembourg and belgium. all saving accounts are assured, as they've done in germany, denmark and ireland etc..

as for russia, we indeed welcome our new overlord. together we shall plot to claim dominance of the north pole.

Edited by hnns at 02:42 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #12 @ 06:51 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

loveless - Reply to #11

American gov't could take some notes on Iceland, imo

<< Comment #13 @ 07:42 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #11

I was just quoting your prime minister on the bankruptcy part. But you did tie your currency to the Euro an dlocked the exchange rates for the time being, which is hardly a sign of strength.

Anyhow, as far as the international press goes the problem is not solved yet. Because the loan from Russia is not certain. And from what I have read the nationalisation did not go along with a security for foreign savings or other debts the banks have, just the national ones. Got any other link?

AS for your country being out of debt (which is of course a very good thing) I wonder whose taxes paid for that.

<< Comment #19 @ 09:18 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #13

AS for your country being out of debt (which is of course a very good thing) I wonder whose taxes paid for that.

Uhmmm what?

<< Comment #22 @ 10:04 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #19

I don't know any numbers but I think that if those bank have a revenue several times that of you GNP they are probably also the biggest tax payers. So you actually profited from them and their inadequate risk management.

Of course the same goes for foreigners who wanted those 7% on their savings account.

<< Comment #25 @ 10:18 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #22

the country was prosperous long before the privatisation of the banks. The furious expansion of the banks occured of course mostly overseas, which means taxes were paid overseas, too.

<< Comment #29 @ 10:41 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #25

don't you have some kind of profit tax? You know, the kind that is paid in the country where a company has it's headquarters.

<< Comment #14 @ 07:50 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Bob - Reply to #11

.

Edited by Bob at 01:03 UTC, 28 June 2024

<< Comment #62 @ 19:26 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #14

they are, depending on where their money is invested.

just those that are guaranteed are really shit returns if anything at all.

or you could just spread multiple amounts of 50 thousand across different banks.

it's funny really as most of the problems in the country hit the lower and working classes more than those with money but this time it's those with the money that are actually in the shit unless you count those trying to get on the property ladder and the jumps in energy prices making everything expensive for everyone

<< Comment #63 @ 20:22 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #62

apparantly several towns and such parked their funds at those banks, so it does hurt the normal citizens, too.

<< Comment #64 @ 20:31 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #63

they're guaranteed the money back that was lost providing it was no more than £50,000 (used to be £35,000 I think). I wouldn't class someone with £50,000 saved up working class really but that depends on the age I guess and work history but I'm being jamerio-esque here ;)

but then nothing is ever 100% certain really ;p

<< Comment #65 @ 20:47 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #64

I think you missed the "towns"

"Local authorities look like being the biggest losers, with £799m of investments in Icelandic banks known to be at risk."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15322402-9631-11dd-...s01=1.html

<< Comment #66 @ 20:58 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #65

see can't read, am out of it atm

what I tell you? true jamerio fashion! :D

<< Comment #77 @ 22:10 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #66

hehe,

but you are way ahead of him, as proven below he doesn't even understand his own posts

<< Comment #17 @ 09:04 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #11

How do you think they will assure your savings? By printing more money? It's allready impossible to sell Icelandic currency because it's worthless, It's easier to sell some African currencys at the moment. So your savings are already gone and they are now looking at option to loan money from abroad to pay them. And who do you think will pay back that loan? So basically they are loaning you your own savings and making it look like they are doing you a favor.

<< Comment #18 @ 09:16 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #17

they are already assured with the money they already have. iceland was and is still one of the richest countries in the world. that russian loan has nothing to do with our savings, the only purpose for that russian loan, if it happens, is to strengthen our foreign currency fund. If it happens, which it likely will, we will have one of the strongest foreign currency fund in the world by any measurement.

due to its size the currency got hit pretty hard in the current global economic turbulence. steps have been taken to prevent a meltdown, it will be some time and then it will rise rapidly again.

any armageddon news about our society you're reading is either wrongly interpreted by foreign media or hypothetical theories that by now are outdated.

Edited by hnns at 09:37 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #24 @ 10:14 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #18

15.5% inflation sounds bad enough to me,
and richest per capita and also that your country actually has money as opposed to debts, But in money available each year in absolut values you are far far from the top.
Which is why joining the Euro might be a godd idea at some point, even though right now it would hurt you like hell.

still having a energy industry like you have will be worth even more in the future so I don't see an armageddon.

<< Comment #27 @ 10:28 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #24

Having a budget surplus doesnt automatically mean that they have money. With ecomony as theirs, instead of dreaming about EU, they should be watching that Zeitgeist movie found in the other journal.

<< Comment #30 @ 10:41 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #27

whoops :)

Edited by becks at 10:45 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #33 @ 10:49 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #24

I don't know what you're talking about with "money in absolute values." Joining EU is constantly discussed, what it would provide is a more stable currency. However I don't need to look far into the mainland to see what trouble banks in Germany, Holland, France are having. Last I knew those countries all had euros.

<< Comment #35 @ 10:59 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #33

in absolute values I mean that the total sum of money you as a wealthy country have available to react, is very small compared to many poorer countries, just because you are small.

Yes, the European countries all have problems and not small ones either, but our (Germany's) inflation is "only" 3-4%, and our bigger banks all seems safe enough. Especially those where most people have their savings.

But the actual reason for joining would be that the Euro - countries have the financial power to defend their currency. Iceland on it's own does not.
Or in other words you will always (or at least much more likely) find a buyer for the Euro at an acceptable price, as opposed to the Krona.

<< Comment #26 @ 10:21 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #18

Where does that money come from? Iceland already has huge liquidity problem even without this. Also your national debt is bigger than US in relation to your GDP according to Sedlabanki and Danske bank, so I dont know where you came up with govenment being debt free.

Not to mention that Sedlabanki has already doubled your base rates in less than 5 years.

Also your foreign currency fund right now is extremely limited so claims that this hypotethical loan would make it one of the strongest ones is gross overstatement.

<< Comment #31 @ 10:42 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #26

Also your foreign currency fund right now is extremely limited so claims that this hypotethical loan would make it one of the strongest ones is gross overstatement.

Yes. The lack of foreign currency is the root of the bank's trouble. The current fragile state of global markets are causing mistrust and loan-lines got closed, making foreign currency(euros) hard to come by. However given that this 4 billion euro loan will take place, along with what the central bank already has and what norway, sweden and other friend nations are providing, we will, as I said, be stronger than most all countries in terms of foreign currency funds.

<< Comment #34 @ 10:51 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #31

However given that this 4 billion euro loan will take place

link? All I saw it that they are negotiating with Russia and that the Russian ambassador was in over his head when he promised the money.

Also that today the Netherlands confiscated funds from the bank "Icesave".

<< Comment #37 @ 11:16 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #34

that's why I said "given it will take place", not that "it certainly will take place". The announcement was premature, in matters like these nothing is done until it's done. it seems Russia however are eager to prove their strength and with how they and our central bank talk, it is more likely than not that we will be in business. In any case, the country is not dependant on this loan, there are certainly more resources that could be taken should it fall apart.

<< Comment #32 @ 10:46 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #26

at wsj.com they write that Iceland could sell 12 billion worth of pension funds. Bold move that.

<< Comment #36 @ 11:05 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #32

Yes, and that would be mostly to deal with the acute threat of sovereign default instead of fixing anything. People of Iceland are really taking it up the ass on this one and they wont be the last ones for sure.

<< Comment #38 @ 11:19 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #32

they could, germany could probably sell all their pension funds, too. However the possibility of that happening, just like the possibility of anyone in isl losing their savings, is less than zero.

just another crazy misleading hypothetical possibility that make good headlines.

Anyway I haven't been doing my job all morning cause of this thread, goodbye!

Edited by hnns at 11:21 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #40 @ 11:28 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #38

we'll see and you hope, I guess.

But I say this is not over, neither with the nationalisation nor with the Russian debt if it happens.

Risk is definately not zero, btw. Even Government bonds have, just like every other asset, a rating, which is to show the risk the state may go bankrupt. Same goes for savings accounts.

Don't you ever wonder why some banks promise you 7% while others only 3%? It's all about taking risks.

But yes, I agree the risk is very low. That is if you don't count losses through the inflation as losses...

<< Comment #42 @ 11:42 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #40

you still don't seem to understand that the government itself is in no danger, it is extremely wealthy and will have no problem guaranteeing saving accounts. it's the banks that owe the money and government has decided not to bail them out, or take over their debts. That is a very recent decision that guaranteed the country or its people will never go bankrupt. In that announcement by our pm it was made clear the risk of bankrupcy of our people or the government would never be taken. I see this has been widely misinterpreted by foreign media, causing your confusion.

Pension funds are an entirely different thing, with billions of euros and dollars in foreign accounts. It was briefly discussed to bring some of the foreign money home to further strengthen the currency funds. Withdrawing money from it to pay debts however, is not ever going to happen. Nor will that Russian money be used to pay any debts, by the way, it will only be used to add to foreign currency funds. Lack of currency funds is the only issue at the moment for the nation, not debts.

now let me go do my job, please !!! :)

Edited by hnns at 11:45 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #45 @ 12:02 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #42

I'M not doing my job either, so no ;)

The point is "our government is extremely wealthy" just by itself doesn't give any information. Your government is (like most others) indebted. That's not the definition of wealth.

I believe they did translate your pm's statement correctly, maybe I just represented it wrongly here.
There was a (very small) danger of bakruptcy and that is why certain steps were taken.

But I do see a problem in that your banks, which seem to be an important factor of your economy, rely heavily on other countries for their funds.
And when your government now says they will not guarantee for the debts people will not be less inclined to do business with them.

<< Comment #41 @ 11:29 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #38

Anyway you made me cusious, what are those ressources they could sell?

<< Comment #21 @ 09:59 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #11

http://www.yahoo.com/s/966875
(and you got front page on yahoo!)

Surely not the worlds, bestest country!!!!!

My its almost as if those polls are turning out to be unfounded nonsense!!!!!

2 nickels make a dime every time and if this shit don't rhyme, then it time to whine. yo!

Edited by Jamerio at 10:00 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #23 @ 10:10 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #21

haha, you'd better read more responsible media for the facts.

<< Comment #44 @ 12:00 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #23

that not help, don't you recall his past social, political and economical discussions on ESR about the UK? They were so full of assumptions and bullshit

how on earth will he handle Iceland?

<< Comment #56 @ 15:43 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #44

Assumptions and bullshit?

Let's see 3 years ago, I basically said the UK has a major immigration problem, about 2 years later teh GVT think tanks said, OH fuck, we have an immigration problem lets do something about it.

Immigrants are good for the economy, yep, the economy is truly alive and kicking!!!

I'm always right in the end, I'm just ahead of the curve.

<< Comment #58 @ 18:19 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #56

The economy is not failing because of immigrants you retarded simpleton.

<< Comment #67 @ 21:12 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #58

I never said the economy is failing because of immigrants.

It was a seperate point. Yes, you basically just fucked yourself.

<< Comment #68 @ 21:13 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #67

Oh please you implied it. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

<< Comment #71 @ 21:27 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #68

I didn't at all, as a matter of fact I have said many times immigrants are indeed good for the economy, That's proven data.

BUT...They are short term, the impact they have when they start breeding (over a period of time), language barriers, and how those people then go on to affect housing prices, NHS, schools and the national identity of the UK has a devastating effect, which is not yet being fully measured.

trust me, shit will hit the fan in the UK and many other places when times get harder and indigenous people start to realise that a large % of immigrants are a bigger than what they were from a time when everything was rosey.

Edited by Jamerio at 21:36 UTC, 9 October 2008

<< Comment #72 @ 21:29 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #71

Is that the latest daily fail talking point? What will they tell you think tomorrow?

<< Comment #73 @ 21:32 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #72

How's the telegraph?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/154892...itain.html

Stop trying to tell me about my own country. No fucker goes to Iceland, if a few million immigrants turned up in Iceland tomorrow your population would shit the bed, your crime rate would fly through the roof and crap load more stuff.

<< Comment #74 @ 21:36 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #73

Well seeing as a few millions would be more than the entire population of Iceland many times over only a complete idiot would make that argument. We do have our fair share of immigrants and we haven't shit ourselves over it.

Ohh and the telegraph is a crap paper as well.

<< Comment #81 @ 02:31 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Anonymous (212.183.136.193) - Reply to #73

telegraph is the idiot's Times

<< Comment #111 @ 22:16 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Nellie - Reply to #71

As someone that works within the NHS - without migrants not with, the NHS is truly fucked :)

House prices sky rocketed in areas in part thanks to mr white middle class wanting to move closer to a 'good' school, or buying a buy to let cos "they're more reliable than pensions".

And "breeding over a period of time" [for they are liverstock] - heh are second generation born 'n bred not British? Mr Cole, Mr Ferdinand, Mr Walcott - get the fuck outta my country!

Edited by Nellie at 22:23 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #113 @ 01:15 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

ini - Reply to #111

Property is one of the least risky places to put your money, it also gives some of the best long term benefits of any investment.

<< Comment #122 @ 13:27 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

Nellie - Reply to #113

That's not my point - it's that jamerios willfully ignoring the white man that created the house pricing bubble. Are second homes at a time of a housing shortage immoral?

<< Comment #129 @ 01:26 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

ini - Reply to #122

Lots of things are immoral.

<< Comment #137 @ 20:03 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Nellie - Reply to #129

Quite.

<< Comment #82 @ 05:42 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +' - Reply to #68

Jamerio is NEVER intentionally obtuse.

<< Comment #59 @ 18:20 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #56

Oh and that think tank you are talking about is not a gov one. It was started by some anti-immigration loonies. Kinda like yourself.

<< Comment #60 @ 19:02 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #56

you really should not talk about economics. Makes you look even more like a fool than other topics.

Your posts is so retarded even vedic would have a hard time making that up.

<< Comment #69 @ 21:19 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #60

Just because you have an intership at an office don't go thinking you know shit.

I'm right about immigration, over 75% of our country think so (and I wonder who the other % are) and this point was not related to economy. It was somethign totally seperate. You made the same error the bankrupt icelander made. Blinded by your opportunistic nature to get one over me time and time again, you allow me to point out your obvious mistakes and then you get a little bit more raged and look for another opportunity to redeem your lost ago.

By the way, I don't some Bankrupt Icelander and German advising me. Keep your flawed genes and opinions to yourself.

<< Comment #76 @ 22:09 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #69

33 percent of Germans voted for Hitler and thought the Jews fucked our economy. So apparantly you already are taking advice from some.

And yeah an internship doesn't say much, studying business and engineering does give me an edge though.

also what igninokt said.

<< Comment #115 @ 09:27 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

tourist - Reply to #76

only 33%? who did the other 77% vote for?

<< Comment #116 @ 09:56 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #115

they voted for a better math teacher.

actually, i mixed the number up with the year, it was 33% in Nov 1932 and 44% for NSDAP in 1933 in the last free vote.

Other parties that were voted, where SPD, Z (more or less CDU today), KPD (communists) and many more small parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_November_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933

<< Comment #118 @ 11:41 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

tourist - Reply to #116

yep strong math in my post :)

it's interesting to read tho that only SPD members voted against Hitler's enabling act, which implies that everybody else including the communists, voted for it. silly commies.

<< Comment #120 @ 12:06 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #118

I believe the communist party did not participate in the vote.
not entirely sure but I tihnk their strategy mainly consisted of blockading and not voting to prove that democrazy fails.

On time they even wanted their voters to not go voting for them at all.
Basically handing their power to every othe party.
So yeah, silly communists.

<< Comment #61 @ 19:19 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #56

just stop and think for one second. please.

<< Comment #70 @ 21:22 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #61

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/154892...itain.html

You really should trying to come across as clever. It fails really, really badly.

When you actually a get a full time job and start paying bills and actually getting a life that comes with moving out of home I'll welcome your opinions.

<< Comment #78 @ 22:12 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #70

once again proving you know nothing about anyone. keep going sir.

<< Comment #79 @ 22:16 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #70

'Here are a set of changes which have made Britain richer but have deeply unsettled the country,'' Mr Byrne said.

"He said the change had brought ''enormous economic benefits'' and had contributed to economic growth."

So you actually posts links to prove yourself wrong?
Well done!

<< Comment #80 @ 22:35 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #79

he'll say that's what he was stating and his original post was sarcasm!

he done that before when trying to argue the imdb top 250 list meant that the film was actually good (V for Vendetta was the case) he linked to a bbc article to prove his point where they actually slated the film and gave it a shoddy review with something like 2/5. google harder I guess.

which reminds me of the amazing '100,000 people voted they must be wrong' line he spouted :(

Edited by Aaron at 22:36 UTC, 9 October 2008

<< Comment #87 @ 09:13 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #80

so in this case it would be sarcastic to have used sarcasm?
Yes, seems plausible for him.

but honestly think the top 250 at least shows a very good tendency which moies are worth watching

<< Comment #90 @ 12:05 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #80

You really need to start putting up some links to your so called cos' I think yourre talking bullshit.

Quit trying to think or talk on my behalf. You're not smart enough.

<< Comment #98 @ 17:00 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #90

are you denying that v for vendetta thing seriously?

I don't need links, the majority of the fucking site seen it. deny it all you like you'll just look more of a fucking idiot.

<< Comment #125 @ 00:20 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #98

Go find the link.

The only two i found were here....
http://www.esreality.com/?a=search&sarchi...20vendetta

And no I don't belive a word you say, at the best of times you have trouble voicing a fair opinion, you just try to disagree because I'm one of the best things on esreality.

What I do belive is you belive and interpret things how you want, which is basically like asking a hardcore muslim to give a fair opinion on american people.

What an annoying webpage, there are two reviews, I was OBVIOUSLY (it even said on the post) referring to the USER REVIEW.
In line with the other links I posted, all user related because that is what matters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/03/08/v_for_v...tml#rating

As you will see, from over 4200 votes the median vote is 4/5, but of course you would focus on a SINGLE review from an individual, I think that really highlights how biased, desperate and misrepresenting you are partcicually given the among of time.

So if you want to take a single persons review over a film over than of over 4000 then be my guest, but my general point was that Vendetta was a fairly popular and accomplished film, and every review of the film you will read will say the same thing.

Edited by Jamerio at 10:42 UTC, 12 October 2008

<< Comment #130 @ 02:53 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #125

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1459712

Took me 5 seconds to find this on Google. Learn to use the internet newbie.

<< Comment #89 @ 11:58 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

spyteman - Reply to #56

I'm fairly sure the rest of the right-wing scum has been talking about the oh so big immigration problem for more than 3 years already, but good investigation on your part anyway!!!

<< Comment #91 @ 12:12 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #89

Haha, a German callign a brit right wing scum?

Muhahhaa. You're just a pathetic, avergae human being, who elevates people a false status because you lack the intelligence to make a point any other way.

<< Comment #92 @ 12:15 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

spyteman - Reply to #91

Now what's that, a weak attempt to play the history card? Good job!!!

Thanks but no thanks, Freud.

<< Comment #95 @ 13:50 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

[mash] - Reply to #92

i bet he thinks it's part of the british culture to always call us nazis.
forever.

<< Comment #99 @ 17:01 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #95

it is!

<< Comment #106 @ 20:23 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #99

at least if you are a sun/daily news/telegraph subscriber.

But who are we to take trashtalking from the Tommies with yellow teeth and ugly women?

<< Comment #114 @ 01:17 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

ini - Reply to #106

Got the fattest tits though

<< Comment #126 @ 00:31 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #95

Actually I think its a more of a global thing, that is until you do something of greater significance that people identify you with.

Beer, porn and porsche is helping.

<< Comment #128 @ 00:48 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

[mash] - Reply to #126

what do you think the UK is identified with in the world?

<< Comment #132 @ 11:39 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

mammon - Reply to #128

chavs, immigrant hatred and paranoia

<< Comment #140 @ 09:23 UTC, 13 October 2008 >>

By

timmah - Reply to #132

chavs(=Jamerio), immigrant hatred and paranoia

/trolloff

<< Comment #148 @ 22:08 UTC, 25 January 2009 >>

By

mkeiy - Reply to #132

And a cricket team full of bitches.

<< Comment #57 @ 16:19 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

micke - Reply to #8

something fishy going on. in iceland

<< Comment #15 @ 08:33 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

wipeout

I have some money spare. How much does Iceland cost nowadays?

<< Comment #16 @ 09:03 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #15

5€, problem is you have to pay all their bank's debts too ;)

<< Comment #49 @ 12:35 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

wipeout - Reply to #16

That might take a while, bbl.

<< Comment #39 @ 11:23 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

spyteman

I got some SEK stamps left, how much of Iceland do I get for ~100SEK? :<

<< Comment #48 @ 12:34 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

wipeout - Reply to #39

Get back in line. I was first!

<< Comment #46 @ 12:20 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

timmah

4 Billion... hmmm Pretty expensive for 320k People.

<< Comment #47 @ 12:26 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #46

300k of which are flying killer penguin birds of doom

and a few local polar bears

Edited by Aaron at 13:23 UTC, 8 October 2008

<< Comment #50 @ 12:39 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #47

should minus you for almost making me laugh out at work :<

<< Comment #51 @ 16:43 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

TAFKAagardenchair

Only one person can save Iceland now. Björk.

<< Comment #52 @ 16:59 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #51

Americans executed her :/

<< Comment #55 @ 17:39 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

PuX - Reply to #51

also Sigur Ros, mum

<< Comment #53 @ 17:06 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

tom

this is karma for flooding all those valleys for aluminum plants you fatcat bastards

<< Comment #54 @ 17:17 UTC, 8 October 2008 >>

By

[mash] - Reply to #53

and clobbing seals.

<< Comment #75 @ 22:07 UTC, 9 October 2008 >>

By

qtip

I think the UK should invade and take over, then sell enough fjords to cover the Ice Saving accounts losses.

<< Comment #143 @ 12:19 UTC, 24 January 2009 >>

By

supersexyleetmegaruler - Reply to #75

rofl i read fjortis

<< Comment #83 @ 05:51 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +'

1. Countries are not "owned" by other countries unless they're occupied.
2. Having a banking industry as big as Icelands compared to the rest of the national production usually simply means there is no other production and a bunch of people figured out how to be rich even if you just have a bunch of frozen rocks. It's a testament to their achievement not a "funney".

Edited by Demiurge at 05:51 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #84 @ 08:42 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #83

Taking huge loans that you cant possibly pay back is an testament for achievement these days?

<< Comment #94 @ 13:31 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +' - Reply to #84

What are you talking about?

<< Comment #100 @ 17:19 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #84

Were you sarcastic? Only reason they have banking industry as big, is because they took huge loans. And now when they cant get any new loans to pay back the old ones, they are bankrupt. I fail to see any achievement. Anyone can (or could) get a loan and buy a house they cant afford to pay ever. That doesnt mean they are rich, quite the opposite.

<< Comment #103 @ 18:46 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +' - Reply to #100

No, I wasn't. I have no fucking idea what the hell you're talking about.
"Only reason they have banking industry as big, is because they took huge loans."
Who "they"?
And no, taking loans isn't a reason why a banking industry would grow big. Banks give loans. Banks take deposits. They get rich off of redistributing resultant securities. Being able to do so cleverly enough to turn around as much money as they have is an achievement. The implosion of the system did not originate in Iceland, and in fact, they are more likely going to get the loan precisely because the Icelandic banks have been way more reliable as far as speculation and long term returns.

Edited by Demiurge at 21:04 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #104 @ 20:17 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #103

technically deposits are loans from the banks point of view.

<< Comment #107 @ 20:56 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +' - Reply to #104

You're right, we can say that if we ignore conditions under which the money was taken, but than his point totally implodes.... Wtf, banks are stupid for being banks?

Edited by Demiurge at 21:01 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #112 @ 22:16 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #107

there stupidity in this case was that they offered higher interest rates for deposits, so they had to take more risk to earn that money.
And you can see how well that turned out.

<< Comment #108 @ 21:08 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #103

"They" being banking sector of Iceland. And like I said, reason why banking sector grew so much in Iceland (bigger than government) is because banks of Iceland went ape shit in the 90's when there was little or no regulations, that led to them having to cover all the bonds with foreign loans and to keep increasing their size to get more loans so they could float. Now when they cant get anymore loans from foreign monetary institutions (largely because of happenings elsewhere, but these happenings were not unexpected) they sank and the rest is history; government bails them and cant pay the debts and is facing a default unless russia or someone bails it out from coming a 3rd world country in monetary sense.

<< Comment #117 @ 10:06 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

hnns - Reply to #108

except banks in the 90's were government owned and they did certainly not go apeshit. It wasn't until 20003 the privatization process was complete. Also as i've told you before the government will not bail-out the banks. you should find a different blog.

<< Comment #133 @ 14:08 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #117

A British government delegation left Iceland on Saturday having agreed ”in principle” that Iceland’s government will speed up the payback of British deposits trapped in Icesave, a subsidiary of Icelandic bank Landsbanki which collapsed last week.

from yesterday's news.
so far they will only pay up to 20.000€ and only for British Icebank Savings accounts, but who knows what else the future will bring.

<< Comment #134 @ 14:35 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

ini - Reply to #133

Iceland’s government will speed up the payback of British deposits trapped in Icesave

Not strictly the same as bailing out the banks is it we also have no idea what else was agreed for that to happen.

<< Comment #135 @ 15:02 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #134

I have to ask, what ecaxtly do you mean with "bailing out the banks"?

I thought it wuold mean paying their debt's. Of course, so far I'm sure the bank still has enough liquidity left to pay out 20.000 per British savings account.
But they do give out more now, than they initially stated or rather allowed since they froze all the foreign accounts.

<< Comment #138 @ 00:38 UTC, 13 October 2008 >>

By

ini - Reply to #135

It doesn't say the government are paying.

Although I think it is likely they will do, you can't really gain much information from that statement as I doubt they just thought they would be nice and secure all the British money in icesave.

Edited by svalur at 00:40 UTC, 13 October 2008

<< Comment #139 @ 08:07 UTC, 13 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #138

no it doesn't but as far as I understood the government is in charge of the bank.
So they make the decision to pay or not pay. Whether it's with the bank's funds or state's funds.

<< Comment #105 @ 20:21 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #84

"can't possibly" is wrong. Other banks have done the same. The problem is that the Krona lost lots of value in the last year and combined with the crisis posed to big a problem.

So yeah, their risk management sucked, but I would say in at least 90% of the future scenarios the bac would have been able to pay their debts.

<< Comment #109 @ 21:11 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

User1067 - Reply to #105

Ok, never say never, I'll give you that, but banks in Iceland were also in very poor position all the way, and them having triple A ratings at some point was ridiculous.

<< Comment #110 @ 22:15 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #109

that is true, considering even some states' bonds had lower ratings

<< Comment #86 @ 09:11 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #83

Iceland haas been rknown for their Aluminium industry for many years now.

<< Comment #93 @ 13:29 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Demiurge +' - Reply to #86

Let us not forget the tourism industry either.

<< Comment #85 @ 08:56 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

[mash]

Classic Jamerio.

<< Comment #88 @ 11:49 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio '

Our papers are slagging iceland off right left and centre and our GVT have frozen their assets, because they refuse to give back over 20 billion pounds, many of which is GVT accounts.

Surely not from the bestest country in the world.
Like I said all along (no on listens) Iceland is a self serving country, as soon as the wind changes they will, what else do you expect of a country spawned from cowardly immigrants?

P.S
For every Icelander there are two sheep. baaaaaaaar!

Edited by Jamerio at 12:13 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #96 @ 15:13 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

serak - Reply to #88

I dont really see why the Icelandic citizen should pay the price for mistakes made by bankers, British and Icelandic.

<< Comment #102 @ 18:24 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Aaron - Reply to #88

almost every country, person and organization is self severing regardless of the front they put on

<< Comment #131 @ 11:02 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #102

self severing

Sounds painful.

<< Comment #123 @ 16:46 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

timmah - Reply to #88

Wow, a country which serves itself. What has the world come to, really...

I think you're just raged because the UK got the short end of the stick with this one.

<< Comment #97 @ 16:46 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

Khorney

Iceland is now on Ebay :)

<< Comment #101 @ 18:02 UTC, 10 October 2008 >>

By

wipeout - Reply to #97

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Country-for-sale-ICELAN...=72%3A1298|39%3A1|66%3A2|65%3A12|240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Edited by wipeout at 18:02 UTC, 10 October 2008

<< Comment #119 @ 12:02 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

ddk

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

<< Comment #121 @ 12:11 UTC, 11 October 2008 >>

By

becks - Reply to #119

ban!!!!!

<< Comment #127 @ 00:40 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #119

I like johann he said something really profound and I can't recall it :(

*EDIT*
Architecture is like frozen music!

Edited by Jamerio at 00:43 UTC, 12 October 2008

<< Comment #136 @ 16:20 UTC, 12 October 2008 >>

By

Shrike

F U Bjork !

*edit* and lobster

Edited by Shrike at 16:20 UTC, 12 October 2008

<< Comment #141 @ 20:20 UTC, 23 January 2009 >>

By

Jamerio '

Crisis-hit Iceland calls early elections.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/internati...-elections

<< Comment #142 @ 23:26 UTC, 23 January 2009 >>

By

ini - Reply to #141

Wish the UK would do the same.

<< Comment #145 @ 18:22 UTC, 25 January 2009 >>

By

thelawenforcer - Reply to #142

who would u vote for if they did?

I mean Labour aint very good at all, but i feel that in many ways the Tories are just playing the role of opposition. They find labour policies that arent popular and then attack labour over it. My fear is that in reality, the Tories endorse some of the policies and would likely take some of them further.

also, i really have doubts about DC being a good representative for Britain.

<< Comment #146 @ 20:16 UTC, 25 January 2009 >>

By

ini - Reply to #145

I don't think I will ever vote Torie, I don't feel like I can trust any of them and there doesn't seem to be much difference between Labour and the Conservatives, so I'd probably vote LibDem at the moment (Or perhaps Green!). They seem to have the most sensible outlook and policies at the moment.

But that's the problem with British politics really, everyone feels the need to align themselves with either Labour or Conservatives because every other party is more or less irrelevant.

<< Comment #144 @ 17:43 UTC, 24 January 2009 >>

By

Aaron

fucking Kerry Katona

<< Comment #147 @ 21:24 UTC, 25 January 2009 >>

By

koOma

YEAAAHHH DYYKE FIGHT!!

Reply to:
[Reset] Format:

Formatting:

Content:

Are you a bot?

Or if you already have an account:

Username:

Password:

Read the Posting Guidelines

Non-HTML tags: [b]bold[/b], [i]italics[/i], [u]underlined[/u]
[small]small[/small], [q]quoted[/q], [s]~~strikethrough~~[/s]
[url=www.url.com]link[/url] or type www.url.com
[flag=country] (list), [avatar=name] (list)
[map=mapname gamename] (list)

Conceived and created by Sujoy Roy (Legal Notices)
RSS Feed Information, Link Buttons and Banners