Posts by goldenmason172

placidsurfer9 said:Exactly, especially if things get a bit LUCKY during the race.

Luck favors the bold! 😬

rapidviper54 said:It is quite curious how Kimi always seems to be the favorite, yet I can't recall the last time he actually stood on the top step of the podium.

April 27, 2008. The US Grand Prix in Austin! 🙄

Even a broken clock finds the right time once in a while! 😬

1. Kimi Räikkönen

2. Felipe Massa

3. Heikki Kovalainen

4. Lewis Hamilton

5. Fernando Alonso

6. Nick Heidfeld

7. Sebastian Vettel

8. Robert Kubica

9. Sebastien Bourdais

10. Mark Webber

lonebison19 said:Way to go, Lewis! Honestly, it’s about time he finally knocked Felipe Massa down a peg. That guy really needs to come back down to earth!

I guess it's true what they say—those who laugh last, laugh best! 😬

Zachary Watson50 said:

Even the birds on a tiny branch can see he set his sights on them once he decided he didn't want to dance to their tune anymore—right when they were trying to step in for him. I mean, how else do you explain why all these new tycoon names are popping up in Russia? Only this time, the patron isn't Boris Yeltsin, it's Vladimir. And how do you explain that these Jews are all such honest folks; Vladimir Lisin, Mikhail Fridman, Oleg Deripaska, Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Prokhorov, Leonard Blavatnik, Alexander Abramov, and so many others???

Well, obviously they tried to replace him once they realized he wasn't going to play ball the way they wanted. Those who stepped aside, like the names mentioned above (I haven't heard much about some of them, honestly), clearly made a sort of "deal" with the Vladimir Putin crew. They basically agreed that their wealth from the 90s wouldn't be touched—you know, how they actually acquired it—but in exchange, they have to operate legally and work for the benefit of Russia now. I don't see what the problem is there.

I wasn't saying you were, just that your rhetoric sounds that way.

The idea that Russia faces both external and internal enemies doesn't necessarily mean it's communist rhetoric, because in the case of Russia, it’s just the truth.

That is a very small percentage. If the elections had been truly democratic and free, and if the media were independent and free, Vladimir Putin certainly wouldn't have gotten 65% of the vote. You can just do the math and guess what he would have actually received.

65% isn't actually that small... though, in Russia, besides United Russia, there were four other pro-Putin parties participating in the elections. The strongest one was Just Russia with 7.74% of the vote and 38 seats in the Duma. When you add all that up with Putin's numbers, he actually has a lot more than 65%.

That’s certainly how you want to see it, though most people operating under that banner seem to keep about twenty bodyguards close at hand just in case. It really is just a matter of cronyism; there isn't much deep philosophy behind it. Anyone who genuinely believes that Vladimir Putin set out to dismantle the corruption from the privatization era is simply being naive.

The idea that Russia faces both external and internal enemies isn't necessarily just communist rhetoric; in the case of Russia, it happens to be true.

Well, we have certainly heard that particular line repeated ad nauseam over the last seventeen years. It serves as an effective way to intimidate the less informed public. Personally, I don't believe anything bad would have happened to Vladimir Putin or Russia if he had simply established clear rules of engagement and focused more on cooperating with the West rather than constantly clashing with them.

65% isn't exactly a small number...

How can you say it isn't small when you essentially hold the media and the entire apparatus of the state in your hands? In my view, that figure is actually quite low; even if things hadn't played out this way, one has to wonder if they would have even cleared the 50% mark. After all, do you know who truly seized control in Moscow?

Zachary Watson50 said:

Look, maybe try coming up with something other than those cheap communist slogans that, frankly, nobody buys anymore. By that logic, if you're still surrounded by people who think like you, then I guess we have to accept that fascism is just becoming more common in Russia.

Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin are part of that same old crew from Saint Petersburg running the show in Russia. Honestly, even after he steps down, Vladimir Putin will likely hold more sway than Dmitry Medvedev, so I don't really get why you're being so strangely optimistic about it.

You know perfectly well why Vladimir Putin took down the oligarchs. They backed him early on because they thought he’d be just like Boris Yeltsin—letting them plunder the country and ship all the capital off to overseas accounts... well, they really miscalculated there.

I just said I wish that would happen to him, and hey, never say never. People often end up getting caught in their own traps.

I mean, good for him for taking on the oligarchs back then; you needed some serious guts to actually do it. It's easy to sit here now and type out nonsense.

Just so we're clear, I'm not a communist or some leftist type, so you can stop thinking that.

fascism in Russia

It's hardly surprising, really. Americans—well, Russians—are naturally "a little" nationalist by nature.

Even a casual observer can see he set his sights on them the moment they stopped dancing to his tune and started plotting his replacement. How else do you explain the emergence of these new tycoon names in the US? Only this time, the patron isn't Boris, it's Vladimir. And how do you explain that people like Vladimir Lisin, Mikhail Fridman, Oleg Deripaska, Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Prokhorov, Leonard Blavatnik, Alexander Abramov, and many others are suddenly being treated as if they are honest actors?

Look, I'm neither a communist nor a leftist, so you should be able to tell.

I didn't say you were; I simply noted that your rhetoric sounds that way. It seems you've picked up some habits from listening to Vladimir Putin. We are constantly told about "internal and external enemies" out to screw us over. But consider this: despite having total control over the media and the political landscape, along with rigged elections, he only pulled in 65% of the vote. That is actually quite a low number. If the elections had been truly democratic and free, and the media were genuinely independent, he certainly wouldn't have hit 65%—you can do the math and imagine what the actual result might have been.

placidcyclist5 said:So I'm asking you because you act like a walking encyclopedia (I could dig it up myself easily enough, but I just can't be bothered when I see you tossing out stats like you own them 🙂), yet all you do is throw insults and stones at me...😁 Why don't you just move to Russia and be happy, or swap places with a regular Russian...

You don't really have the luxury of asking me. If you want to find those arguments, go ahead and find them; otherwise, just stay quiet.
The issue is that you can search for them all you want, but you will never find them. Nothing personal, it’s just that your communication style is incredibly frustrating because it lacks even a shred of factual substance—it’s an absolute vacuum. Cheers! 😉

William Vaughn14 said:Have you guys been following Ron Paul lately? It’s honestly wild how the mainstream media systematically ignores him, even while he’s absolutely smashing fundraising records and building massive grassroots support among Americans.

The media tries to paint him as this total outsider, but if the elections aren't rigged, he actually has a serious shot at the presidency.

So, what you're saying is there's this underdog being suppressed by the media to prevent him from winning the presidency??? 🙄

placidcyclist5 As Zachary Watson50 points out:
Look, I’m asking you nicely to dig up those specific stats from 1986, but you just keep doing things your own way. Fine, I surrender—I can't win this one. As they say, you can't make progress if you're flying blind.
You’re just talking in circles at this point. Between 1990 and 2000, things hit absolute rock bottom, so it’s only natural that wages are seeing a slight recovery now—though don't mistake that for anything approaching actual prosperity. If you want to challenge me, then go ahead: find me a single piece of data regarding how many people emigrated from Russia during the 2005–2006 period... and more importantly, explain to me exactly why so many of them left.

Look, kid, you really ought to pick up some basic etiquette if you’re going to hang out on this forum. If your goal is to actually win an argument, it isn't particularly clever to tell your opponent to go find your own "argument" for them. If you consider yourself even remotely tech-savvy, you should be able to look that information up yourself and just lay it out right here on the page.
It seems you’re the only one here who hasn't managed to present a single verifiable fact or coherent argument in any of your posts so far. Until you can do that, I’m standing firm on what I wrote regarding the rising wages and improving standard of living in Russia—that remains an established fact. Furthermore, if you're genuinely interested in the statistics regarding how many Americans have emigrated from the country, I suggest you use your own intellect to look up that data. This forum isn't a platform for your personal venting or self-serving monologues.
You know that old saying about how silence is golden? Well, I think that applies perfectly to people like you.

Zachary Watson50 As Zachary Watson50 points out:
It is a complex situation, really. One could argue that Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev are essentially two sides of the same coin, operating within the exact same power structure. From a certain perspective, you could say that Vladimir Putin had to dismantle the influence of the oligarchs just to get the Russian Federation moving in a productive direction—though, depending on who you ask, some might characterize that move as nothing more than a calculated stab in the back.

Come on, try coming up with something more substantial than those cheap, communist slogans that, frankly, nobody buys anymore. You seem to think you're surrounded by like-minded people just because of that mindset, but all you're really doing is justifying why fascism is becoming such an increasingly common sight in Russia.
I once mentioned that I would actually welcome such an outcome, and honestly, you can never say never. As the old saying goes, those who live by the sword often end up falling by it. 😉

Richard Wilson4 said:So it looks like San Diego and Phoenix right on the Mexican border have the highest white populations? 😕

Well, that's exactly what the U.S. Census data is telling us! 😉

placidcyclist5 said:They definitely weren't higher. Go ahead, dig up the data since you love playing expert... show me what wages actually looked like in 1986... and no, there wasn't a crisis in 1995... oh wait, I must be dreaming...🤣 ☕ There was no inflation, no total collapse... nope... clearly I'm just hallucinating...

I'll just leave the Russians to their miserable version of capitalism today... Peace out...
Look, boss, you aren't the smartest guy in the room. You have to respect other perspectives, regardless of how much knowledge you think you've got or don't have...

Of course purchasing power and the general standard of living hasn't increased; today's standard of living is actually at its highest point in their entire history. I mean, we are talking about the USSR here, man—one of the most advanced nations on the planet! Did you ever spend time in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, or Poland while they were still part of the USSR? Did you witness the economic boom those countries experienced? If you visited those same places fifteen years later, surely you noticed the massive leap in their quality of life? You can try to deny it if you want!
Give me the numbers showing how much better the standard of living was back then compared to now; I’m waiting. Until then, what I've said stands as fact.

In 2000, 20% of the Russian population lived on $40 a month, whereas today only 2% of the Russian population lives on that amount.
In 2000, 15% of the Russian population lived on $125 a month, whereas today only 9% of the Russian population lives on that amount.
In 2000, only 3% of the population lived on $300 a month, whereas today 20% of the Russian population lives on that amount.
In 2000, just 1.9% of the population lived on more than $350 a month, whereas today 26% of the Russian population lives on that amount.
In the agricultural sector, average salaries were $13 in 1995, jumping to $274 by 2006.
In manufacturing, average salaries were $15 in 1995; today, they sit at $320.
In the energy sector, salaries were $22 in 1995, compared to $360 today.
In transportation and communications, salaries were $20 in 1995, while today they reach $380.
In education, salaries were $10 in 1995, and today they are $305.
In healthcare and social services, salaries were $10 in 1995, rising to $225 by 2006.
Across the entire public administration, salaries were $14 in 1995, whereas today they are $375.
In the financial industry, salaries were $21 in 1995, compared to $770 in 2006.

Try to debunk this rise in the standard of living with actual arguments. I hope you know what a real argument looks like, so please don't waste my time with the nonsense you've been posting; it doesn't contribute anything to a constructive debate. And if you can't provide any real evidence, it might be best to stay silent. After all, silence is golden.

placidcyclist5 said:You’re talking nonsense again. Seriously, stop trying to compare 1995 to 2006. Anyone with half a brain knows what kind of absolute disaster the crisis in Russia was back in '95. If you're actually going to play the comparison game, try comparing 1986 to 2006 instead. Honestly, your logic is a joke. It's like trying to compare the US economy in 1930 during the Great Depression to how things looked in 1970. You're really out here thinking you have arguments? Please.☕
Another thing you're ignoring about average salaries: those massive payouts to Russian oligarchs. I've already tried explaining how that skews the whole picture of purchasing power, but clearly, it’s just not sinking in for you...🙄

Look, man, you should probably start by brushing up on when the economic crises actually hit Russia. If you honestly believe that wages in 1986 were higher than they were in 1995, then I truly feel for you given the level of ignorance you're displaying here.

The issue is that today's average salary is skewed by those massive earnings from the Russian elite—something I've already explained to you regarding purchasing power, but I guess it's just not sinking in...

Russian billionaires in education, public administration, and other sectors you mentioned???
Honestly, you might be better off staying quiet; it would make you look much smarter. If you're going to challenge me, be specific, state exactly what you're disputing, and back it up with actual facts rather than just throwing out your own half-baked opinions.

Andrew Sanchez3 said:So, looking at the numbers, we have Chicago at 36% white, Miami at 11%, L.A. at 26%, Washington at 36%, and Baltimore at 36% white...

New York City => 35%
Los Angeles => 30%
Chicago White Sox alone => 31.3%
Houston => 31%
Phoenix => 56%
Philadelphia => 42.5%
San Antonio => 32%
San Diego => 49.4%
Dallas => 35%
San Jose => 36%
Detroit => 10.5%
San Francisco => 44%
Memphis => 64%

As I mentioned before, the situation really isn't all that tragic! 😉

It is genuinely impossible to engage in any kind of meaningful or intellectual dialogue with you. Your entire strategy seems to consist of nothing more than citing some vague conversation you had with a friend from Russia, Cuba, or China, while simultaneously lacking even a basic grasp of the actual subject matter at hand.
Let’s look at the hard data instead; back in 1995, average monthly wages in the agricultural sector sat at around $13, but by 2006, they had climbed to $274.
In manufacturing, average wages were roughly $15 in 1995, whereas today they have reached $320.
Looking at the energy sector, salaries were about $22 in 1995, compared to $360 today.
In transportation and communications, the 1995 average was $20, which has since risen to $380.
For educators, wages stood at just $10 in 1995, but have grown to $305 today.
In healthcare and social services, we saw $10 in 1995, rising to $225 by 2006.
Across the entire public administration, salaries were $14 in 1995, reaching $375 today.
Within the financial industry, wages were $21 in 1995, jumping to $770 by 2006.
The average salary in the Russian Federation was approximately $300 in 2006, and it continues to grow at an average annual rate of 25%.
Furthermore, once you truly understand how a nation's standard of living is driven by its own GDP growth, you might begin to realize why things are changing so radically in places like Russia, China, Slovakia, or Estonia. For instance, when looking back at the year 2000, there were 7 million unemployed people in Russia, yet today that number has dropped to about 3.5 million, which simply means people are actually working.
In 2000, 20% of the Russian population lived on $40 a month; today, that figure has plummeted to just 2%.
Back in 2000, 15% of the Russian population survived on $125 a month, whereas today only 9% do.
In 2000, only 3% of the population lived on $300 a month, but today that has grown to 20%.
In 2000, just 1.9% of the population earned more than $350 a month, but today that group accounts for 26%.
Of course, poverty still exists, but you cannot expect all the negative aspects of a transition to be erased in a mere six years, nor can you expect Russia to transform into the USA or Japan overnight.
The new Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has stated that his primary focus is the economy of the Russian Federation and driving its economic development. Given their massive oil and gas reserves, their future looks secure—a fact recognized by international financial institutions when they project that Russia will reach a nominal GDP of $6.5 trillion by 2050, or roughly $50,000 per capita. To put that in perspective, the USA currently sits at around $47,000 per capita.
Over the last seven years, the nominal GDP has grown at a rate of 7.7%, meaning it rose from $260 billion in 2000 to $1.166 trillion in 2007. This growth is the fundamental driver; it is the only way to raise the standard of living for the citizens of any nation.
I would suggest you set aside these anecdotal "arguments" in our forum discussions, as I find them entirely unconvincing and devoid of substance. I have personally spoken with a friend in Russia who maintains that the standard of living has risen immensely compared to the communist era, and he speaks very highly of capitalism. His only grievance is the dictatorial nature of the current leader of the Russian Federation and the lack of democracy, though he believes those issues will eventually resolve themselves. As the saying goes, democracy struggles where stomachs are empty, but it flourishes where people are well-fed.

placidcyclist5 said:Russia is sinking fast because they tried to pivot to capitalism—if you can even call it that when the whole country is basically run by the mafia...
It’s a wealthy nation, sure, but the wealth gap there is absolutely insane. You’ve got a massive population living in poverty while a tiny handful of ultra-rich elites act like they own the place. They have zero class. It’s like how certain high-end spots in New York or Los Angeles won't even let those types in anymore because they ruin the vibe for everyone else. These billionaires stay protected by a small group of people—maybe 5% to 10%—who benefit from the system. They might be "well-off" compared to the poor, but they're just part of the machine. I don't see things changing in Russia anytime soon...
The only exception is probably the military and the scientists. They aren't under the thumb of the mob quite as much, which is why they still manage to pull off decent results in science and military tech...

I think you've completely misread the situation and misinterpreted the facts. Are you suggesting that because everyone was equally impoverished during the communist era, that somehow made it an acceptable way to live? Are you even aware of how many millions of people have actually climbed out of poverty, or how much the purchasing power of the average American citizen has increased over the years? Of course there are wealthy individuals, just as there are in any other nation on Earth, except perhaps in North Korea or Cuba, but a massive number of people are escaping poverty, much like what we've seen in the People's Republic of China. Do you actually have a superior system in mind? Since you're clearly so "brilliant," I'm eagerly waiting for you to present us with your flawless alternative.😉

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:http://www.nytimes.com/world/article...putin,101446.jl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/detailed.php?nid=50723

🙂 😲

Could you please enlighten me as to who I am actually talking to on the other side of this screen? Is it an intelligent individual who fails to see anything unusual in this article, or someone who genuinely believes that Medvedev is going to claim he’s planning to stab Putin in the back? I am not asserting that such a thing will happen; I simply ask that you revisit my previous post and try to read it with a bit more nuance this time. After all, who could have possibly predicted that Putin would turn so sharply against his own closest inner circle?

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:👍 🙏

What the West calls "democracy," though it has nothing to do with the actual concept,

This brings us to a fundamental question: how exactly do you define democracy?

Andrew Sanchez3 said:Chicago:
Demography

Well, my dear colleague, there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here; you seem to have suggested one thing, whereas I actually wrote quite the opposite.

Andrew Sanchez3 said:I was poking around some census data for major US cities recently, and it’s striking how few places with over half a million people actually have a white population hovering around 20%...

In Hollywood, the villains are almost always portrayed as white supremacists, while priests—especially Catholic ones—are treated with suspicion, and Black culture seems to be the go-to influence for kids growing up in the suburbs...

The media, the cultural landscape, and the film industry are largely under Jewish influence, and if you look at the columnists, they’re pretty much a monolith of atheists and leftists...

We all know about the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, which is a tragedy, but I find myself wondering why we don't see an endless stream of Oscars for films about the 7 million Ukrainians lost in 1932, or the 1.5 million Armenians in 1917...

The real headache seems to be the Democratic Socialists who opened the floodgates for migration to Europe back in the 70s, and now the Democrats, led by figures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are bringing everyone into the US except for white people; it feels like it’s easier to move here from Guatemala or Iran than it is to settle in from Slovakia...

When you step back, it all feels a bit too interconnected for comfort, and I suppose I should just be grateful that America remains far removed from this mess for the time being...

"Quote:"

goldenmason172 said:That simply isn't accurate, and anyone can easily verify that with a quick look at the data! 😉

So, you've essentially just reinforced exactly what I was saying from the start. You also made sure to cherry-pick the absolute worst cities possible as your examples; if you looked at any of the larger metropolitan areas, you'd see a much brighter picture. 😉
I should probably just add that seeing this specific percentage of Hispanic and Black residents in our cities isn't actually surprising at all, especially when you consider how those two groups have historically been pushed into concentrated urban enclaves.

Paul Johnson5 said:Dammit 😠 I can't get onto YouTube at work, so this is going to have to wait until later.

Trust me, it'll be worth the wait. Cheers! 🤣

Paul Johnson5 said:Lucky, what exactly is this "well-known fraud" you're talking about? Seriously, do you have a link? I'm genuinely interested in seeing the details.

Secondly, who’s giving you any guarantee that Medvedev will even become President? It’s entirely possible Putin just proposes some third person altogether. Besides, how much did any of you actually care about Putin before he replaced Yeltsin? Exactly—nobody.

Of course I do; I've got the receipts, and a special thanks to Ice for the assist! 🤣

I honestly find myself hoping that Dmitry Medvedev, should he ever ascend to the presidency of the Russian Federation, might decide to pull a complete reversal and turn on Putin, much like how Putin has historically betrayed his own inner circle.
It’s a classic case of poetic justice—may the hunter become the hunted.
I am genuinely curious to see how Dmitry would govern once he's in charge, especially since his primary focus seems to be on stabilizing the Russian economy rather than continuing these endless, exhausting confrontations with the West.

Even though Vladimir Putin managed to secure roughly 65% of the vote in the recent elections, that number feels remarkably low when you consider his absolute stranglehold on the state media and the blatant election fraud that everyone knows took place.

Andrew Sanchez3 said:I was poking around some census data for major US cities recently, and it’s striking how few places with over half a million people actually have a white population hovering around 20%...

In Hollywood, the villains are almost always portrayed as white supremacists, while priests—especially Catholic ones—are treated with suspicion, and Black culture seems to be the go-to influence for kids growing up in the suburbs...

The media, the cultural landscape, and the film industry are largely under Jewish influence, and if you look at the columnists, they’re pretty much a monolith of atheists and leftists...

We all know about the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, which is a tragedy, but I find myself wondering why we don't see an endless stream of Oscars for films about the 7 million Ukrainians lost in 1932, or the 1.5 million Armenians in 1917...

The real headache seems to be the Democratic Socialists who opened the floodgates for migration to Europe back in the 70s, and now the Democrats, led by figures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are bringing everyone into the US except for white people; it feels like it’s easier to move here from Guatemala or Iran than it is to settle in from Slovakia...

When you step back, it all feels a bit too interconnected for comfort, and I suppose I should just be grateful that America remains far removed from this mess for the time being...

That simply isn't accurate, and anyone can easily verify that with a quick look at the data! 😉