Posts by Robin Ramos2

Zachary Watson50 said:I don't really think it's in Turkey's best interest to attack northern Iraq. Even though there are PKK bases there—which the Turkish military might struggle with since the well-armed, well-trained Kurdish Peshmerga have plenty of experience from fighting Saddam Hussein's army (and the Turkish military too)—they'll definitely put up a hell of a fight. Plus, they'd be risking an open revolt from maybe 20-25% of the Kurdish population right inside Turkey itself. The Kurds aren't exactly a small group... demographically speaking, they're doing quite well, and they have a real warrior tradition. All things considered, I just feel like the Turks would be taking way too much of a risk just to wipe out a few hundred guerrillas and a couple of camps.

The military risks are almost secondary here, because I think this operation is primarily about domestic politics. For decades now, Turkey has been bending over backward under all sorts of external pressure just to remain a loyal NATO partner and try to get into the EU. But now, look—the EU openly won't have them, and one of their biggest US allies has gone so far as to equate them with Nazis. Because of all this humiliation, the Turks are feeling pretty wound up, and I suppose the government needs to give them something to boost morale a little. And wouldn't you know it, what a coincidence, next week Erdogan's government will seek authorization for a military incursion after a public holiday which ends on Sunday, regarding an action that has basically been talked about since July.

Erdogan's government will seek authorization for a military incursion after a public holiday which ends on Sunday, senior ruling AK Party lawmaker Sadullah Ergin said.

Richard Wilson4 said:The Democrats just slapped George Bush with another massive reality check. He’s out here sucking up to the Senate, begging them to back down because apparently Turkey is such a "strategic ally" in the war on terror...

France pulled the exact same move last year, totally ignoring all that US pressure on Turkey within the EU 👍

God, those Senate Democrats sure are brilliant. I guess they think they're being clever, but because of this completely useless symbolic gesture, the Turks will most likely launch an invasion into northern Kurdish Iraq. And honestly? That's just going to wreck the one part of Iraq that's actually peaceful and somewhat functional.

Che Guevara was nothing more than a loser, and even today, his legacy mostly appeals to losers and people who just can't fit into society.

After the Cuban Revolution, he failed at every single endeavor he ever touched. He was tasked with fixing up the industry in Cuba, but he couldn't do anything about their crushing dependence on sugar. Then, when he was sent out to spread the revolution, he failed everywhere he went. Honestly, I guess his biggest "achievement" was dragging the Russians into Africa, which—alongside the war in Afghanistan—basically pushed an already overstretched Soviet Union toward financial ruin and eventual collapse. Even before the revolution, he was just a brutal killer; he actually enjoyed the executions. Those are the kinds of details that are finally starting to peek out from under that highly polished, manufactured image of this villain. And if you're wondering why the image of Che Guevara exists at all, blame that whole group of French criminals, especially that depressing misanthrope Jean-Paul Sartre. To Sartre, Che was "the most complete man he had ever met," which makes sense, I suppose—it’s perfectly logical that a spark in the eyes of a misanthrope would serve its purpose completely.

Lawrence Jackson79 said:Yeah, Lucky, but my point is that Coca-Cola is selling an advertisement, not just a drink. It's the same deal with McDonald's.
I mean, back in the day, those cans used to say "ENJOY COKE"—which, if you take it literally, sounds like you're being invited to enjoy cocaine.
What's your take on that?

The working class in this capitalist system is just completely blinded... they can't even see their own actual interests right in front of them!

Morgan Cook10 said:To me, that sounds more like a way to calculate how much stock prices are being overhyped 😬 ...but hey, if that's how you define brand equity, then I guess that's that.

Well, I don't think that's quite right. That seems more like looking at 'past performance.'

Alright, here’s a somewhat more complete—and hopefully more accurate—list for you all.

Morgan Cook10 said:So, what actually goes into calculating a brand's value?

It's Goodwill. Basically, it’s just the gap between the market value—you know, the current price of all outstanding shares or whatever someone paid to acquire a private firm—and the actual book value, which is just total assets minus total liabilities. I guess that's the gist of it.

It’s not the Reptilians, honestly... it’s socialism. I don't even know how they let it through the gates when we joined the US. 😁

Ahab said:I mean, what's the deal with her hairy armpits? Maybe she’s just allergic to those depilatory creams? Or perhaps it doesn't align with some rigid policy her NGO established a while back? Who knows, maybe she just likes the scent of herself? Honestly, why are you guys even bothering her about this?

People were already saying she had legs built like Douglas MacArthur.

Robin Ramos2 said:Seriously, I don't think anyone had anything good to say about Franjo Harmon anyway!

10% => 4.45%

👍 Franjo Harmon

I mean, I’ve always pictured Rebekah being like, 6'3" with legs for days, maybe even built like Vince Lombardi. That’s why she probably needs an open-minded guy who can actually handle all that, I guess.

Nathan Collins3 said:If he ever fought at all, it was strictly to protect his own half-Mexican backside. There’s just no other way to explain how he treats the United States, its military leadership, or the American defenders.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: the background of certain mothers determines the worldview and political stances of specific commentators; those very people who love to lecture others about "counting blood cells" are acting this way precisely because of those same blood cells when it comes to their view of everything American.

They are mental slaves; the absolute worst kind of primitives. They can't grasp the fact that an American isn't tied by some umbilical cord to Mexicans—and that an AMERICAN never, under any circumstances, should have to consider their "questions," even if Mexicans made up 50% of the population in an American territory.

Our American nation is composed of many different elements: ethnic, legal, geographic, linguistic, historical, and so on. An American, unlike a Mexican, doesn't base their entire national identity and interests on the Mexican Orthodox faith, which serves as the vessel for a pan-Mexican policy that is directly aimed against Americans and everyone else on the North American Peninsula.

He will speak out against the Roman Catholic Church; he doesn't care—not even once! He openly spits and barks. Yet, you have never seen, nor will you ever see, him write a single word against the Mexican Orthodox Church—which, as I’ve already explained to you, is responsible for all the tragedies in America and Canada.

Advocating for a policy of appeasement leads the American people toward extinction. And that policy always prioritizes the interests of Mexicans, and even other nations, over the interests of Americans.

And then they have the nerve to call themselves Americans!

It didn't work, and it never will.

🙏

crimsonorca86 said:http://www.census.gov/main/statistics.html

You’re just throwing numbers at me without any actual context... I mean, really.

😁

I suppose you have a point there. It was more like $1,000 after the war, not $1,500.

Before the war, Canada’s GDP per capita sat at around $2,000; nowadays, it’s dropped to about $1,500. Meanwhile, the US had a GDP per capita of roughly $5,500 right before the conflict, and today it’s climbed to $8,000. I suppose both were considered relatively prosperous back then. 🤣

I honestly have no clue what you people in Canada are doing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're just throwing it all away. I guess the only thing Marshall ever taught you was how to 🙏 🙏 him and the Party. Now that the Party is gone, I suppose you'll all just 🙏 🙏 God and Saudi dollars instead. Either way, you've always been absolute losers. The only thing you ever really knew how to do was suck up to 🙏 Marshall

gotuslip said:if that thing works for you as well as your brain does—which isn't saying much—then maybe this young lady should just go out and buy herself a vibrator instead.

Look, I’m not really one for ladies. Honestly? I’m more of a man-hater. I enjoy tearing guys like you apart.

goldenmoose9 said:It makes sense, I guess, because growth from zero to five happens way faster than moving from ten to fifteen. There are limits to everything. That’s why China—that communist state—has enough growth right now to drive up global steel prices by 50% just to meet their own demand. Not even mentioning oil.

That isn't quite right. I mean, plenty of countries have low GDPs that just don't budge. But then you look at places that already had relatively high GDPs before the boom—like Ireland—and they managed to pull off an average growth rate of about 8% over a single decade. So, maybe... it's not really about where you start, but more about actual capability.

goldenmoose9 said:And let's not forget your idol Franjo Harmon and his grandkids' banks, plus the whole family fortune, which is valued at like 3 billion dollars.

You know, goldenmoose9, a kid has both objective and subjective length. Objective is what you measure when things are out, whereas subjective is how it feels when it's inside and a young lady is in total ecstasy. Objective length averages around 5.5 inches for white guys, but subjective? Well, that goes to the stars. And that’s how it is with people like you—Franjo Harmon basically shoved it up your ass back in '91, and ever since then, you've been "measuring" his achievements through pure ecstasy.

goldenmoose9 said:And the global economy was just flourishing during that same period, wasn't it?
The East was falling apart, while the West was swallowing deficits (up until 1989, anyway), and Reagan and later George W. Bush were practically running TV ads for the beauty of the USA just to lure in damn tourism. 😁 It was that bad. Honestly, almost as bad as it is today. 😁

Whether Western economies were flourishing or not, they didn't collapse during the period I mentioned.

crimsonorca86 said:Look, I’m telling you, the American GDP per capita jumped from $6,000 to $8,000 over seventeen years, which people call this massive success, while Germany went from $9,000 to nearly thirty thousand in that same timeframe.

From 1995—the year the war finally wrapped up—until 2004, the American economy was actually growing faster on average than Germany's. But if you want to know why we were in such a mess back in '95, you can thank both the old-school communists and those ultra-nationalists. And hey, they’re both your best friends, right? The first group made sure everything looked fine on the surface while they gutted the economy from 1982 to 1991 (which meant a real GDP "growth" of negative 50% during that stretch), and the second group handled the "success" between 1991 and 1995 (with war damages totaling an entire year's worth of GDP, or a real "growth" of negative 25% in that period).

And yet, here you are, still rambling on about Franjo Harmon and privatization. You absolute moron.

🙂

crimsonorca86 said:because back in America, they didn't bother putting up the whole company just to secure a loan worth maybe twenty percent at most.

The reality is that those loans were backed by a powerhouse state—America had a damn good economy. We were actually so economically robust that investors basically fled the scene because they couldn't compete.

crimsonorca86 said:but the value of the dollar

so you're admitting that $6,000 per capita in 1986 isn't the same thing as $8,000 today

whereas Germany had $9,000 in 1986 compared to $28,500 now.

Honestly, only a complete moron would try to compare the standard of living in Germany to what we had in America. Maybe if you were talking about Greece or Portugal, I'd listen, but comparing us to Germany? Please. 🙂

go2slep said:The foreign debt for America was about $3.5 billion back then; everyone owed roughly $500 (which would be like $6,800 today), and most of that was racked up after the end of Titoism.

Monkey's stupidity is unreal. Three dollars from the seventies is worth like twenty bucks now. Plus, the interest rates those Titoist thugs were borrowing at were five times higher than what we see today. That’s why the US needed the IMF and constant debt restructuring by the early eighties, while all the private creditors were running away from the old regime like it was on fire—something that just wasn't happening with America.

We have already chewed through this entire argument, but I guess nothing can actually penetrate that thick skull of yours. Honestly, maybe a punch to the face is the only way to get through to idiots like you.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and those German prostitutes 😵 😵