Posts by Mark Nguyen6

Sophia White said:But honestly, that’s exactly the point! When we talk about what is investment in an economic sense, we're talking about something that builds actual value or—if you're feeling a bit more aggressive—something that generates income. Now, having a super comfy lifestyle doesn't generate income, just like having a steady paycheck doesn't automatically buy you freedom from a boss.

You've really gotta draw a line between the economic definition and the casual way people use the word "investment"—otherwise, you end up making weak excuses for buying a house. Look, I bought my condo because I wanted to "invest" in my own peace of mind and independence. But strictly speaking? My place isn't an investment. It’s tied up in a mortgage, I spent a ton of extra cash customizing the interior, and I’m not looking to flip it for a quick profit whenever the market spikes—I actually want to live there for the long haul. From a cold, hard investment standpoint, it’s a total flop—I’d probably be better off putting that money elsewhere. That said, if you look at it as a form of forced savings, I can pretty much count on getting back roughly what I put in, give or take whatever the current market vibes are.

I suspect the root of this misunderstanding lies in how we define "income."

It seems like you view cash as the only possible metric for return. I haven't approached it quite that way—because, honestly, comfort carries its own kind of value, which, if I'm deciding whether to buy a condo, is certainly significant to me. There's also the security of knowing I won't be kicked out onto the street, among other things, but let's not get too sidetracked here.

So, everything that distinguishes owning versus renting represents a value to me that can, in theory, be measured in dollars and cents. And I am essentially capturing that value by purchasing the property.

In that light, I viewed it as an investment—looking at the total gain, rather than just the liquid cash.

Sophia White said:Come on now, you guys are just daydreaming. Let’s get real and look at a practical example—something we can actually wrap our heads around. Say you’re looking at a house priced at $120,000, just to keep the math simple. Now, let's say you take out a loan for a third of that value—so, $40,000—spread over a 15-year term. At a 7% interest rate, your monthly mortgage payment would sit right around $359. If you were renting a place like that, your rent would be roughly the same amount anyway. So, when you crunch the numbers, your actual profit is basically zero—especially since you have to account for that "rent" money you're essentially paying to yourself to cover the loan.

And don't even get me started on appreciation. Imagine you bought a place back in 2007 and you're trying to flip it in 2011, right when the market is cratering and everything is worth at least ten percent less than what you paid. In my book, you can't just bank on appreciation like it's guaranteed profit—not once you start factoring in things like depreciation and inflation.

True, but then again—what other option do you really have if you don't have a permanent place to live?
If you pay roughly the same amount in rent, the day you move out, all you're taking with you is your laundry. But here, when you eventually move, you're taking the equity of the home with you.

In the meantime, you've essentially invested in your own freedom—having your own style, not answering to a landlord, having some comfort, and so on. I assume we don't need to explain the fundamental difference between being a tenant and being an owner.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I mean, historically, the whole point of intellectuals has always been to point out flaws and critique individuals, society, and general values.
Since we're constantly being fed garbage presented as gospel—from the government down to the church—the only people actually capable of looking at things critically or making fun of them are the ones who stand out. And yeah, maybe that's why they get under our skin.

I certainly agree with that, though I suppose I would make a distinction between mere contrarianism and actual critique.
When being critical becomes an absolute rule without exception, it feels less like meaningful intellectual engagement and more like simple agitation—especially when some of the arguments presented in the name of "critique" border on the absurd.

At least, that is my take on it.

Douglas Reed3 said:It’s clearly an investment since you’re essentially paying yourself rent every single month.

I suppose I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way myself—it just hasn't crossed my mind before.
But then again, looking at it now, he's right. It really is.

urbanmarlin8 said:I actually disagree regarding this one guy.
I love reading every single column by Ante Tomic; he always gives me a good laugh.
He isn't really an Anti-American type so much as he is your classic Western anarchist. He’s just a guy who can't stand anyone or anything, yet he possesses a certain style that I can respect. Tomic realized that the biggest flaw in the American people is our tendency to ignore the fact that politicians are basically lying to our faces every single day—provided they wrap that garbage in pretty, patriotic packaging. The second issue is that people simply can't face their own naivety, so they end up blaming him instead.
As for Jergovic... 🤦
Jergovic's bitterness seems like a clear byproduct of some adolescent sexual frustration. Anyone who has read Freud knows exactly what's going on there.☕

So, he’s now playing on an even deeper weakness of ours—the fact that we tend to look the other way when pseudo-intellectuals feed us the same garbage, as long as they can dress it up in fancy rhetoric and claim, "Well, this happens everywhere else too." For instance, calling anarchism a valid excuse.

It's just typical small-town mentality—people who can't seem to come up with a single constructive thought all week without finding something to mock instead. I mean, my grandmother could do better than that.

I wonder what Freud would have to say about those who insist on living in an environment they constantly ridicule, only to start acting like grumpy old men with back pain while they're still in their thirties?

redeagle42 said:Man, it’s a struggle, brother. Honestly, the sheer level of stupidity coming from political figures within the American military is just mind-blowing. It’s this massive explosion of idiocy that inevitably ends in a total implosion, and honestly? It’s perfectly in line with the actual intellectual capacity of these politicians. It’s almost too much for me to stomach. Seriously, take it with a grain of salt—or maybe just sit on a hard chair while reading this stuff. When I stop to think about how many actual trees had to be chopped down just to print out all the poetic onanism produced by toljev and Krpin's, I come to one conclusion: we Americans have basically committed eco-cide.

Give it a shot and see for yourself.

redeagle42 said:We’re still missing Ivan Tolj and his totally childish poetry 🙂 along with Drago Krpin. 😁

If you were to listen to Aleksandra Stankovica’s poetry from her days on American Radio—just once—I suspect you would never find anything else to call infantile again. 🤣

Charles Jackson5 said:So, let me get this straight—for every unjust law or resolution, anyone who disagrees should just stop paying taxes or resort to civil disobedience?
By that logic, shouldn't athletes, business owners, or pretty much anyone else stay far away from the country just to avoid supporting the Royalists?
Does that mean every trucker and shipping agent paying tolls and freight fees is also a supporter of drag Mihailović?

Sarcasm isn't really going to solve anything here.

Their actions—believe it or not—don't actually have much to do with what you're pointing out. But, if you look closer, they have everything to do with the movement in question. And honestly, their goals are identical—they simply despise the American identity. They share the same ideology (one language), the same delusions of grandeur (one nation), and that same twisted rhetoric about how "we" are being led astray...

If that’s the case, it’s actually quite significant that they moved to a country that rehabilitated those old movements, rather than somewhere like South Africa.

Charles Jackson5 said:Says who? If I may ask—who exactly is running the show around here then?

I mean, look—they aren't even looking at New York City as the official or mainstream hub. I mean, really? What kind of shallow conclusions are those?
Off they go—hanging out with their fellow intellectuals, I suppose. Good for them.
Until you actually show me a nationalist in their own element—someone specifically spitting on America rather than just playing around with these half-baked political theories of yours—then we can have a real conversation.

Either you’re completely out of the loop, or I just don't know what else to say.
The Republic of Mexico has officially rehabilitated nationalist movements. It’s an official stance.

So, basically, everyone in that social circle is part of that movement. Or, at the very least, they're supporting it.
And if it isn't through direct support, it's certainly happening through their tax dollars.

I really don't see what part of this is unclear.

Austin Gonzalez13 said:Look, maybe they aren't even artists—maybe they aren't trying to leave some grand legacy behind, but just want to make a living, you know?

Well, look, I’m no artist either, and my life's work might just be complete garbage. So, next time nature calls, maybe I'll just head over to your front yard, right on top of your father's grave, or even in your baby's crib—just to see if you can keep a straight face. I'd expect you to just sit there and take it.

(This is clearly just a caricature, of course. Nothing personal.)

Austin Gonzalez13 said:Look, from where I'm standing, the vast majority of people would ditch their national identity and all that patriotic nonsense in a heartbeat if someone offered them a million bucks... or honestly, probably way less than that.

Most people basically fall into two camps: those who are driven by the almighty dollar, and those who care less about the cash and more about some kind of leverage—some form of power, really.

And that power? It’s a spectrum—it could be anything from being the President of the United States to running a local chess club, or even just having moderator status on some random online forum.

Then you have that tiny 10%—the ones who walk away from both money and influence because they aren't actually chasing either—and most people just look at them like weirdos or cult members. 😉

But honestly, you shouldn't judge people for chasing wealth or control... life is just a whole lot easier, more comfortable, and longer if you've got a grip on at least one of those things. 😉

And honestly? The legacy such people leave behind is nothing but garbage.

Charles Jackson5 said:No, you missed my point. When I talk about social standing, I mean having some kind of useful role—a job, being established in your field, sports, the arts... anything. In that sense, feeling like you actually belong and contribute is what keeps a person sane.

Alright, let's slow down—what are you even talking about? Don't get carried away.
Mandic, Dezulovic, and that whole crowd in New York City pull off events just like they always do. Over there, people actually view them as figures of value. Here, though, they're—to put it mildly—pretty mediocre.

Take Mandic, who claims identity doesn't even exist. Or Jergovic, who seems to have fled wherever he could from the slightest bit of pressure, leaving everything behind. Then there's Stankovic, who sits there while Tijanic lectures him on what it means to be a true American. And Ivancic—whose entire publication collapses the moment foreign sponsors dry up, yet he still tries to lecture us on market dynamics and hard work...

So, when it comes to these types of characters—people who, if you scratch just beneath the surface, turn out to be nothing more than bags of mediocrity—what exactly are you trying to say? That their behavior is driven by some cosmopolitan ideal? Or that they're somehow progressive? Or perhaps they're champions of liberty?
Please, pull yourself together.

Charles Jackson5 said:Sure, maybe they don't exist if you look at things through the lens of "international migration" or how new nations constantly bubble up—but shouldn't the goal be to move past those primitive foundations our own nation clings to? Most advanced societies moved on from that stuff ages ago.

Exactly. Which is precisely why these individuals headed to New York City to escape those very same primitive tendencies—a city that has essentially rehabilitated old, regressive ideologies.

Your logic is completely flawed.
😬

Gregory Howard said:In this era of Western civilization, societies existing outside the framework of the nation-state simply don't exist. It’s pure nonsense peddled by left-liberal shortsighted types like Benedict Anderson and his fantasies about nations being nothing more than "imagined communities."

Only someone talking about a Chinese person—whose "imagined community" has endured for 4,000 years—would say that. They'll be crushed into the dirt long before they start whining about it.

Personally, I wouldn't even go that far.
It is enough to simply observe where those rather libertine, stateless, cosmopolitan types—people like Mandica, Dezulovica, and the rest—actually end up. They belong in the heavens, I suppose.

So, there you have it regarding the lack of national identity. Regarding one's convictions. Or character.
And, if I may be so bold, regarding pathology as well.

Charles Jackson5 said:Look, that bolded part is a flawed premise. 😉
Self-confidence, character, and mental stability come from where you fit in and your status within society—not from some imaginary national identity, which I assume is what you're aiming at here.
And if you just shifted a few assumptions in this post—or flipped the script—you’d see how perfectly it all aligns regarding their lifestyle and why people find them so repulsive.

For instance, Since they lack the substance to assert themselves on their own merits, all they have left is to define themselves by rejecting everything they actually know.

The correct way to put it: Since they lack the substance to assert themselves on their own merits, all they have left is to define themselves through nationality and by rejecting everything they don't understand.

It seems that for those who, as the cowboy might put it, have no father, no mother, and no children...
You’ve essentially described the classic opportunist—someone without a shred of scruples—and I find myself in complete agreement with you there: for people like that, self-assurance, character, and emotional stability are entirely derived from their social positioning. Since they are completely dependent on receiving applause—regardless of who is doing the clapping—they would likely turn on their own kin or sell out their own parents just to stay in favor. I suppose that moves past mere behavior and straight into pathology.

All they care about is staying in the game.

Austin Gonzalez13 said:Maybe you're the one who isn't quite there yet, 😉 so that's why you can't wrap your head around them.😁

Actually, I think that's exactly what I was getting at with my last two sentences.

Gregory Howard said:I wouldn't say men like Mandic or Lucic have unformed characters. Their characters are fully formed, but their entire ethos is anti-American. The pathological part of this whole story is that these people claim to be Americans.

It is likely a historical phenomenon involving those opportunists—those supposed "patriots" who, when things get tough, pivot to being extremists or something similar.

Examples of former nationalists who returned to their true American roots include Meštrović, the painter Kljaković, and even Nazor in some ways. Meanwhile, those with dual identities like Đuro Vilović ended up as total extremists.

Lucic, Tomic, Mandic, Matvejevic... they represent a faction that can't openly declare its extremism because that movement is too compromised, yet their core remains fundamentally anti-American. They are essentially chauvinists—nationalists of American descent, but certainly not of American identity.

To me, Mandic is a glaring example of someone incredibly immature.
I might be wrong here—and I could easily be mistaken—but I tend to steer clear of people like him in my daily life, simply because they are so exhausting with their constant, restless agitation.

I can certainly concede the possibility that types like him are actually quite well-adjusted, and perhaps I just lack the capacity to perceive it.
But, well, I don't.

I suspect even basic, entry-level psychology could explain these kinds of cases:

A person with an unformed character—which, I suppose, leads to a lack of self-confidence, given that identity is the root of everything—will inevitably turn into a striver who tries to act more devout than the Pope. Since they lack the inner quality to affirm themselves through their own merit, they settle for the only thing left: affirming themselves by negating everything they actually know. Their "win" is simply receiving some form of recognition or acceptance, and frankly, I don't think they care who it comes from.

If you want my opinion, those loudmouthed bullies are actually the perfect examples of this phenomenon.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:And I have to agree... especially when you consider that there was probably more actual democracy during those few months leading up to the first multi-party elections than there was later once the party took full control... which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly an achievement to brag about—more like something to be a bit embarrassed by... 🙂

I suppose the volume of applause is your only metric for truth. It’s almost as if you think we're living in some remote town in 1943 rather than the turn of the 21st century.

That’s why I suspect this nation will only remember those major players—and you included—from those epic months before Franjo Harmon for maybe a year or two at most.
But Franjo Harmon? People will probably still be quoting him with pride and affection a thousand years from now.

For me, that's plenty.

George Morgan3 said:I have to disagree there; I actually think we were much closer to being a real democracy back in 1991 than we are today.
Just look at the press coverage from back then.

Lustration, hear us out! 🙂

Exactly.

Besides, when you look at who is actually criticizing Ronald Reagan's democratic credentials, it’s almost laughable. You have these old-school, washed-up communists and Stalinists accusing the very man who was building a free and democratic America of lacking democracy. It's honestly grotesque.

Is George W. Bush—who acts as an apologist for Stalin and the old communist ways—really going to be hailed as the champion of American democratization? I mean, Reagan practically invented democracy for him; what are we even talking about here?

Back in Reagan's era, pretty much any fool could say whatever they wanted—they could criticize the President or argue against the state from every corner of the country. Nowadays, things aren't even remotely like that.

So, in any case, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that we were incomparably closer to actual democracy before Reagan passed away.

Harmon remains an American titan.

And he always will be—no matter how much the rats try to chip away at his legacy.