Posts by Linda Hughes88

Why the hell did I even bother getting up this early? Is it actually going to be worth it?...

frozentiger6 said:Mark Spitz is easily one of the greatest swimmers to ever hit the water

Americans don't have a ton of legendary athletes, but man, they sure do have the absolute GOAT when it comes to winning big... I mean, 7 gold medals in a single Olympics is just insane!🙏 🙏 🙏

I'd love to pull off something like that myself too...🙏

wearygardener13 said:Man, Larry Thomas just keeps recycling those same old, busted-up tactics from the old country... 😬

Go ahead and weigh in on the soap situation... that’s right up your alley...😬

Brandon Castillo4 said:So what's the move now? Are we supposed to go out there and do something legendary just so the world remembers us? Why all this sudden gloominess? Just because we finally pulled it off, we're gonna start overthinking everything and digging our own graves?...

Hell no! I mean, just winning against the Mexicans is a massive deal on its own...

wanderingscout13 said:Whether we win or lose this one game against the Mexicans, we’ll both be feeling it... but honestly, the world only really cares if we actually take home the gold. That’s what makes history, you know? Adding another major sport to the list where we’re absolute world champions... taking silver is great and all, but people move on from that so fast. Besides, our water polo guys have already finished as runners-up three times at the big tournaments...

Look man, the rest of the world couldn't care less about water polo. It's just us, the Mexicans, the Canadians, and the Mexicans obsessed with it. Maybe the Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians keep an eye on it now and then, but everyone else? They don't give a damn...

:klap: 👋 🎉
huge props to the guys! especially Rudi... he was absolutely killing it out there today!!

What are we even doing to them🙏 🙏 🙏
Those guys look like total amateurs compared to our squad, just making mistakes and coughing up the ball everywhere
and all this hype about how strong they actually are...

13-3 🤔
🙏

I’m really just praying we see a massive police presence out in the stands and all over the city... and honestly, I'm hoping the Chief of Police totally screws the pooch on this one...

Look, I’m just sticking to the topic at hand here. You’re the one going off on tangents... In that first post, you brought up stuff that just doesn't make any sense if you use common sense, and that's all I was calling out.

Another thing—since you wanted to bring it up—is how much oil actually matters. Sure, it’s huge, but that doesn't really change the conversation we're having because, let's be real, anyone can just go out and buy it on the open market. If you've got the cash, you get the oil. It's that simple.

When Stiglitz talks about the actual cost of the war, he's factoring in everything from insurance to healthcare and all that extra stuff too.

Nancy Hall4 said:Here he goes again. So you calculated based on just one single year, claiming a loss of roughly 45 billion—which is more or less accurate if we assume two million barrels, though I have my doubts about that number too—and then you jumped into an argument with boldgardener93, who claimed a staggering 300 billion over a four-year span. It’s not like oil production only happened in 2006, nor is it going to suddenly stop tomorrow, right? You're comparing apples to oranges and just muddying the waters here.
If you actually have the full figures, why not just lay them out? Not even for my sake, but for the sake of clarity.

See, this is what happens when people don't actually read for comprehension. Obviously those weren't exact figures, because that wasn't even the point. I was just trying to show that the math used in the original post doesn't hold water, which is exactly what I did. And that 175 billion figure you threw out? It's wrong again. The actual number is much lower, like, significantly lower...
And we're talking about the price of the oil produced in Iraq. Since Iraq has its own national oil company, the revenue isn't even that high, let alone the actual profit.

So, if we look at Stiglitz's estimate—where the cost of the war isn't just what Congress approves, measured in hundreds of billions, but includes all the other stuff too—then we're looking at total costs exceeding 2 trillion dollars...
So go ahead, do the math and tell me how many years it'll take them to finally break even.

Nancy Hall4 said:But look, we aren't even debating what the actual price was back then—neither you nor I are making claims about historical reality here. We just simplified the math using hypothetical numbers based entirely on your own logic:

If you're just trying to be difficult, please stop grasping at straws to save face. Instead of muddying the waters and trying to act brilliant with unverifiable figures, why not just admit when the math doesn't track? Honestly, I couldn't care less.

Wait, I'm the one trolling???? You've got it all wrong! I was calculating for 2006, when the average price of oil was actually right around $60. That definitely doesn't apply to the whole four-year stretch.
So, quit acting like you know everything!

Nancy Hall4 said:Honestly, I don't have enough on hand to really dive deep into this one. I mean, I haven't even got a clue how much longer they actually intend to stay stationed there. And then you have to consider all those ripple effects, right? Like, how much is high oil pricing actually squeezing China and India, and is it starting to put a real dent in their economic growth? Or how much does a conflict like this pump up the military-industrial complex, or how much do shifting oil prices mess with the profitability of alternative energy sources and new tech? There are just so many layers to peel back here.

you're acting like you've got all the facts when you're just basing everything on oil being sixty bucks a barrel for the next four years...

nimbletinker3 said:What do you think? Are Americans just going to flip raw crude on the market, or sell refined products like gasoline, diesel, kerosene, oils, and paraffin at a massive markup?

Look, if you're just starting out, maybe take a quick look at where American oil companies actually pull their crude from and what those percentages even look like...

boldgardener93 said:My only real wish is for Americans to tuck their tails between their legs and pull out of Iraq.
I have no clue what comes next, but what we're seeing right now is beyond horrific.
And the whole justification for the invasion was Saddam's weapons, wasn't it?

Look, I am seriously not in the mood to jump into yet another thousandth debate about Iraq, I'm just totally over it.
I was just pointing out how those figures and conclusions in that article were completely off base. Profit means actual earnings, period. And if you just do some super basic math, even the oil revenue from these last four years couldn't possibly hit those numbers. Let's say the average price of oil back in 2006 was $60. You multiply that by the number of days and say, roughly 2 million barrels a day, and you aren't walking away with more than 45 billion. And keep in mind, oil prices were way lower three or four years ago. So, the revenue isn't even anywhere near that massive figure, let alone actual profit. Plus, any oil companies working in Iraq are only grabbing a slice of that pie anyway...

And your final calculation doesn't hold water either. American taxpayers have poured way more than 150 billion dollars into this war in Iraq. Way, way more.
Some people ran the numbers years ago suggesting the total cost of the war would top 2 trillion dollars...

boldgardener93 said:Glad you're on the same page.😬
The exact numbers don't even have to be perfect; the big picture has been obvious for a long time now. I guess some people just need it spelled out for them, but what can you really do?

It’s not that they aren't precise, it's that the entire foundation is built wrong from the ground up. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part.

That source you found is top-tier, and honestly, the math behind it is even better... plus, that comment is just absolute gold!

northernheron97 said:The whole situation is a complete mess, and what’s truly frustrating is that when you talk to Russians, about 90% of them support Putin simply because they want Russia to appear "strong" and able to stand up to the USA—they couldn't care less about democracy. In their entire thousand-year history, they've probably only experienced true democracy for maybe two or three years total, appearing and disappearing just as quickly.
The Russians themselves are just unfortunate; they don't seem to realize the kind of country they're living in, though as individuals, they are wonderful people. I actually find myself liking Russians more than Westerners sometimes.

Today's Russian 30-somethings and older grew up in the former USSR which was massive and powerful, regardless of the fact that life wasn't exactly easy... They were a major player in the World, and that gave them a sense of pride, you know? Nothing happened without Soviet approval. Along with the USA, they were the only superpower in the World.
Well, then the USSR collapsed along with the entire Eastern Bloc and that former giant turned into a dwarf... just an insignificant factor in international relations. Just imagine what that did to the average Russian's ego... Someone who was used to the whole world looking at their nation with fear and respect is going to have a hard time dealing with that fall from grace and losing that elite superpower status. They became just another ordinary nation, one among many...
Then comes Putin, who capitalizes on energy market shifts that happen to favor Russia, and boom, there's Russia's rise again. He messes with American foreign policy a bit, gives Finn and those foreign oil companies some grief, and suddenly the old glory is back. So how could the average Russian—who looks back on those times with such nostalgia—not love him?
Even today, Stalin is still a favorite for many Russians. Like, 40% of Russians see him as a positive figure. And the reason they give is simply because they were big and powerful back then. So, it really shouldn't be a surprise why Putin's popularity is so high...

Just like every other massive historical epic from the fifties and sixties, this thing is packed with way too much dialogue that just drags on and on... It’s always the same setup, too, where they end up stuck in some dim, shadowy room, just a guy and a girl alone—usually because they're head over heels for each other—and then you're forced to sit through thirty minutes of pure conversational hell...
It’s basically the exact same story whether you're watching Ben Hur or the Fall of the Roman Empire... just different settings, really...
Nah, I think a little scrap is actually good, you know? It really forces everything out into the open...

It’s like everyone just forgets that the Spaniards played this entire game without their two heavy hitters... I mean, how does it work out so they get to rest their stars while we’re expected to run our guys into the ground? We’ve never had such a packed schedule in our lives. Honestly, it feels like Lino doesn't even have a real game plan for managing the rotation... He should be resting them now so we could actually clinch some wins and put together a massive 10-game winning streak instead...

Man, we actually pulled it off! Hopefully this one doesn't come back to haunt us later... It honestly wasn't a bad way to play it in the end. The absolute worst-case scenario would have been getting blown out by a huge margin while our star players were running themselves ragged on the court... which is exactly what we needed to stay competitive. After those five-point leads the Spaniards held, they couldn't even find a single fast break to capitalize on, and man, that transition game is usually their bread and butter. Once you get caught in their grind, things go south fast. I gotta give it to the Spaniards though, their tactical math was pretty obvious from a mile away...