It is retarded but there's also a reason why they do it. There's the cost of making the movie, vs the cost of marketing it. The pre marketing budget gives a better idea of the production value. Even a garbage movie can have a 500m budget theoretically.
Which is hilarious because a) he didn't see the first one then b) doesn't realize they aren't hair. The left is retarded. But it's hilarious how in 1990 movie is bad because the monster looks like a black guy and in 2025 movie is bad unless the monster looks like a bad guy. Different sides of the faggotry coin.
What about me who is a current supporter and still thinks he's fucking some things up?
Also they advertised the shit out of this movie. I was thinking the other day that I never see movie ads anymore so I never know what's in theaters but this movie was the exception..I've seen no less than 30 ads for it.
For some reason Hollywood doesn't factor in advertising into the budget. Basically, "budget" figures factor in production but not advertising, distribution, or theater royalties. So the general rule of thumb for action flicks is take the budget and double it, and that's how much money they actually spent/will spend on a theatrical run.
70% of Hollywood movie producers are jews. Putting the pieces together is candy and levels of difficulty.
I've seen puff pieces that it's BETTER than the GOATed original movie with Arnie. These people are either deranged or liars.
Also, can we all just admit the new predator is basically just a leftoid attempt to make a "black" (African) predator?
The tendrils now grow on top of his head.not on his crown? And he has brown skin not the yellow green DBZ cell skin, and he has dad issues, and is unironically voiced by a black dude. Come on. That's Black Predator. And they're truing to gaslight us by saying it's not.
I'll watch that shit for free on someone's bummed Disney plus account.
No, friend. I can read, but you'd be amazed how many people actually struggle with communicating effectively.
Reread your posts. You never explicitly state "my proposal is X"
You have explained how the system works You have explained what you don't like about it But you have not yet once put forward an idea. Maybe your communication style is very indirect and sort of beating-around-the-bush. Maybe you expect me to infer what you mean from the various things you have said but that generally leads to misunderstandings when assumptions don't match expectations.
Or, maybe you don't actually have a proposal so you're being deliberately nebulous and vague.
Even when I've articulated what I think your proposal might be and asked you to confirm if I guessed correctly, you haven't said "yes, that is my proposal" or "no, that is not my proposal". You don't even play hot.or cold with me.
So yeah, I'm perplexed.
That shanaka guy is annoying word salad. The solution isn't in buzzwords. The solution is get rid of assholes on power and go back to cash. Honestly. It fucking worked. It was legit when your granny would mail you a birthday card with a $20 bill in it. Or your grandpa would slip you some cash at a family reunion when you got him a beer from the cooler.
Cashless is fake, gay, and lame.
It's no fun swiping 1s and 0s to a stripper.
A Jew asking to brrrrrrr money for his company. What can go wrong? This has never fucked over nations to benefit a few Jews before.
Buddy, with all respect, you are not an effective communicator.
Yeah you have said probably a dozen times that the lenders take no risk because it's government backed. I get that.
What I don't get what I have asked you numerous times is what is YOUR proposal.
How about this start your proposal with the words "My proposal is" and then go from there.
An example of a non-answer would be "my proposal is lenders currently take no risk" you see what I mean?
So is your proposal that the government gives loans directly to borrowers? Is your proposal that banks continue to be the lenders but that they don't charge interest? Are you in favor of some alternative profit mechanism to interest? Like a flat fee? How would your proposal handle late payments? How would your proposal handle defaulting? Repossession?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing ANY alternative idea to the current system but so far you haven't provided one. You've only stated what you dislike about the current system.
Man, I'm not sure if you and me just communicate in very different ways. "We already have that system in place?" ... Are you referring to your ideal, proposed system?
Or Is your proposal that if banks loans are gov backed, that they merely take the principal divided by 360 (the number of months in thirty years) and voila that's your mortgage payment each month? EX: a $360,000 home, 30 year loan, 360 payments of $1,000 ?
Is that your proposal. No interest for the borrower, and no profit for the lender?
Okay then my apologies but maybe I am missing your answer. My question: what is your proposal for people who don't have cash on hand equal to the full value of the listed price?
What exactly is your answer?
Yeah it's funny because I'm in my thirties and still look relatively young. Haven't got fat, keep in shape, not balding. But I still feel like I'm perceived as super old when I talk to young adults/teens. Like bro I can easily outrun you and out pull up you, you ain't it. I seldom ever approach them unless its the mentors at my kids extracurriculars (coaches and stuff for the littles). Hopefully the boys figure / have figured out their stuff.
No, I'm not pretending anything. I'm literally just trying to hear you out and I'm asking you questions that I'm genuinely interested in hearing your answers. I think the problem is you have incorrectly assumed I'm acting in bad faith.
Would you mind answering my questions, please?
That's a series of questions, but not an answer. I can infer, but I'd like you to actually explain the alternative? Just, take the purchase price and divide it by 360 and call it a day? And what if they miss a payment, or don't pay it off in 360 months? Interest controls for all of that.
I agree that some of their risk measures are redundant, like PMI in case you can't pay the mortgage, but they can also simply repo the house if you don't pay, what is the point of both?
That said, what is your alternative to them charging interest? What if someone wants to buy a home but doesn't have the funds to pay in full. What then?
Does that mean if the principal is $100, the bank can charge $20? (100+20)
Or does it mean the bank can charge $120? (100+120)
Genuinely asking.
And under what circumstances?
People already do this. They take out a thirty year loan, and a decade later they refinance for another thirty years, wash rinse repeat. This is just removing the extra steps. Do you know how many boomers bought their homes in the late 80s/90s and STILL have 10, 20 years left on their mortgage? Homes that they bought ~30 years ago? It's insane.
I want to agree but it also is the homeowner CHOOSING to take three decades to pay it off.
So for the benefit of taking a third of a century, that's the cost.
Keep in mind you are not forced to take the full 30 years. You can pay it off earlier. It really is a restriction on the lender not on the borrower. The borrower can take out a 30 yr mortgage and pay it off in 12 months if they were inclined and able.
Let's say it wasn't a percent. What if the agreement was, you can take up to thirty years to pay off the loan, but so long as the principal hasn't been paid, every month I charge you a flat fee of $X. Would that be acceptable?
Amortization tables can be done for free in one minute on a hundred websites. It's not voodoo. Anyone can do it. We either need to accept that borrowers are responsible for their actions OR decide some people are too fucking stupid to take out debt and also rescind their voting rights, driving privileges, among other things. But we can't have a system where an individual can vote and drink and drive and smoke and own an AR-15, but CANT be expected to understand a the terms of a fucking mortgage.
re those quotes from the recent movie?
It's like people who have twenty guns they never shoot vs someone who has two.guns they shoot religiously. One likes to shoot guns. The other likes to collect guns.
Same. All roads lead back to them.
Criticize state building or regime change, somehow you hate Israel.
Criticize pornography, why do you hate Jews?
African rapes a white girl, headline "How this impacts the New Jersey Jewish community"
Jews do the same shady, unethical, nepotistic shit as Indians and other non white groups. The ONLY reason they are successful as they are vs other groups is because they BLEND IN with white people so they use the smartest, most powerful, most trusting, most ethical group of people as cover for their own shiftiness. Other groups can't do this.
I have been respectful, please reciprocate.
I promise you, it is not a comprehension issue. It is a "I have done this a million times, and sometimes assuming, even when it is obvious, leads to mis-assumptions" and I do my very best to avoid any miscommunication. It's one of those damned if you do (guess wrong), damned if you don't (your insult earlier).
Anyway, thank you. It sounds like were getting somewhere.
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?