That's what his advisors told him, go argue with them about it. I'm not sure who this "we" is, but that whole event was a huge international embarrassment to the government of Pakistan.

Iraq is a case of hindsight being 20/20. There are clear missteps for many things for sure, like enhanced interrogation. Just as a comparison, before the 2012 Osama Bin Laden raid, Obama was advised that they had a stronger case for WMDs in Iraq than they had evidence of where Osama was. Right or wrong, calls have to be made. Beyond that, Iraq was a bipartisan act of Congress.

You're always bashing America and Americans here, what did you expect? Respect is a two way street. And apparently we can take it, whereas you wildlings have very delicate skin. All somebody has to do is look at you the wrong way and you bleed.

Either way, you can relax in your igloo and take solace with the knowledge that nobody is going to send you to space, nor is anybody going to take away your seal club. The wildling went there voluntarily, not by force. He wasn't allowed to take his seal club, which I understand that to you is traumatizing, a bit like somebody cutting your balls off, but when you're going to space, every gram matters, and he'll get it back when he lands. And don't worry, when he returns home, he can have all the maple syrup that your government allocates to him from your strategic maple reserve.

Having said all of that, and more to the point, precisely how has this harmed you that made you feel the need to come here and complain about it?

So you're complaining about something that doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Either that or you think wildlings are entitled to that money for some reason, even though they're not. The only connection you have to this whatsoever is America just sent the first wildling, ever, outside of the Earth's atmosphere, which entitles you to nothing.

It's a system of checks and balances. For example, how do you think we got rid of school prayer when the overwhelming majority of the country was in favor of it at the time? Because the constitution explicitly gave SCOTUS the power to do so. Not the voters, not the legislature.

Your king holds all of the checks. You're just relying on him to exercise restraint. You can't impeach him, and you can't veto him in any way.

So the only way to qualify as middle is to be able to afford two of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country? I tend to think "middle" or even "upper middle" would include a lot more than that.

And yours is a monarchy, with the closest thing to a constitution only being a charter that only guarantees any rights at all to barons and nobles, whose descendants to this day still hold their titles and rights from ages past. The only thing it promises, but does not guarantee to you, is a jury trial. You guys sentenced Markus Meecham to jail and a fine en banc, putting a felony conviction over his head making him unemployable, over a youtube comedy that didn't involve any kind of violence or threats. The only way he makes a living at all is because he's paid by an American company to entertain his viewers.

And for voting...well...you don't even get to vote for your German head of state, who is not just for life, but by birthright to each successive generation he begets. Your prime minister legally only acts in an advisory role, who your king has the power to veto.

Anyway, how is ol' Boris doing?

I know a lot more about this subject than you do, Pootin.

Who's anus did you felch this turdbit from?

https://x.com/spacex/status/18...

Unlike you, I'm a strong believer in giving credit where credit is due, regardless of what else I think about whoever it goes to.

Without Elon there's no SpaceX. Full stop. He bet everything on it twice. And unlike you, it hasn't received *any* federal government subsidies either. The ESA, NASA, Rocketlab, Blue Origin, and many others were essentially betting against the idea of reusability, the ESA in particular making fun of the idea in a press statement, and Elon in particular who was the only one in the industry pushing hard for it, not only to the engineers, but investors. The rest is history.

Shit in one hand, wish in the other, and see which one fills up with what you consider to be edible faster.

I'm sure that where you're from, that's exactly what would happen. I'd bet on it, even.

Effectively the argument is that by doing a split, you're going to reduce the market cap, which is total nonsense. In fact, usually the exact opposite happens after a split.

There's no rhyme or reason to this argument whatsoever. You guys are just fucking dumb.

The number of shares outstanding has zero relevance to that. What you're arguing falls entirely on trade volume. How are you supposed to increase trade volume if, as retardedsilvergun says, you're trying to keep the total number of shares outstanding to a minimum? That does exactly the opposite.

He's just one of many. Forcibly removing privacy from the internet, one service at a time.

Fuck collectivism.

That isn't even remotely how market capitalization works. Indeed, this statement alone is a QED that you have no idea whatever how to make investment decisions.

I've been working in this industry for over 3 years and we always refer to it as a "flight", as in "fly". Launch and liftoff just refer to specific phases of what is usually suborbital or orbital flight.