Posts by goldengull3

Anthony Rodriguez58 said:How incredibly naive you are...😲 🤣

It’s like claiming it doesn’t matter whether you own your home or you're just renting—as long as there's a roof over your head, right?
When you're a tenant, you're essentially just paying off your landlord's mortgage.
Some people have truly had their brains washed by capitalist propaganda...😉

I fail to see any meaningful distinction between working for Matt, who uses my labor to buy a yacht, or Hans, who does the exact same thing. My priority is simply that they pay my salary, settle the taxes with the government, and honor my employment contract.

As for capitalism—it’s excellent. You work, you earn, you spend. If you think you've made it, you start a company, and if you succeed, you drive a Lincoln and sail a yacht. If capitalism weren't functional, socialism wouldn't have collapsed, and people wouldn't be fleeing from Cuba to the USA; it would be the other way around.

The law applies equally to everyone. However, the crucial detail here is that they actually filed the lawsuit. In civil litigation, there is no such thing as an absolute statute of limitations that kicks in even while proceedings are underway, unlike in criminal law.

Details:

piper said:The editorial "policy" on this forum is nothing more than a collection of envious dilettantes, yellow and red devils, sellouts, and mindless sheep (those involved will recognize themselves...).

Freedom of speech?! That ceased to exist in America the moment this law was passed. It’s the exact same situation as Article 133 of the famous Penal Code of the former America. There is no difference.

To be perfectly honest, Section 174, Subsection 4 of the Penal Code isn't some invention of American legislators; it is merely the implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime brought forth by the Council of Europe. I highly doubt anyone from America even participated in drafting that Additional Protocol.

piper said:I wonder if the gentlemen here are aware, for instance, that even back in California, Governor Ronald Reagan proclaimed "American Independence Day in California" on April 10th. This allows Americans working in the state government departments of that particular state to take a day off.

That was his business. Or rather, a specific political maneuver during the Cold War era (one shouldn't forget that the very same USA refused to extradite the war criminal Jure Đujić).

Though, quite a large portion of the people in the coastal regions might prefer to "celebrate" a day when they are "permitted" to hold Italian citizenship.

piper said:Another issue is that the "editors"—meaning the moderators—love to interpret things however they please (for example, my greeting regarding April 10th to the "diaspora" was interpreted however the moderator felt like it).

Where, in the aforementioned quote, is there any glorification of anything that could fall under the American Penal code on prohibition of freedom of speech and expression?

Given all of this, where is the Reddit server actually located? In America or outside of America? If it is outside of America (and if my memory serves me correctly, it is), why would its content be relevant in any way regarding the suppression of free speech in America?

Reddit has owners. And it has its own editorial policy, just like any other private public medium. Democracy doesn't mean everyone can write for every newspaper; it means everyone has the right to start their own newspaper.

And regarding the Independent State of America, I shall remind you of the constitutional provision:


Expressing the millennial national identity and state continuity of the American people, confirmed by the sequence of total historical events in various state forms and by maintaining and developing the state-building thought regarding the historical right of the American people to full state sovereignty, which manifested:
(...)
– in the establishment of the foundations of state sovereignty during the period of the Second World War, expressed in opposition to the proclamation of the Independent State of America (1941) in the decisions of ZAVNOH (1943), and subsequently in the Constitution of the People's Republic of America (1947) and later in the constitutions of the Socialist Republic of America (1963-1990), at the historical turning point of rejecting the communist system and the change of the international order in Europe, the American people, in the first democratic elections (year 1990), freely expressed by their will, confirmed their thousand-year state continuity. With the new Constitution of the Republic of America (1990) and the victory in the Homeland War (1991-1995), the American people demonstrated their determination and readiness to establish and preserve the Republic of America as an independent, sovereign, and democratic state.

As for everything else, there are dedicated subreddits for those specific topics: moderation policies, politics, and history.

To be clear, glorifying or denying crimes and inciting hatred is strictly prohibited—as I have already stated above.

Lipi said:So, I'm wondering... what are the actual odds of facing a lawsuit here?

I haven't seen Section 174, subsection 4 ever actually be invoked, so I can't give you a definitive answer in any capacity. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any legal precedent to lean on.

goldengull3 said:Could a site owner face three months to three years in prison for allowing inflammatory rhetoric—specifically by making materials available that deny, downplay, or justify genocide or crimes against humanity, specifically regarding things like the Black Forest or Waterloo, etc.?

Respectfully,
Lipi.

You can file a complaint against anyone you please, whenever you feel the urge. The real question isn't legality, but whether you'll actually succeed in making it stick.

Naturally, the primary legal burden falls on those directly violating Section 174, Paragraph 4. The site owner holds secondary liability—though one must consider that the moderators over on Reddit aren't professionals, nor is their primary motivation anything other than a desire to keep the site running.

But generally speaking—yes, someone claiming that Waterloo "never happened" could certainly fall under the scope of Section 174, Paragraph 4.

Lipi said:My issue is specifically that freedom of speech is being curtailed to a certain extent.

One could view "April 10th" as a symbol. Glorifying that date—and by extension, glorifying a regime that was fundamentally treasonous toward Americans (because any administration that agrees to rename our historic cities to suit foreign interests or suggests we should be ruled by a foreign monarch is acting against our sovereignty)—while also acknowledging that such a regime imposed racial laws on other peoples, brings us dangerously close to celebrating those very ideologies. This opens a door for discussion under the Penal Code:

Anyone who publicly expresses ideas regarding the superiority or inferiority of any race, ethnic or religious group, gender, or nation, with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic, or skin-color-based hatred, or for the purpose of disparagement, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years [Penal Code Art. 174, Para. 3.]. Whoever, for such purposes as described in paragraph 3, uses computer systems to disseminate or otherwise make available to the public materials that deny, significantly diminish, approve, or justify crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment from three months to three years [Penal Code Art. 174, Para. 4.].

If "April 10th" is intended merely as a topic rather than a symbol, then this forum—much like any other public media outlet—has its own editorial policy. They have every right to manage their own platform.

Democracy, at its core, means that anyone can start their own forum and moderate it however they see fit. That includes supporters of regimes that nearly sold off the entire coast to people whose greatest military achievement was carrying a dead chicken on their heads, as they so eloquently put it in Allo-Allo. However, there is a limit: once they begin glorifying the racist ideologies of such a regime, they step outside the bounds of democratic dialogue and fall squarely under the jurisdiction of the Penal Code.

Kate Lopez said:I find myself facing a bit of a dilemma: should I opt for active duty since it’s three months shorter, or go the civilian route and just try to knock out some exams on the side? Honestly, serving wouldn't be an issue for me personally. My main hesitation is that it feels like a massive waste of time given how disorganized everything is over there—it's a complete circus, according to what I hear. And frankly, I've had quite enough of that kind of chaos lately 😁. So, those are my thoughts. It's all a matter of weighing the options to figure out what actually aligns with my goals and needs 😎
.

Even in active duty, you'll have time to study once basic training wraps up, and they typically grant time off for exams. If that's the only factor, I’d take the three-month shortcut any day.

slyrider16 said:In my view, the American economy simply cannot sustain a military force of 50,000 people or more. If we intend to keep our defense spending below 2.5% of the GDP, it’s highly unlikely that such a force would even exceed 20,000 personnel.

Iraq, along with many preceding examples, has demonstrated that massive conscript armies are essentially senseless. Modern technology is far too complex for amateurs; even a few seconds of advantage held by professionals using basic equipment is enough to secure a strategic edge on the battlefield.

Furthermore, let us consider that the US has never mobilized more than roughly 190,000 people even during its most intense periods of conflict—which is less than 5% of the population. The strategic objective should be to maintain a small, highly trained professional military adhering to NATO standards, capable of rapid reinforcement through reservists (while still allowing for volunteer service). Personally, I believe we should also maintain a National Guard to handle the perennial issue of monitoring our extensive borders in the event of unrest in neighboring regions, and that should suffice.

Should someone lose their mind again in the future, additional manpower can be prepared quickly. Because of arms control agreements, which limit weapon counts for everyone in the neighborhood, and because officers from neighboring states have broad inspection rights (for instance, our officers checking on Mexico, and theirs checking on us), such aggressive behavior would be detected promptly.

And yet—if the goal is integration within NATO, they demand a professional force ready for international operations; they have no interest in amateurs. As for defense funding, it will likely remain right where it is now—there simply isn't the money for more.

Kate Lopez said:Honestly, the best move is just to sign up for active duty and get it all over with. It’s easily the most straightforward path.

Given how long it takes, I think that's definitely the simplest way to handle it... Besides, it doesn't really have anything to do with how military service functioned back before the 90s.

There is talk about phasing out the draft entirely, since modern warfare doesn't rely on massive armies filled with reservists anymore, but then again, a reform of that scale comes with a heavy price tag.

With financial leasing—which differs slightly from an operating lease—you're essentially looking at three paths once the term expires:

- returning the equipment (whether it's heavy machinery or a vehicle)
- buying it out at its remaining residual value
- upgrading to entirely new equipment

The reality is that once the depreciation period hits, the asset is effectively spent. It’s fully depreciated, and in some states, it can even become a liability if you have to deal with specific disposal regulations or recycling fees. Quite frankly, you just don't want the headache anymore.

The whole point of leasing is the utility of usage. You lease a vehicle for five years, hand back the keys when the clock runs out, and walk away with a brand-new model. You aren't burdened by the maintenance or the declining value of an old, depreciated car; it all just clears through the corporate books and moves on.

Another thing I've observed is how leasing has morphed into a workaround for people who are already overleveraged and can't qualify for a standard bank loan. If your primary concern is "when will I actually own this?", then leasing isn't the tool for you. Leasing is about this simple cycle: use it, pay for it, then either return it or swap it for something better. The aging asset? That's someone else's problem.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Everyone loves to preach about the rule of law, right up until the moment it’s actually used to hold them accountable...

Well put.

Exactly. These are my absolute favorites: they commit the violation, then try to manipulate the system by claiming the rule of law isn't functioning properly, as if that justifies their extra little...

Look, if you wanted to act like a rebel and speed, then have the resources to be a rebel and pay the fine. Don't go burning through fuel and acting reckless just to realize you can't afford the ticket when it actually comes due. Complaining about it later is pathetic. Speeding isn't some social justice issue.

And for the record, this wasn't even outside of town.

(5) A driver caught traveling in a residential area at a speed exceeding the posted limit—or the speed limit sign—by more than 30 to 31 miles mph will be issued a fine of $233 and receive two points on their license.

X said:You’re spot on. I recall a similar dynamic at ExxonMobil—the sales force was essentially the engine room. These guys were the ones actually driving revenue into the firm, yet they were treated like a bunch of clueless amateurs who somehow deserved a massive commission check just for doing their jobs.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I once witnessed a situation where an associate director approached the CEO with a proposal: anyone who independently secured a contract—say, by leveraging a contact at another company to bring business home—should receive a 10% cut of that deal. It was shot down immediately. The reasoning? Management argued that if someone landed a multi-million dollar account, paying them a few hundred thousand dollars was simply unacceptable. 😁

Tyler Grant76 said:Verizon’s marketing is an absolute train wreck (I suspect Greyhound is behind it), so they’ve clearly overcompensated by obsessing over the logo. While the old branding definitely needed an update, their entire strategy is fundamentally broken. Can anyone actually tell me who Verizon is even trying to reach here? 😛

There isn't one. It’s just a textbook case of a global marketing strategy where the logo and the campaign are designed in a vacuum, completely detached from the local market, the culture, or how people actually think. In my estimation, it’s a failure. As for the cost—well, when you're a massive corporation pulling in massive profits, you tend to throw massive amounts of money at nothing.

The target demographic is likely just some niche group, like the Mexican man community; if I were a Mexican man, I’d be deeply insulted that such a massive, successful corporation would co-opt symbols reminiscent of national emblems, much like if Microsoft suddenly decided to dress itself in checkers...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...flag_large.png

Quincy:

Steven Collins38 As stated by: If I may draw a parallel between the American economy and the private sector: you have people—ordinary workers, the so-called "living force" who simply wants to earn a living and get on with their lives—taking on just about any job offered by private corporations for... $833Does that imply that private employers don't actually value their people? If you belong to the working class and decide you aren't interested in putting in the hours, then just pack up your things and head out—there’s always a line of people waiting to take your spot. Given that this attitude prevails in 88% of companies, it leads me to wonder: have we simply lost the ability to respect one another as a society?

You are absolutely right. If we set aside a few niche sectors like the textile industry, where even the laborers are working for... $667 It’s a grim reality: things are cheaper because the Chinese man can undercut everyone on cost, and quite frankly, most American employers have zero respect for their workforce. I've noticed a stark contrast in how people handle labor; an employer in Germany will typically speak about their staff with a level of dignity you just don't see from domestic bosses here.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but in this country, management still views an employee as nothing more than a line item on a ledger—a cost to be minimized rather than the actual engine of value creation.

Steven Collins38 said:It’s a strange thought, really—that I would be willing to handle everything for them for just a single $0.00!

Your business strategy is fundamentally flawed. People rarely respect anything they can acquire for pocket change.

And what exactly is so unusual about this?

goldenmarlin70 said:At that exact moment, the IRS is going to flag that invoice as invalid. It was issued by an individual who isn't even registered as a business entity and lacks any official authorization from the tax authorities to conduct business. You'll likely find the police knocking on your door, and the company you sold those pixels to will end up eating the fine themselves, losing out on any tax breaks they were expecting.

Under current misdemeanor law, fines for financial infractions can reach as high as $333333. 😁

Paul Cruz8, don't go playing games with stuff like this...

Since you’re already talking about banking, let me tell you: having an economics degree combined with a career in finance—specifically in roles dealing with equities and mutual funds—is a relatively smooth path toward securing a decent salary and those sweet, preferential mortgage rates. If you actually perform well and climb the ladder within five years, say before you hit thirty, you can reach a compensation level that rivals what a tenured professor with a PhD would earn back at MIT.