Posts by Roger Robinson682

Terry Lopez45 said:Aleksija, if you’re looking into fascism in the North America—there is an entire thread in that crazy place called "Stormfront Mexico." Though, to be fair, it functions more as this fascist-Nazi hybrid than pure fascism, it still stands as the second largest expression of it in the region. The first is the Royalist Ravnogorski movement.

And if you’re looking for the Muslim equivalent to Stormfront, maybe take a little peek at Islambosna. It’s essentially the same logic, the same way of thinking... I guess it all follows the same pattern.🙂 🙂

stormymarlin90 said:In this so-called Federation, there aren't enough little pacifists claiming to be Americans just so the American Matica can play nice with our friendly, anti-fascist Canadian neighbors.

Now, this is certainly interesting...

According to you, within this so-called Federation, there live—and I quote—"not enough little troublemakers of supposedly Catholic faith," whom you claim aren't actually Americans, yet in the very next breath, you suggest their American Matica should adjust its relations. Wouldn't you say you're being a bit of a contradictory expert here? If they aren't truly Americans, how could the American Matica possibly be their guiding institution? 🙄

And honestly, moderators, if you don't consider this an insult, then I really don't know what does. My faith isn't "supposed" nor is it "troublemaking"...🙄 🙄

Scott Sanders2 said:I suppose we’re just waiting to see how this all unfolds, though history suggests we've seen this pattern before...

Olivia Turner49 It seems like there isn't any content provided to rewrite... if you give me the text, I'll get to work on it... I wonder when exactly the "Sieg Heil" salute first emerged, and then there's that other one, "Sieg Heil"... The issue is that Sieg Heil is tied exclusively to Nazism because people claim Goebbels invented it... on the other hand, "Sieg Heil" is a slogan used by movements that predated Nazism by nearly a century...

I have a feeling we haven't quite understood one another...
The "hand salute" is an old gesture that goes back centuries, so when people argue about when exactly things were "invented," it honestly doesn't change much... what really matters is the intent behind the symbolism. I can't just sit here and downplay the weight of a Swastika or a specific salute by claiming they were ancient and neutral once upon a time. You and I might both feel it's unfair for a certain ideology to hijack neutral symbols and force a completely different meaning onto them, but we have to be objective and admit that when someone uses that kind of rhetoric, they aren't doing it because they think the greeting is neutral, but because of the heavy symbolism standing right behind it...

I suppose we're just waiting to see how this all unfolds...

Then again, people might try to link "Sieg Heil" to the swastika... but the swastika is just an ancient, well-known symbol that's been around for ages, originally representing something positive, like prosperity or some such thing... There’s an old tradition involving the swastika that goes back way before the era of Nazi Germany, yet somehow, nobody seems to grasp its actual history... everyone just immediately links it to the Third Reich...

In Germany, they definitely understand the history behind the swastika and when it was originally conceived, but under that symbol, millions of civilians lost their lives, and whether you like it or not, that swastika ended up carrying the entire weight of Nazism... I don't know about you, but whenever I see a swastika, my mind goes straight to Nazism, even though I’m fully aware it’s an ancient symbol that just became synonymous with that regime... It's much more "problematic" than, say, a Celtic cross or something similar, because symbols like this one or "Sieg Heil" have such a specific, heavy legacy...

So, is "Sieg Heil" inherently bad or not... greetings. For the uneducated, it’s definitely bad, but for someone more educated, it feels more like a neutral historical marker...

So, just figure out how people actually perceive it—whether they truly grasp where that sign originated from—and you'll have your answer as to whether it's a good or bad omen...

I don't think there's any point in debating whether a symbol is "good" or not, rather we should be looking at what that symbol actually represents... Many people tend to underestimate the sheer weight of symbolism, or perhaps they just prefer to play dumb, though I'm certainly not suggesting you're doing that...

Does that mean we should start a global petition to ban the swastika simply because the Nazis misappropriated it? Should we go after Hindus and Buddhists and forbid them from using the symbol just because, well, the Nazis used it too? It seems a bit much to argue that its ancient history somehow negates how it's viewed now just because of that misuse.🙄🙄🙄

I suppose you just head over to YouTube, find whatever movie happens to catch your eye, and then you’ll need to open up the YouTube Downloader, which usually sits right there in your Google Chrome status bar. A little window should pop up, and you'll see a button labeled "download link." Once you click that, you can save the file directly to your hard drive. After the download finishes, you'll have to track down where you saved it and manually change the file extension at the end to ".flv." To actually watch the thing, though, you're going to need to install an "flv player," which you can probably find right here....................😬😬

http://www.download.com/Riva-FLV-Pla...-10435953.html

urbanbadger29 said:I'm not really sure what's going on, but for some reason, I can't seem to get keepvid.com to load... I think I heard someone mention there might be a specific program for this? I could really use a solution pretty quickly, if possible. 🙏

Well, if you have Google Chrome installed, you could just grab the YouTube Downloader extension, and then you should be all set to handle it right here............

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2390

Taylor Campbell4 said:I was scrolling through The New York Times today when an article by Ivanka Rimac caught my eye—it covers an interview an Arab TV station conducted with two young Palestinians, children of a woman who carried out a suicide attack.

Now, sure, that’s a headline that grabs attention, and I get why they want those clicks, but just like so many times before, this kind of reporting pulls facts out of context. It misleads anyone who isn't deeply familiar with the situation, and honestly, news outlets shouldn't be presenting stories this way.

This piece fits right into that media narrative that paints Palestinians solely as terrorists. While global media has started to shift its perspective lately, the US—much like in so many other areas—is still lagging behind. For a long time, the world reported on these conflicts using models like, "Israelis retaliate following a Palestinian suicide bomber," which is incredibly one-sided and flat-out wrong. It completely ignores the broader reality: that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories, and these people have been living in what feels like a concentration camp for decades—denied the ability to go to work, see a doctor, or even attend school. But you don't hear much about that, do you?

Coming back to this specific article: the writer focuses on how "shocking" the interview is, claiming these kids are being taught to harbor hatred and that they actually boast about their mother killing five Israelis.

What really bothers me is that Ivanka Rimac didn't include any of the surrounding details that would have provided a complete picture.

For instance, she failed to mention that
- over 60% of Palestinian schoolchildren in the occupied territories suffer from PTSD (!!) - which obviously has massive consequences, though I wonder if most readers even know what PTSD entails. It's the same story with everything else:
- there is absolutely zero mention of the horrific, camp-like conditions within the occupied Palestinian territories.
- there's no mention of how Israeli authorities block humanitarian organizations from delivering aid and medicine, creating massive hurdles where groups are forced to pay exorbitant fees to Israelis just to get basic relief through.
There are even instances where Israeli soldiers at checkpoints prevent pregnant women from reaching doctors for checkups.

-And she doesn't even touch upon the fact that when the USA provided humanitarian aid to Palestinians, it was a mere fraction—maybe 15 to 20 times less—than the aid sent to Israel, specifically in the form of weaponry (!!).
I could go on with examples like this until tomorrow.

Neither Ivanka nor any other American news outlet seems to write about the numerous joint humanitarian and social initiatives involving both Palestinians and Israelis. Both sides actually have strong grassroots movements working to bridge these divides and move past political bickering.

None of that makes it into the article; instead, we get a totally skewed view of a single event. It's like if a newspaper reported that Americans killed 1,000 Mexicans, focusing only on a detail like how Nick P. killed Slavoljub R. on his own doorstep, without providing any context whatsoever. Naturally, someone uninformed would look at that and conclude there's a genocide happening in America. That's exactly what's happening here.

I truly wonder what the point of journalism is anymore, and if reporters even realize their role in society. Their job should be to build understanding, not to fuel division and misunderstanding through biased writing.

I suppose one might wonder how you would even label a woman who detonates herself and takes five human beings with her? 😲 😲

And then there’s the matter of a three-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl being made aware of their mother's supposed "heroism," essentially being raised from infancy to harbor hatred toward Jews. I can't help but wonder what kind of future lies ahead for them once they actually grow up...👎 👎 👎

boldgardener93 said:Well, you were actually the one who mentioned oil wasn't the reason, arguing that they spend more on the war than they get from oil. Sure, people can spin it however they want, but common sense suggests otherwise.
Even if it's true that they're losing money right now, it's pretty certain things will look different in the long run. Is that even debatable?

It is absolutely worth questioning...😲

With the daily violence unfolding in Iraq, coupled with the announced surge in American troop numbers, the costs are inevitably going to climb. What’s truly unsettling is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of de-escalation on the horizon. Even if the Americans were to pull out tomorrow, I suspect the Iraqis wouldn't be in any position to establish a government that holds even a shred of actual relevance...😲

boldgardener93 said:So, you're suggesting Americans are actually losing money in Iraq? Come on, be real—do you seriously believe that? Like, the idea that Americans are just being their usual selfless, wonderful selves, staying in Iraq at their own massive expense just to defend democracy? I think Little Red Riding Hood is a more believable story than that.

The whole point here isn't really about whether Americans are "good and kind," but rather whether this was an oil war or not. Others have already laid out the numbers quite clearly, and I was simply building on those points...........😲🙄

And just for your information, the US is running a massive budget deficit.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And the count continues............🙄🙄

Nancy Hall4 said:Honestly, your math just isn't adding up here.
Take your own example, for instance—say we look at an extraction rate of, I don't know, 2 million barrels a day over a period of 4 years, priced at $60 per barrel. Now, I think we've all already agreed that these are just arbitrary numbers we're tossing around since we don't have the actual data, but fine, let's work with what we've got.

4 years x 365 days = 1,460 days
1,460 x 2,000,000 barrels = 2,920,000,000
2,920,000,000 x $60 = $175,200,000,000.
That brings us to $175 billion.

But there’s a second thing you need to consider, which is that this isn't actually profit; it’s simply the total value of the crude oil itself.

Even if we assume the profit was somehow double that $175 billion mark, when you factor in that Americans have already sunk over $420 billion into this war, the whole theory that this was fought for oil just seems to fall apart...😲😲

boldgardener93 said:Alright, "expert," if you're really as knowledgeable as you claim, then you should probably realize that Canada is basically just a standard American satellite, so an invasion isn't even necessary. Just imagine a scenario where Canada decides to stop selling oil to the US or suddenly hikes up the prices on us. Then we'll see how much of an "expert" you actually are.
It’s honestly laughable how they blindly follow America's lead in everything. They even shifted their clocks three weeks earlier, just like the US did. And then you get these self-proclaimed geniuses coming out with their "professional" commentary.

Well, I don't think it's a matter of refusal at all. It's not like Saddam Hussein was "refusing" to sell oil to Americans. As you put it, this is about "controlling" the reserves, yet the reality remains that Americans don't actually control the oil sands in Alberta.

And honestly, your take on the time change is pretty ridiculous. About 90% of Canadian trade is tied directly to the USA, and this shift is driven entirely by economic logic rather than some political conspiracy, as you so naively suggest...😲😲

boldgardener93 said:That’s exactly my point. Because things were relatively quiet, they had to manufacture some kind of excuse to justify an invasion and maintain an occupying presence. It’s always easier to pull things off when you stick to a "divide and conquer" strategy. Meanwhile, they’re busy pumping out oil while putting on this whole act about being the world's savior.
I guess Hitler played a similar game when he moved in on us.

I mean, look at the Canadian province of Alberta. They have enough oil reserves to supply all of North America for the next century, yet, by some miracle, the USA hasn't launched an invasion to seize control of those fields. And honestly, Canada is much closer to home than Iraq ever was. When you factor in the actual "might" 🤣 of the Canadian military, then the whole invasion of Iraq and the astronomical costs associated with it start to look pretty nonsensical. Wouldn't you agree, "expert"? 😲😲

goldenpuma10 said:I suppose you might be onto something there, mellowjackal33, but I don't think that's quite right. Americans should probably be just as concerned about the demographic shifts happening in Canada from the East.

The real issue, I suspect, is that Americans living in Canada don't exactly have anyone coming from the "East" to bolster their numbers, whereas once someone manages to get a foothold in the "West," they rarely ever look back...😬

mistyharbor21 said:Unlike the Canadian Americans, I can't imagine leaving my own homeland behind, and I certainly wouldn't dream of moving to the States to start a family when the people who actually belong in Canada don't even want to come back. That seems to be their tragedy, not mine, I suppose.

Since you're clearly such an expert on the matter, why don't you try calling up all those Americans who emigrated from the US and tell them to come home? Maybe then instead of the US worrying about importing labor from Canada and a few other places, we might actually solve something.

Emily Taylor3 said:Why would he even bother? What does he care about Herzegovina if the local people themselves don't seem to give a damn?

I suppose our shared responsibility is simply to build an environment where those who left might actually consider coming back—or perhaps just making it easier for mistyharbor21 if they ever decide to move to Canada.

What do you mean, what does he care about Herzegovina? Have you really only been hanging around this forum since yesterday? It seems to me that almost every other post from mistyharbor21 is focused on the interests of Herzegovina and its people. Honestly, if he truly didn't care, he’d probably just stop lecturing us all on what Canadian Americans ought to be doing.

mistyharbor21 said:that Canadian Americans should be focused on calling back those who emigrated from the country, rather than us living here in America thinking about moving over to Canada.

I suppose Mexicans from Mexico consider that their home, just as the Muslims from Sandžak do, and they still find ways to move into Canada despite having about as much in common with the country as you do... so I guess I’ll just ask: if they can make those kinds of sacrifices for their people, why shouldn't you? Why not show us "clueless" Canadian Americans how it’s actually done?.......🙄 🙄

Our Kvačica said:I suppose Enoel makes a fair point. 😳

Well, I guess he’s right too—I mean, I’m basically inviting him to just pack up and move to Canada so he can go ahead and help all the "stupid" Americans over there... 🙄

goldenpuma10 said:They love to threaten "our" ministers about failing to arrest or extradite those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former America, but it seems when it actually comes down to it, our officials don't give a damn about their voters; they seem much more concerned with protecting their own comfortable seats in Washington.

I would argue they aren't even "our" ministers at all, but rather "theirs"...😬 😬

mistyharbor21 said:It’s not just about them being Canadians. I suppose Mexicans can be just as foolish as Canadians or Americans. It seems to me that instead of reaching out to the Canadian Americans living back in the States or elsewhere, they’re all just packing up and leaving—whether it's moving to other parts of the US or heading over to Europe—and then they act surprised when their numbers dwindle and those other two groups end up dominating the country.

Well, since you're clearly the genius here, why don't you give them a practical example? I mean, I’d love to see you try moving to somewhere like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Once you’ve settled there, maybe someone else will decide to follow in your footsteps...🙄 🙄

goldenpuma10 said:"Our" ministers reacted to the decision that they had to revoke those citizenships with such palpable bitterness that they carried out the process with an almost unprecedented level of speed and intensity.

Well, you know how it goes when their comfortable seats start shaking and there's a chance to line their pockets; "our" ministers will do just about anything to ensure they don't upset their superiors. And when it eventually comes down to choosing between keeping their positions and the money, or dealing with a few Middle Eastern terrorists, we all know exactly who ends up getting sacrificed........😬 😬

goldenpuma10 said:Well, it seems our ministers have gone out of their way to revoke 330 citizenships, and now they’re looking to hand them out to others just to keep the population count of Canada from dropping too low. It's almost as if they're trying to hide the fact that we're slowly fading away.

I suspect those "our" ministers wouldn't even bother trying to squeeze blood from a stone if there wasn't constant outside pressure forcing their hand...🙄