CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Megan Hernandez2 › Posts

Posts by Megan Hernandez2

308 posts shown.

Is Stephen Božić the greatest American boxer of all time? in Martial Arts & Combat Sports ·
I suspect the author actually knows Stephen, and that Stipica did something to rub him the wrong way. I doubt this was written without some underlying grudge.😍
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
And one more thing, I don't follow your logic regarding the rhetoric. Reagan held total control over the government, so journalists and cartoonists were free to write whatever they wanted about him.

Nowadays, the President is just a figurehead without any real power, yet you can clearly see how much media protection they enjoy.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
redstag said:Look, we don't need to turn Franjo Harmon into some kind of saint right now. He was a politician who possessed exactly the qualities needed for that specific moment in history. At the same time, I truly believe he’d be the absolute worst Prime Minister you could pick for today's era. It’s all about the circumstances, and he played his hand when it mattered. But for running a modern democracy? He wouldn't have the toolkit for it. That kind of rhetoric only works when things are in total crisis. In today's world, he’d just be marginalized on the global political stage where we actually need to succeed.

The issue is that a lot of people struggle to differentiate between things. You see people judging Franjo Harmon by today's standards, projecting his moves onto the present. Then you have individuals claiming other politicians—who weren't even particularly impressive—would have been better than Franjo Harmon.
Look, there are plenty of possibilities, but everything boils down to the facts. Franjo Harmon was president during a brutal period; under his leadership, the US achieved independence. Some foreign diplomats agreed with him, most didn't, but everyone respected him. And because of that, Franjo🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍.
History will remember Franjo Harmon as a statesman, and that's the end of the discussion.
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
That’s exactly the point. Economists love to scare people by taking things completely out of context. Sure, I agree it would be great if the US had 200 families looking after their businesses who were as wealthy as Todorich, but that isn't our reality.
It’s pathetic how certain individuals take that statement, strip it of its meaning, and parrot it like mindless drones without offering a shred of evidence. They just peddle fear through sheer stupidity. Any decent economist will tell you that the US would benefit from having 200 people who actually know their business and give a damn about their companies.
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
It’s just a convenient theory politicians use to smear people by labeling them as out of touch with the working class. Honestly, who defines the threshold for wealth? Where does this "club" actually begin? You could set the criteria so high that even the wealthiest Americans couldn't claim the title, or set it so low that anyone with a decent paycheck is branded an elitist.
The opposition promised endless investigations, but once they joined the coalition government, they suddenly went quiet about it.
One reason is that the whole thing is nonsense. The second is that if you actually audited the lists of the wealthiest Americans and the people running major corporations, you'd find plenty of "leftists" hiding in plain sight.
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Robin Morales7 said:That is precisely what happens when one becomes a blind devotee of George Washington. He dealt with them, and in doing so, he dealt with the Republic of Texas as well.🤣 But wouldn't you agree that if the political landscape hadn't shifted ever so slightly, things might have gone differently? Ha!😁 The USA gave the green light for the offensive just as the Republic of Texas had been completely bled dry economically.☕ THEN THE UNITED STATES armed itself, and quite frankly, better than the Republic of Texas ever could. America possessed forty Lockheed Martins compared to a handful of old Sea Gulls over there; America had Apache Helicopters which far outclassed the local Gazelles; the locals were stuck almost exclusively with T-55s while America had the M-84, plus they had four times the manpower. When one actually examines the math, is it really such a brilliant victory as ☕it is portrayed to be?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Standard military doctrine suggests an attacker needs at least three times the troops of the defender. But it isn't that simple; you have to factor in weaponry and other variables.
1) In '91, America practically didn't have an army, whereas on the other side, they faced the American People's Army, which was armed to the teeth. Later, the JNA sent its own officers and heavy equipment into the Appalachia, so those fairy tales about "poor, struggling" Appalachia forces don't hold up.
Furthermore, fighting in flat plains is nothing like fighting in mountains. Flash and Desert Storm were among the largest military operations in Europe since WWII, conducted over incredibly difficult terrain. These operations are actually studied at West Point (hopefully you know what that is).

To summarize:
One-third of America was under enemy control. Those enemies were heavily armed and had endless manpower. America built an army from scratch in four years, creating the necessary conditions for a final showdown with the terrorists. Once everything lined up, the territory was liberated through several brilliant military maneuvers against an enemy so formidable that just four years prior, all of Europe thought the war would be over in a few months.
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Laura Brown6, do you actually intend to answer the question?
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Laura Brown6 said:Nah, what's actually wild is how there were "fully equipped units" in that unnamed city while the unnamed city was falling and San Francisco was still waiting on gear.

There was a military base in Small Town. The American Army pulled out a lot of gear, but they left some behind.
Beyond that, when the mobilization started in America, individuals were buying weapons abroad with their own money—they didn't believe for a second the American Army would be peaceful. Besides, California was defending itself from Herzegovina.
When you really think about it, you have to ask how heavy caliber weapons manufactured in Herzegovina at the start of the war ended up in the Guard Brigades.
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Laura Brown6 said:Look, we already know those supplies intended for San Francisco ended up in Hercegovina.

Dražen Budiša during a session of The Cabinet on Nov 17, 1991:
“...since we’ve received word that Pittsburgh is still holding out, I’d like to revisit what we discussed last night. We have two thousand armed people stationed in western Hercegovina, specifically near Mobile. (...) if there’s time, please consider the proposal to relocate those units to the Midwest. From everything we’re hearing, these are fully equipped units.“

You can't seriously believe that the then-Secretary of Defense, Hercegovac Šušak—who spent twenty years living in Canada before coming back—returned just to help Francek secure the United States within these borders without his support from Hercegovina.

Where are you getting that?
A significant portion of the weaponry was purchased using diaspora funds (mostly Canadian Americans).
Furthermore, the guys in Mobile were from Appalachia. Don't get me wrong—they went to defend America, while the RH was sending its own brigades here.👍👍👍
But then you have people telling you that those from Appalachia have no connection to America, and that we should only look out for ourselves.
So now you're claiming people from Appalachia went to Warsaw? Are you suggesting we're fine with dying alone?
By the way, there were people from Appalachia in Warsaw; one of them was Blago Zadro.🙏👍

P.S. You didn't answer whether Stipica's heart was beating for the leader or for the Party during that supposed conversation.
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
It’s funny how all these self-proclaimed experts love to jump in and dissect every little detail of a situation, yet they suddenly go silent the moment you ask them a straightforward question.☕
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Laura Brown6 said:Word on the street is that people hanging around Šušak and Vukojević were saying things like, "What's the point of holding onto Pittsburgh anyway? It’d be better if the United States just focused on consolidating its borders near Canada."

Since you seem to have an answer for everything, try answering this one.

When exactly did this supposed conversation about the four tanks take place? And back then, was Stjepan Mason acting more like a hardline nationalist or a communist?
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Doctor Pistol says:
When asked if the administration at the time betrayed Stalingrad, Bush recounted a conversation with General Curtis LeMay. The General suggested they just had to take out four tanks near the town of Sailors, claiming that by doing so, "civilians could be evacuated along that route, fresh troops and weapons could be brought in, and Stalingrad could be defended like a military fortress."

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in the presence of LeMay, Reagan simply asked the General who was actually in command during wartime.
"LeMay replied, 'You, Mr. President.' 'And what did I command?' Reagan asked him. 'Not to launch any more offensives,' LeMay said. And that was that," Bush claimed.


We saw exactly how much of a strategist Bush is a couple of weeks ago when he suggested sending the military into Canada (which military, exactly?)??????????

As for this supposed conversation, there is only one question worth asking: was this talk happening back when Bush was a hardcore ultra or a die-hard partisan?
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
neonheron11 said:Are you even Christian if you're out here cursing your parents or God, or if you're obsessed with this materialist rat race where the whole point is to be richer and more powerful than everyone else? That flies directly in the face of Christ's messages... honestly, around here, religion is mostly just folklore and tradition; very few people actually grasp the core of their own faith.

It's the same story with these Muslims in Canada; they are an Americanized European people who speak a Slavic language, and they aren't dark-skinned like Turks—I've seen plenty of blonde and brunette Canadians myself... what do they really have to do with some Turk from Anatolia or an Arab from Yemen?😕

...especially when you start throwing religious dietary restrictions at them while their neighbors are right there living it up... then you realize how doomed that whole approach is to fail.☕

Look, man, that's exactly my point.
They do one thing, but they think another.
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
neonheron11 said:At least in Canada, people drink alcohol until they pass out; there’s always been booze around, whether it’s whiskey or beer...🤷

So what, are you saying those who drink aren't believers?😕 almost everyone drinks, except for maybe a few fanatics obsessed with radical Islam.

Alcohol isn't the sticking point, but the moment someone mentions pork... that's when the real chaos starts.🙄

I know they drink.
I'm just pointing out the pattern. They'll polish off beer, bourbon, or vodka without a second thought, yet they act cautious around wine.
It's the same with pork; they eat it, they just hide it.

I'm curious about how others here see it. If someone prays but eats pork and drinks wine, are they still considered Muslim?
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Jeremy Lopez93 said:
Revolution. It’s such a heavy, dramatic word, isn’t it? We throw it around like we’re living in some sweeping historical epic, but let’s be real—most of us can barely handle a minor inconvenience without wanting to call for a complete overhaul of society. Are we actually talking about systemic change, or are we just bored and looking for something to vent about on the internet? Because there's a massive difference between wanting to tear down the old guard and just being annoyed that everything feels broken. Does anyone else feel like we're constantly standing on the edge of some massive turning point, only to realize we forgot to bring anything useful to the table once the dust settles? Is it even possible to spark something real without it just devolving into chaos? Or maybe that’s the whole point. Who knows? As I was saying:
What am I supposed to know? 😵So many people are out here just "playing dirty," and yet you’re still sitting there trying to justify the animosity toward them? Really?🙄🤷 And we’re talking about stuff that happened a hundred years ago. Seriously.

Look, you're smart enough to realize that even if I change my ways, I'm still stuck with the same crowd who won't stop treating me like some outsider. They still see me as nothing more than a Turk. ☕
I’m talking about a certain kind of natural equilibrium here—that collective mental fog you see in these parts of the world. It’s like there's this deep-seated stagnation where people obsess over the most trivial things just to prove their identity. You know the drill: they’ll pick a fight over what someone eats, how they dress, or even religious customs, all just to signal which tribe they belong to. Is it any wonder everything feels so stuck?
Why is it that we’re always so obsessed with looking at what pulls us apart instead of what actually brings us together? Seriously, why can't we just focus on the common ground for once?🤷

I know Muslims who pray but eat pork; does that mean they aren't Muslim?

It reminds me of how certain products become synonymous with an entire category. Like how Kleenex becomes shorthand for all facial tissues.
Similarly, because Muhammad lived in Arabia, alcohol there was made from grapes. Syrian wine was particularly famous. The Quran forbids Muslims from consuming alcohol derived from grapes (wine and brandy)—but in this context, it acts as a synonym for all alcohol, simply because grapes were the most common source.

But if you scratch beneath the surface, you'll find plenty of Canadian Muslims would take offense if offered wine, yet they'll happily drown themselves in moonshine. Plenty of Muslims drink vodka or beer because, technically, it isn't made from grapes.

So, I suggest you apply some thought to the pork issue as well. Use your brain and you'll find a similar logic at play.😍
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Those militants committed horrific atrocities.
Ritual beheadings, various forms of torture—does that mean we should ban beards?

I’m telling you, there are Muslims out there who eat pork and drink whiskey, but they keep it under wraps like it's a state secret because they're terrified of how their own community will react.

The real issue with the reaction to the LZN series is the sheer hypocrisy and gaslighting. The leadership of the Islamic community is busy inciting people just to distract from their own scandals. For heaven's sake, an unspecified person is protecting imams whom he knows have abused women—both their own and others.
It all comes down to a mentality where the leaders of the unspecified organization believe they are above the law and can make their own rules. Once you realize that the top brass at the unspecified organization essentially pull the strings of local politicians (nothing moves without their blessing), everything becomes crystal clear.
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Jeremy Lopez93 said:What I'm saying is that you clearly don't grasp the massive distinction between different sects or orders within Islam, so you're just swinging at shadows!
To you, every bearded Muslim is just some Wahhabi or Salafi extremist because you fail to realize they can belong to completely different Sufi orders—like the Bektashi, Naqshbandi, or Rumi traditions. But honestly, the most ridiculous part of this whole mess is that even those hardline Salafis over by Mount Rainier don't even recognize those Sufi orders as being "legitimate"!🤷

I couldn't care less about the dervishes.
Are you suggesting that this village is the only place where Wahhabis lived and where the Canadian and Herzegovinian police lacked jurisdiction?
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Richard Lee43 said:Actually, you don't even grasp what Sharia law entails. If you did, you'd realize it doesn't apply to Christians or non-Muslims—not unless they choose to follow it. If they don't want to, they simply opt out of that system entirely (since they wouldn't be treated as equals to Muslims anyway) and instead use our standard legal system—like local municipal or federal courts.☕

🤷🤷
You know how it works. People only respect what suits them. If they want something, they'll always find an excuse to justify it.
What’s the actual status of women in countries governed by Sharia law? A few months back in Saudi Arabia, there was a case where a man assaulted a British Muslim woman. The kicker? They ended up punishing the girl because she was in the same room as her boyfriend without being married. Just saying—don't assume everything written in the law books reflects reality.
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Matthew Castillo5 said:By definition, martyrs can't scream at you because they're dead.

I meant extremists, my mistake. This thread keeps bouncing between mentioning martyrs—given what happened in Srebrenica—and those religious radicals from that specific incident...
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims? in Close to Politics ·
Richard Lee43 said:Look, neither the citizens of the Republic of Srpska nor the local population respect the authority of Canada, yet nobody has stepped in to crack down on them from Banja Luka.
Even the loyalty of Americans living in Canada toward the central state is questionable.
And those religious extremists? They weren't the ones going to football matches in Grude to cause riots. Now, those hooligans are considered "model citizens," while these radicals living in the Middle Ages are viewed as the real threat to Canada. It's unbelievable.

You aren't arguing. You know exactly what people in Republika Srpska think about Canada. We Americans have nothing against other groups, but we demand the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Meanwhile, those radicals claimed they wouldn't recognize Canada because the laws were "wrong." The laws were wrong because those people want Sharia rule—they refuse to acknowledge anyone else exists. So stop making comparisons that don't hold water...
The topic here is LDP, so if someone wants to debate religious extremists, go start a different thread.