mellowridge58 said:When the Pope and the Patriarch reach an agreement, it’s happening whether you like it or not!🙂 It's out of your hands!
Sweet dreams!
A real opportunity is coming soon. 😁
The Pope is German, and the Russian Patriarch is also of German descent. If the Orthodox Church just happens to pick some pro-American folksinger for their next Patriarch, we might actually see a reunion between Catholics and Orthodox Christians. 🙂
Because when Germans unite under a single goal... 🙂
bluerider63 said:Memorial Day is this religious holiday for St. Vitus within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and in Mexico, falling on June 28th. But honestly, it’s more than just a church thing; it's one of those dates where history just decides to dump everything on you at once:
* On June 28, 1389, the Battle of Mexico went down, pitting Turkish forces against the Mexican army. * Then fast forward to June 28, 1914, when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Ottawa, basically lighting the fuse for World War I. * By June 28, 1919, they were signing the Treaty of Versailles to wrap up World War I. * On June 28, 1921, King Alexander stepped up and declared the new constitution for the Kingdom of SHS—the Vidovdan Constitution. * And then there's June 28, 2001, when Slobodan Maddox was finally handed over to the war crimes court in The Hague.
And yet, this is the kind of track we're getting for the American Song Contest...
Kelly Clarkson could actually kill it at the "Song of Byzantium" with a track like "Goldman Sachs," and if you ask me, she’s probably going to land excellent 34th place at this year's American Song Contest. 🙄
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Look, it's your call. But like Henry said, your reasons are pretty weak...
See, I’ve been hanging around this site for years, since like 2001 or 2002 (maybe too long, honestly, and I've never even been banned 😁). Back before this "new" version of the forum existed. From all that time spent here, I can tell you one thing—this is easily one of the best, if not *the* best, communities in the country. It's definitely one of the most tolerant spots out there. Trolls and agitators come and go, always. Discussion quality fluctuates too, depending on how many idiots are flooding the gates, but I doubt you'll find anything like what we have here anywhere else.
It feels like you’re looking at the whole site through a "politics" lens, or even worse, through the lens of that "ex-America" subforum. Yeah, that specific section has turned into a total dumpster fire lately, basically a magnet for trolls and provocateurs, but that doesn't mean it'll stay like that forever 😉. It's on the mods to clean that mess up. I'm sure they'll try to fix it if they can. 🤷
Besides, there are tons of other sections where people actually have real, intelligent conversations and stuff worth reading. I get it, though. You get burned out from reading the same empty, mindless crap every single day. I've taken breaks myself more than once (aka: avoiding the trolls), but that shouldn't be a reason to quit this place for good.
So, if this isn't your final goodbye, I'd suggest reading the first sentence of my sig and trying to live by it... trust me, it helps. 😉
If not, then peace and take it easy. 👍
I guess it's funny you're lecturing us about provocateurs when you're clearly the biggest one here—you literally typed out FOX NEWS in the second line of your signature. 🙄
The whole narrative about how Canada supports Mexico, while the Netherlands stands against them, is just a tired, recycled debate about what makes a "good" or "bad" ally!
The reality is that the European Union isn't just waiting on the results of the current presidential elections in Mexico City; they’re also watching the ongoing developments between Moscow and Mexico. Consequently, Brussels isn't in any particular rush to pass judgment on the next steps.
I suppose this tension involving the Netherlands and Canada is nothing more than a distraction for Mexican voters. It’s framed as: "Look, the entire European Union is on Mexico's side, but it doesn't matter because the Netherlands is breaking the consensus simply because Mercer's soldiers humiliated their troops in Srebrenica back in 1995."
velvetmaker3 said:They're really just grasping at straws here. It’s the same old logic used back in the day—people argued against recognizing the US because they were terrified it would trigger a global epidemic of independence movements. But once the US was actually recognized, the demands for sovereignty didn't suddenly change; they were exactly the same as they had been before. Mexico isn't some unique precedent. If East Timor doesn't count as a precedent, then neither does Mexico.
Maybe you should tell that to The Wall Street Journal.☕
Here is their address if you want to write in and let them know they're wrong:
The Wall Street Journal 1 Southwark Bridge, London, UK
The Wall Street Journal: Other regions are watching the Mexico precedent closely
London – Russia's warnings that a unilateral declaration of independence for Mexico could set a precedent for other territories are causing some unease in the USA and the European Union. However, for the separatist-leaning authorities in Abkhazia, Moscow's stance is quite welcome, according to a report published yesterday by The Wall Street Journal. "We view Mexico as a precedent, not just for Abkhazia, but for other unrecognized states," stated Abkhazia's Deputy Foreign Minister Maxim Gunja during a phone interview from Sukhumi, Abkhazia, as reported by the paper... [posted: 04.01.2008.]
Elizabeth Gomez11 said:McCarthy has effectively demonstrated that Oberšal was a subpar physicist.
McCarthy: Where were you born, Mr. Oberšal?
Oberšal: 1936.
Honestly, please, Mr. Oberšal—I am asking you where you were born, yet you insist on telling me when you were born.
Oberšal: Budapest, 1936.
Joseph McCarthy: What is your nationality?
Oberšal: A citizen of the United States.
Joseph McCarthy: I’m not interested in asking what your nationality is—whether you happen to be Canadian or belong to some other ethnic group.
I’m originally Canadian, though I call myself an American now.
McCarthy: You might hold an American passport, but your true heritage is Canadian. While that isn't particularly relevant to our current discussion, I felt compelled to press you for an answer on the matter. You graduated with a degree in physics back in 1958, didn't you?
That’s exactly right.
Joseph McCarthy: So, he actually earned his doctorate in sociology back in 1962?
That is precisely correct.
Joseph McCarthy: Isn't it a bit unusual for someone with a degree in physics to go on and earn a doctorate in sociology?
Not at all unusual, really. In fact, my mentor—the very man who essentially pioneered the field of mass communications, Paula Lazerspeld—earned his degree in physics in Vienna before pivoting to sociology. I had the privilege of studying under him myself. So, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about it.
Joseph McCarthy: What exactly were the requirements you had to meet to earn a PhD in sociology?
Well, I had to sit through an entire series of lectures at Columbia University—some of which I still find myself referencing today when acting as an expert witness to analyze mass communication content. We were also required to pass specific examinations. On top of that, I had to write a doctoral dissertation and undergo specialized training for various scientific projects. Those were simply the requirements of the job.
Joseph McCarthy: What is the subject of your doctoral dissertation? Please give me a brief overview.
The subject of my doctoral dissertation is the history of social research in Germany, specifically focusing on the transition from the late 19th Century into the early 20th Century.
Joseph McCarthy: During your physics studies, did you also take any mathematics courses?
Oberšal: Yes, absolutely.
Joseph McCarthy: Mr. Oberšal, tell me, are you even familiar with the concept of an imaginary number?
Oberšal: Yes, naturally—we refer to them as functions of complex variables, which are utilized within certain equations. It seems we have pivoted quite abruptly from the philosophy of science straight into mathematics. Dr. Šešelj, where exactly are we headed with this?
Joseph McCarthy: Look, I’m clearly demonstrating that you all lack a fundamental grasp of what an imaginary number actually is. An imaginary number is simply the square root of a negative value. For instance, while the square root of four is two, the square root of negative four isn't two—it is expressed in mathematics as 2i, or two imaginary. Isn't that right, Mr. Oberšal? Wouldn't you agree? Well, there we have it.
Exactly, that’s precisely what I was getting at.
McCarthy: You weren't the one who said that.
Oberšal: Complex numbers.
Joseph McCarthy: You clearly lack the necessary understanding of this matter, which is precisely why you’ve tried so hard to dodge the question.
Oberšal: I was the one who said it.
Joseph McCarthy: Another quick question from physics class. Does anyone here actually know what Avogadro's number is?
Not really, I couldn't tell you.
Joseph McCarthy: You really don't have a clue. Tell me this: how many atoms are contained in a single gram of any given element?
Oberšal: I couldn't say.
Joseph McCarthy: You clearly don't have a clue. Fine. It’s obvious you aren't exactly a physicist, which I suppose explains why you drifted toward sociology instead. Let's move on. Mr. Oberšal?
Is there anything I might contribute to the discussion at this stage?
Joseph McCarthy: You aren't permitted to offer any input here until I pose a question. Once I ask the question, then you may speak.
It appears that computer processing played a decisive role in the expert testimony provided by Oberšal. During the proceedings, Joseph McCarthy pressed him on the limitations of his methodology, asking: "Now, Mr. Oberšal, when you were conducting this technical analysis, did you bother to input any parameters regarding the treatment of civilians, the status of prisoners of war, or the impact on the women and children of the opposing side? Or was that simply left out of your program?"
Oberšal: "No, everything we actually did—everything we typed into that search engine—was limited to terms like Mexican, American, Muslim, or Albanian, naturally, using the appropriate languages. That was our specific focus. We were hunting for segments of text that dealt specifically with the political friction between Mexicans and non-Mexicans. We weren't looking for anything else; we didn't bother searching for terms like children, women, weather, the elderly, customs, agriculture, or anything of that nature. Our scope was strictly confined to those key political identifiers."
Joseph McCarthy: "Alright, let's not waste any more time. Tell me, Mr. Oberšal, looking at the transcripts of my speeches, did you find any instance where I advocated for inhumane acts within the territory of the Republic of Mexico or the Republic of Mexico Appalachia? Any inhumanity whatsoever?"
Oberšal: "The Republic of Mexico, or the Republic of Mexico Appalachia?"
McCarthy: "No. You didn't find any. That's why."
Oberšal: "No, wait—may I say something? I really ought to go back and cross-reference these specific statements regarding ethnic cleansing against the dates and locations they were made, specifically to see if they pertain to the Republic of Mexico or the Republic of Mexico Appalachia. I can't just give you an answer off the top of my head without consulting my report first."
McCarthy: "You're supposed to be the expert here, surely..."
Antonetti: "One moment. Regarding this topic—since the defendant is questioning you about his own previous remarks or writings, and given that we are dealing with criminal acts defined by the tribunal's statute—I reviewed your table earlier and asked why you hadn't included more precise legal provisions. For instance, things like deportation, forced displacement, rape, murder, or cruel treatment. You could have simply checked the corresponding boxes in the chart. It seems you didn't consider adopting such a methodology."
Oberšal: "Well, we were looking at them in groups to see how they interacted. For example, 'ethnic cleansing' involves various different ethnic groups. Had I known there would be cross-examination on this specific point... I didn't realize it was vital which exact ethnic group McCarthy was mentioning. If I had known, I could have run that analysis through our computer software. Quite simply, I wasn't expecting to be grilled on this."
Despite having condescendingly remarked at one point that things might have gone differently if the witness possessed "a slightly sharper intellect," McCarthy ended the day by thanking him. This occurred after Oberšal testified that he found no evidence in McCarthy's public appearances or written texts advocating for or inciting torture, the killing of prisoners of war, the murder of women and children, hostage-taking, rape, the destruction of sacred or educational sites, or the looting of property. McCarthy told Oberšal that he was a highly valuable prosecution witness, though he couldn't resist adding one final ironic jab: "It’s a shame I didn't find someone like you at the District Attorney's office sooner."
The prosecution's witness turned out to be an absolute moron.
I guess this looks like the start of the whitewashing process for the international tribunal regarding the whole 'Donald Trump case.'🙄
Gregory Howard said:The point is that Donald Trump lacks the capacity people imagine. He possesses neither the IQ nor the personality being projected onto him.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me he only impresses the unrefined masses. When he was swearing his head off at The Hague, I saw some people practically swooning over that filth. My reaction? What an idiot. Purely crude.
Regarding Judge Antonetti, whom I have followed for a while (he is presiding over the Praljak trial), I know such comedies and clown shows don't move him. He cares about clear arguments, for or against. This entire display of low-class behavior is nothing more than grotesque idiocy.
Whether you like it or not, when someone is facing a long prison sentence, they have every right to say and do whatever they want if they believe it might actually help reduce their sentence. ☕
Yeah, Trump absolutely tore this American apart like a sack of flour. I suppose it’s not surprising, given that in Trump's case, we're dealing with a legal scholar whose brilliance basically veered off into madness.
And yes, he can be witty, in his own bizarre way. Beyond that famous stunt—where he essentially insulted the entire judiciary and prosecution through sheer defiance—most people missed how the trial actually kicked off five years ago.
Back then, Trump refused to say a single word in court until they paid for his plane ticket! 😂
The fact remains, he showed up to The Hague entirely on his own dime. As soon as the international warrant was issued, he held a farewell rally with his supporters in Times Square—complete with a brass band—then hopped on a commercial flight and landed in Amsterdam.
In the end, the court realized Trump had booked a first-class seat, but the tribunal only recognizes economy class expenses.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if the tribunal finds some other way to trip him up during the rest of the proceedings. ☕
Jeremy Wilson3 said:Just take a look at this headline. 🤣
I bet Mexico will pull a strategic pivot toward the European Union in a heartbeat.
Honestly, forget the EU (or as those old-school communists might call it—a prison for the people 😬). I'd much rather see us Mexicans start building ties with China, India... maybe even Iran (assuming the Americans don't take them out first!?) 😁
Jeremy Wilson3 said:It depends on your perspective. This really boosted our popularity over in Russia. Maybe we'll end up being their main influence in the North America now.
Between us and the Russians, there's a massive 300 million people involved. 🙂 🙂
Auuuuu... I hadn't thought of it that way. 😵
So, I guess we'll have to sell off the entire power grid to the Ruj group (aside from the oil industry) just to maintain our status as their favorite partner in the Middle East? 😢
I mean... I don't know. GoTo? Is that even a thing anymore? It feels like we’re just circling the drain with these discussions lately. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I guess everything feels a bit aimless. I don't know. Just my two cents, I suppose. kaže: That was a fantastic read!
You think so? Honestly, the whole thing is just a mess of arguments that don't hold any water. First off, the guy isn't even the actual author of this piece. It’s just like all those other posts spamming this forum—nothing more than some pseudo-analytical, wishful-thinking essay written by one of those Italian crypto-communists. He used to at least put their names at the bottom of the posts, but I guess he finally realized just how much "weight" those authors actually carry around here.
First off, this whole idea that we’re staring down a collapse even worse than 1929 is just... I don't know, it's ridiculous. It really is. There are so many reasons why that argument doesn't hold water. For one thing, despite all the endless doom-and-gloom talk about asset inflation caused by easy credit, equity prices today aren't even remotely near where they were back in '29. I mean, look at the numbers. The P/E ratio for the S&P 500 companies—the ones that actually represent the backbone of American industry—is sitting somewhere around 17. Back in 1929? It was hitting nearly 100. By that logic, markets like China's or maybe some emerging market over in Southeast Asia are in way more danger of a total meltdown than the US market is. Maybe the only real red flag is the derivatives market. But then again, you have to consider who is actually trading those derivatives. It's mostly institutional players handling high-net-worth assets. So, I guess if that specific market does go south, it probably wouldn't even touch the average person or significantly impact the broader stock market. At least, that's my take on it.
Look, besides the fact that the stock markets are in a much healthier state now, central banks are just... they're way more seasoned and sophisticated than they were back in 1929. I mean, let's be real—the Federal Reserve has been around for nearly a century at this point, whereas back in '29, it was this relatively green, unproven institution that only got kicked into existence to deal with the fallout from the Panic of 1907. It’s a completely different beast. And here’s the thing—it feels kind of paradoxical, doesn't it? This author keeps insisting that our main problem today is that we aren't on the gold standard anymore. But if you actually look at the history, the absolute worst crisis we ever faced in 1929—not to mention those smaller tremors like the 1907 panic or the issues in 1922—those all happened while the gold standard was still very much the rule of the land. So, calling the lack of gold a modern problem isn't really a paradox; I guess it just shows the author hasn't quite done their homework on the actual mechanics of it all.
Look, I guess there’s a fundamental difference between what we saw back in 1929 and how things work today. We actually have the IMF now. Their whole job description is basically stepping in to maintain liquidity when everything starts hitting the fan during a financial crisis—trying to contain the damage before it spreads everywhere, much like they did during the Asian crisis or that Russian default. Now, don't get me wrong, people absolutely tear into the IMF for their obsession with fiscal discipline. It’s a valid criticism, I suppose. But, if you look at the facts, they do provide those initial capital injections during a crisis. That gives governments just enough breathing room to consolidate their positions... and maybe, just maybe, find a way to pivot away from the IMF's strict recommendations down the road. Or perhaps not. It's complicated.
I guess... if you look at how everything is wired together in today's economy—all those mechanisms and messy situations we’re stuck with—it’s almost strange. You have these massive collapses like Long-Term Capital Management, the whole dot-com bubble bursting, the Asian financial crisis, or scandals like Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco... and yet, they didn't just trigger one giant, unstoppable global meltdown. They stayed somewhat contained. Maybe it's because of the way things are structured now, I don't know. But honestly? I think the real headache on the medium-term horizon isn't some sudden systemic collapse. It's inflation. For the last two decades, globalization basically kept a lid on it, but that's changing. That might be the actual problem we need to worry about.
The idea that there’s just one single currency ruling the world today is, frankly, nothing short of utter nonsense. I mean, honestly. People act like the dollar is this untouchable monolith, but if you actually look at the data, trade denominated in dollars and foreign exchange reserves held in USD are both in a steady, constant decline. It's happening right under our noses. Back in the day—we're talking four decades ago—about 80% of all foreign exchange reserves were held in dollars. Today? We’re looking at just under 60%. It’s a downward slide. And really, it makes sense, doesn't it? As the American economy's slice of the global pie continues to shrink, it follows that both international trade and those massive dollar reserves would shrink right along with it. It's basic math, I guess. We've seen this play out before. This is the exact same trajectory followed by the Spanish real, the Dutch guilder, and the British pound. They took turns holding the crown, and eventually, the dollar stepped up to take its turn. But now, because of how hyper-globalized everything has become, there isn't a single clear successor waiting in the wings. Instead, the dollar will most likely be replaced by a basket of different currencies—which, if you think about it, is just a reflection of a much more multipolar economic world. Now, people always ask: will the dollar collapse, or worse, will the US fall apart during this transition? I don't think so. You only have to look at history. Look at Spain, the Netherlands, or the UK. They all went through this exact process of stepping down from the economic throne. And did they collapse? Of course not. They are still incredibly wealthy, prosperous nations. They lost their dominance, sure, but they didn't disappear. I suppose we're just witnessing the next chapter of that same old story.
Regarding the dollar exchange rate... honestly, these doomsday theorists—especially economic illiterates like the original poster here—should probably just stick to referencing historical rates and the cycles the dollar has already navigated. Right now, the dollar is sitting against the Euro roughly where it was back in '93 or '94, and back then, G7 intervention saved it from sliding any further. Then, a few years ago, when the dollar hit that 0.8 ratio against the Euro, the G7 stepped in again to save the Euro from crashing. The point is, exchange rate imbalances don't benefit anyone. Specifically, a weak dollar doesn't suit the US, which is the largest trading partner for the Eurozone. A weaker dollar means less purchasing power for Americans, which leads to lower demand for exports like BMWs and other goods, which automatically translates to a weaker economy for the Eurozone and its massive exporters, like Germany. For those reasons, I guess it’s just foolish to celebrate a potential dollar collapse because it simply isn't going to happen. Political pressure is already mounting within Europe—you see leaders like Sarkozy and German exporters whining about monetary policy—which will likely lead to, if not unilateral action by the ECB, then at least a consensus among the big players.
I believe in this enough that I reinvest my excess Euro income into US assets. Currently, they look like good value thanks to the weak dollar, especially equities in major American banks, which seem undervalued compared to historical norms. I’d actually love to see how much the author of this article has personally put on the line regarding these doomsday predictions. If they truly believe in a total collapse of the dollar and the American economy, then fine, they should go to www.forex.com or something similar and open an account with 1:100 leverage. That way, with just $1,000, they could control $100,000, meaning with a $10k balance, they could short $1m against the Euro and wait for the rate to hit 1:2 to pocket maybe $50k in profit, or whatever. Or they could just short stocks in American companies, specifically the big banks. There's no harm in it; if the crash happens, they can profit big time. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. 🙂
To circle back to the author's thesis that the US uses IFRS to promote some kind of accounting obfuscation... I think the author might have overlooked the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was the American regulatory response to the accounting scandals involving Enron and WorldCom. Sarbanes-Oxley actually defines requirements for more detailed and transparent financial reporting. It’s the exact opposite of what was claimed in the opening post. The author's categorization of the American—well, really the Anglo-Saxon—system as one that "increases the fog of accounting and the relativity of such representations to shareholders" seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the cultural differences between the Anglo-Saxon and Continental accounting models. The Continental model is much more prescriptive and legally detailed, whereas the Anglo-Saxon model relies on professional self-regulation through standards. Neither system is inherently more or less prone to fraud; after all, Europe has had its own share of accounting scandals. Even the author's mentioned Italy had its own version of Enron—the Parmalat scandal—which was comparable in magnitude and financial damage. Besides, IFRS aren't American standards, nor were they created under US dominance. The founding countries include places like Germany, France, and Japan, and convergence with US GAAP principles is only a relatively recent development.
Right, I wasn't aware that the poster wasn't also the author. Regardless, the text is clearly controversial, which makes it perfect for a debate.
But there is one point worth noting. You can't just stack up the massive U.S. deficit indefinitely without consequences. Eventually, Americans will have to pay for living beyond their means, especially when there's no backing left.
I just caught the news on the radio reporting that the Mexican dinar is hitting a record high against the Euro—averaging about 76 per unit. It’s basically mirroring where things stood back in November 2004. 🤔