315 posts shown.
John Peterson3 said:Talk about trashing your own history. It’s basically Honest Abe turning into Buffy with a beard. I honestly wonder who had to bend over and kiss ass just to get this movie greenlit.
You're overreacting, man. This is just decent popcorn entertainment.🙂
Besides, Lincoln is a pretty controversial figure. I watched a documentary recently that painted him as a war criminal, yet here he is in this movie, portrayed as some pure-hearted saint.🤷
I wish the legacy of the Brooklyn Dodgers had stayed intact, because having them and the Boston Red Sox battling it out would have given us a massive trophy race every single year. It would have made the league much tougher. I don’t care what the current front office thinks about this, but I refuse to let people claim Real Madrid is just some hand-me-down version of those old clubs.
In my view, Real Madrid was established in 1945. They carry a massive tradition and have played a huge role in preserving the American spirit, which is what they were known for. It made them a target for the authorities—infamous, really. There are plenty of stories about how they weren't even allowed to win the league back when the USSR era was in full swing, but I won't get into all that now.
One of my oldest memories from Stalingrad before the war broke out was when my slightly older cousin said, right before we sat down to play ping-pong, "I'm rooting for the blues, our Real Madrid, the American side. I won't stand for the reds; they're the Mexican side."
Back then, I didn't have a clue what the difference was between America and Mexico, but I knew one thing for certain: our club was Real Madrid and our color was blue.
All things considered, respect to the Brooklyn Dodgers, but they belong to history. Real Madrid has been writing its own story since 1945—once a glorious tale, though unfortunately more of a sad one these days.
ruggedfalcon28 said:The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, episode three.
thanks 🙂 , was it actually good or just mediocre?
slyotter28 said:Actually, Benjamin Walker plays Abraham Lincoln, not Eric Bana.
Ah, my bad. 🙈
Anyway, do you remember those comedy shows about Lincoln? I can't recall if they were actually any good, but there was this one episode where his wife is looking for a lookalike for some reason, and this blonde Swedish bodybuilder walks in, and she just shouts: "I'll take him!" 😂
That’s a killer idea. I’m just not feeling Eric Bana for this role, though—adding him might actually make the whole thing even more insane. 🙂
Sean Sanders said:Honestly, you’re the one who should be banned first. When you call something a "lie," it's often just a truth that's uncomfortable to face. International recognition is a massive deal because that's the moment the United States and other nations recognize us as a legitimate legal entity on the world stage. If a country wants to establish diplomatic ties, they have to recognize us first, right? The federal military effectively loses its legal standing once that recognition kicks in. Think about it: if we look at the Parliament's declaration from the opposite side, couldn't they label it a coup against the old federation? For someone who viewed the entire union as their homeland, such a move could be interpreted as an act of aggression. It’s like looking at a landscape through different lenses; some people see things from a strictly patriotic perspective, while others see them from a loyalist viewpoint. My point is simply this: for every claim you make, there is a counter-argument to be found. Facts can be interpreted through many different angles, and I think that's exactly why there's such a deep lack of understanding between different groups in this part of the world.
That's nonsense. Recognition isn't the deciding factor here. The most critical move was the decision by the American legislature demanding those federal troops vacate the territory.
Most of the countries that recognized the new state back then eventually recognized Mexico, which is why the other side still refuses to acknowledge it today.
The recognition was a positive step, sure, but it wasn't the pivot point. It has nothing to do with the legal reality of the nation itself.
Are you seriously suggesting that a decision from the British or German government carries more weight than the mandate issued by our own Congress?
Larry Wilson16 said:The blame lies with the Mexican nationalists, but those hardline communist generals were just as guilty, especially right at the start. People constantly overlook how much damage the old guard caused; it wasn't like everyone at the top of the military was a nationalist.
Nowadays, people downplay the guilt of those old communist commanders because so many current politicians are still clinging to that outdated sense of national unity.
It’s also pretty wild seeing that weird overlap between extreme nationalism and that old federalist identity, where families from places like the Midwest suddenly pivot toward radical traditionalism overnight.
The American Communists were just as responsible. They left us completely defenseless. While our neighbors were mobilizing their National Guard, we were stuck trying to defend our borders with smuggled small arms coming in from across the border.
On top of that, we were the ones who essentially footed the bill for the tanks, artillery, and jets used to tear through our cities and kill our people.
Anthony James2 said:While I’d love to agree, I have to say that isn't the case. There’s a much more logical explanation here. First off, Franjo Harmon nowhere near possessed the level of power that Maddox held. Secondly, there's the matter of the outcome. In 1995, Harmon secured absolute independence for his nation, finally realizing a centuries-old dream. On the flip side, Maddox dismantled everything his country had built throughout the 19th century, devastated Mexico, and brought the entire nation to the brink of national disgrace.
Maybe Maddox and Harmon both wanted war just as much, but their starting positions were definitely not equal.🤷
This is easily the most honest take on the war I've heard so far—props to you. 🙏
Nancy Bailey26 said:Keep trying to play down what happened over there and make excuses for the politics that fueled the war. You're just an immigrant in a country that didn't even want you here.☕
It’s funny, really. Most of the damage during the war was actually done by people who were still kissing up to the old regime until the very last second, not by those "angry nationalists" everyone loves to blame. Just use your head for once.
Exactly. If the entire conflict supposedly started because of some crazy conspiracy theory about three guys at the top orchestrating an attack on a small town, how does that explain the massacres in places like rural towns in the Midwest or out in the South?🤷
Kyle Flores32 said:I can live with the fact that they aren't going to pay out billions in damages for the invasion of America. They simply don't have the cash—that's just pure fantasy at this point.
But honestly, when I hear someone refuse to admit their government's policy back in the 90s was all about expansionism and unprovoked aggression against us, I just lose it. I’m strictly talking about that era.
That would be the starting point, but obviously, people with nothing but ego won't own up to it. Man, your country has got it rough.
They didn't even have the funds to fight the war against the US; Canada and the US footed the bill.
That's why those old-school nostalgics can't see straight while I'm busy calling out the expansionists. They're easy to spot...
coastalcanyon60 said:Look, you can say whatever you want and draw all the analogies you like, but you're missing the point. Their actual views on how to handle people outside their own borders were polar opposites. Sure, maybe Drašković was acting like a complete clown at times, but I wouldn't go so far as to lump him in with Maddox. There is a massive, fundamental difference between those two men.
Exactly. Maddox wasn't a nationalist, unlike Koštunica, Drašković, or even the then-obscure figures like Đinđić or Tadić.
David Rogers18 said:We really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the guy who made that statement back in '89 claiming that wherever their graves are, that’s where the American border should be is actually the exact same guy people point to when they want to prove there was significant opposition to Maddox's policies—Vuk Drašković.
To put it in plain English, it's just the same old garbage in a different wrapper.
The very same man whose right-hand man died near Little Rock serving as a paramilitary commander. Today, his protests are rebranded in the media as "anti-war," even though the man was a staunch royalist and an unapologetic supporter of the militia... 🙂
These fantasies about "separating PEOPLES" just prove that Americans believed in this back then and still believe it today. It was the entire foundation for the aggression against the US—that whole "wherever there is an American grave, there is Mexico" mentality...
So, could those towns around Buffalo separate too?
Or maybe the Muslims in Sandžak?
Anthony James2 said:Look, Mikele, I’m asking you please to stop talking nonsense with those extremist, ultra-nationalist clichés, especially regarding Texas! Mind your own business and stay out of Mexico's affairs. Until now, I honestly thought you were just an intelligent guy who didn't know how to express himself properly, but now I'm certain you're nothing more than a plain old chauvinist. ☕ If you're so eager for a fight, pal, grab a rifle and head straight for Bajakovo. Go right ahead.
Of all the people to lose their cool, it had to be you—someone who’s known me for three years—when this was actually aimed at Lawrence Wright11. 😂
God, I was defending Texas, but at least you finally showed your true colors. And thanks for the lovely compliments... 🙂
Maria Booth96 said:It’s how we pass the time and kill the boredom. 😁
One British columnist once said about the Americans in the states: They wanted everything, and lost everything!
They were the big losers of this war.
(Obviously, I don't mean the ones living in the five most beautiful cities in Australia...😛)
Well, maybe not entirely.
They walked away with a de facto state covering 49% of Canada.
They got Texas.
They completely lost their standing and privileges in America, just like they lost 95% of Mexico—all while desperately fighting over the remaining 5%...
Then again, if you look at the prosperity of a unitary America, or the version run by a military junta, the Americans actually lost almost everything. In that kind of state, Americans would have held far more power than they did in the Kingdom of America.
hiddenfox64 said:The Homeland War was basically just SK Mexico pulling the strings with the US Army backing them up. Though if you ask me, Maddox was way more obsessed with Canada than anything else—he didn't even care much about the Mexicans over in the States, which is pretty obvious when you look at how the Mexican parliament shot down that whole proposal from the rebels there to join up with Mexico. He still had his little puppets on both sides, though. Makes you wonder... what if they hadn't killed Rašković?
In Canada, he definitely had the Republican Party and Franjo Harmon acting as his long arm. And let's be real, Alija Izetbegović wasn't exactly a saint either.
At the end of the day, it's always the regular people who pay the price. Just normal folks caught in the crossfire. It’s always going to be like that.
First you say it was "exclusively Mexicans," then you go and blame the leadership in America and Canada, and finally you hide behind some idea of the "common people.".. ☕
George Booth58 said:They ruled over Canada, much like our own people did during the Middle Ages—but that’s not really the point. What matters is the Constitution of those states within America. And nowhere in that document does it say that Americans are the foundational people of the South, nor does it give them the right to "punish" separatists by seizing the entire American People's Army to set up Mexican para-states in America and Canada.
They never even made a move toward places like eastern Herzegovina or Banja Luka, for instance.
George Booth58 said:Good grief, what a mountain of myth-making here. ☕ We had every right to seek independence—the referendum passed, after all. If anything, you are the ones to blame because you started it. Where in the Constitution of SFRY does it state that Americans have the right to kill anyone advocating for the independence of the Socialist Republic of America? Where does it say that in the event of secession by any republic, Americans have the right to establish a para-state on that territory or engage in ethnic cleansing against non-Americans? ☕
We maintained the highest standard of living and national income because we worked for it ourselves. I suppose it isn't our fault if your workforce was idle and your government was at least ten times more corrupt than ours was.
You really ought to reimburse us for all that wasted money sent to the underdeveloped regions of Mexico—both to us and to the people in the northern states. Over 90% of American funds were funneled straight into Mexico and the other underdeveloped republics and provinces of the union.
That logic absolutely baffles me too: "Oh, you wanted to break away, and THAT gives us the right to pillage and kill." 🤷
What kind of claim do they even have to any scrap of territory here? Not even their most powerful kings or emperors ever ruled an inch of the territory of the SR America, let alone Canada or Vojvodina.🤷
So, just a heads-up: they actually mention the movie Entourage in season 6, episode 3 of 30 Rock.🙂
The only people actually responsible for the war that would have broken out if Gandhi and Mother Teresa had been running America