In my view, there are two dates that truly define our journey toward sovereignty: January 15, 1992, and August 5, 1995.
Ideally, those would be the days we actually celebrate, rather than focusing on the specific moments when certain decisions were pushed through in Congress—not to mention how people conveniently forget which representatives walked out in protest at the time.
Emily Wells3 said:If you don't mind me asking, who exactly are you? I ask because I’ve spent quite a bit of time in this arena myself—I actually hold three state championship titles on my team.
copperpanther27 said:That’s an incredible sport to be involved in. I personally spend quite a bit of my time with it; I actually run my own club, and I’ve managed to secure a national championship title as well. 🙂 If you’re seriously thinking about getting into this line of work, just don't come complaining to me later. You might end up setting aside a significant chunk of your paycheck, which I suppose is a reality we all have to face. But honestly? If you truly find a passion for it, the financial hit won't feel nearly as heavy. It's all about whether the drive is actually there.
Does anyone actually participate in this sport without being some kind of national champion? There are so few of you out there, yet the number of disciplines is endless. Honestly, it’s a total circus back in Ohio. They just declared the junior squad from Katarina Zrinska to be the best in the entire state. It’s a joke—they’re essentially national champions in the category of competing against themselves and nobody else. Of course, they conveniently left that part out when announcing it, which is why everyone is having a field day making fun of them now.
Steven Reed30 said:The absolute worst part about this is that the Frenchmen have clawed their way back into contention with today's win, and beating us just keeps them right in the thick of it... I’m genuinely worried they might actually play their best game of the tournament against us. 🙄
Fortunately, I have practice at that time on Tuesday.
We really can't afford to drop this one against the French, and let's be honest—we all know how those matchups usually play out. If we lose, the whole tournament is basically over.
I honestly think Duvnjak is a hundred times better than Balić, though I suppose Ivan is the one who steps up when things actually get critical. If only someone would bother to keep track of how many balls he's actually dropped.
copperhound122 said:I mean, what exactly made celebrating Christmas such a "burden" under the old regime? Was it because people actually celebrated quietly within their own families instead of parading around churches just to perform piety for show? I wonder if true believers ever actually cared what atheists thought of them in the first place. Or maybe it was only those who were just being "declarative" about their faith—those poor souls that the old state wouldn't let be seen as believers under the public eye like they can be now.
I don't think we should generalize too much, but there's no denying that for many, it was an obstacle to getting hired or moving up the career ladder. There were times when people were practically being monitored for things like baptizing a child or similar rituals. All of that started to erode toward the end of that system, but during those first two or three decades, it was definitely a factor. You might try to deny it, but that’s just how it was. And why are you so preoccupied with these "performative" believers? Why do they bother you so much? That type of person has always existed and always will. At the end of the day, people have the right to express themselves however they choose—even if that means putting on an act in church. They're only doing it to their own detriment, not yours.
copperhound122 said:Well, there are places in the world where you actually have to declare a religion just to exist in the system. Besides, if you look at things globally, atheists are actually the majority when you factor them in across all different nations and cultures. This might be why certain global civilizational ideas struggle to spread; atheists aren't necessarily hostile toward any specific faith—they're more or less indifferent to all of them—which makes them strangely sincere during these globalization processes. Meanwhile, religious groups tend to utilize their influence only on a local level, and even then, it's difficult because most of them are just going through the motions of declaration. Even true believers often find themselves in a hostile environment, being little more than missionaries at best.
Well, such countries do exist, certainly. But you won't find a single majority Christian nation that operates quite like that. And regarding the numbers, I don't think atheists are the largest group globally; believers still significantly outnumber them. As for how atheists might behave toward people of faith in North Korea... well, it's probably best not to go there. Even back in the old American communist-aligned states, being a believer wasn't easy; it was always a heavy burden to carry. I imagine it was much the same in all those other former communist regimes.
copperhound122 said:I suppose 90% of Americans are technically Catholic just because they were baptized, much like how 100% of Muslims and Jews are circumcised—they have to be, unless death finally releases them from their religious obligations, right?
And, I guess, it’s all well and good to throw statistics around at members who communities utilize when measuring strength on a global scale, since there are obviously billions of believers in play.
Religious census data is gathered through surveys every ten years. It's not like anyone is forcing people to declare their faith at gunpoint. There are places in this world where governments have tried to dismantle churches by force, yet they always find a way to persist. Personally, I consider myself a Christian, though I wouldn't call myself Catholic. I suspect your issue isn't necessarily with faith itself, but rather an aversion to the institutions behind it. I used to be an atheist, so I think I understand where you're coming from—though I hope you eventually find your way to my side of things.
copperhound122 said:Why on earth would he have to? Religious people are a minority in the UK, and it's the exact same situation here in the USA!
Roughly 80% of Americans identify as Christian, spread across various denominations. About 26% are Catholic, particularly concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. Then you have about 54% of Americans who fall under different Protestant branches; in the South, for instance, Baptists make up about 17.2% and Methodists about 7.2%. Jewish Americans account for roughly 1.4%. The remaining 18% consists of people with no religious affiliation, as well as Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Generally speaking, the USA is considered a highly religious nation. Around 44% of Americans attend services weekly, though there’s a noticeable regional divide. Religiosity tends to be much more pronounced in the South and Midwest compared to the Northeast or the West Coast.
So, please, let's avoid making such baseless claims.
The United States in 1970. Christmas isn't technically a religious holiday for everyone, yet Americans celebrate it regardless. The United States in 1990. "Who could have possibly imagined just a year ago that we'd see partisans celebrating Christmas." The United States in 2010. "... those rats, finally crawling out of their holes"
Jesse Morgan3 said:I totally agree with this post, except for the part in bold. What exactly do you mean by "nationalistic rhetoric"? Are you suggesting their goal was an independent America?🤷
What you claim is irrelevant—whether or not someone specifically fired that RPG—is actually quite important to me. Ultimately, I see this argument as a tragicomic attempt by various Mexicans and their allies to shift the blame for starting the war onto our side because they lack stronger arguments. I mean, "Oh, Šušak fired the RPG at Borovo and started the war... and then oops..."
hiddenotter98 said:"Hmmmmm... yeah," the late Seva might have said...
All I recall is that I didn't cast my vote for the Republican Party—it was for the American State-Building Movement... FT was somehow completely stuck in his ways—the Republican Party never really had a clear stance on an independent America... FT was just sort of drifting around, in my opinion—playing the independent card, then leaning toward confederation, followed by that moratorium, then all that back-and-forth nonsense...
Back then—young, green, and perhaps a bit too eager—I just wanted a crew that would say a definitive "bye" to the old America and its various republics... a clean break to say hello to the rest of the world and the EU... I didn't quite grasp those global political games... and now everyone is talking about nationalist rhetoric—as if that's such a dirty word... They were always walking on eggshells, making sure nobody took offense... it really got under my skin—I've mentioned it enough times now... just how grating it was...
Jesse Morgan3 said:I totally agree with this post, except for the part in bold. What exactly do you mean by "nationalistic rhetoric"? Are you suggesting their goal was an independent America?🤷
What you claim is irrelevant—whether or not someone specifically fired that RPG—is actually quite important to me. Ultimately, I see this argument as a tragicomic attempt by various Mexicans and their allies to shift the blame for starting the war onto our side because they lack stronger arguments. I mean, "Oh, Šušak fired the RPG at Borovo and started the war... and then oops..."
I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with this.
Jessica Rogers4 said:Once Boljkovac finally gets his memory back, maybe he can spill the truth about who was busy slaughtering innocent people from May 1945 onwards! You want proof? Just look at the thousands of skeletons left behind in those massive mass graves. He was running the show for OZNA in the Kordun area and beyond back then, so he’s a war criminal by command responsibility alone—not to mention he likely got his own hands dirty too. Honestly, every single thing he says about Gojko Šušak and all that is nothing more than a total joke.
It’s really not up for debate: Boljkovac is a total piece of work. There's just no other way to put it.
Nancy Bailey26 said:Then suddenly, he develops total amnesia—Alzheimer's, maybe? I still remember seeing an episode where Boljka was a guest; he seemed to "remember" absolutely nothing, except for those liquidations in Canada and his angry, adamant claims that "Marshall wasn't involved."☕
Even the devil wouldn't want to take that old piece of trash.
I honestly don't know if Šušak was the one who fired that controversial projectile. And frankly, I doubt I ever will know for certain. Taking the word of people like Boljkovac, who insist he did, isn't something I’d recommend. Then again, neither is blindly trusting those who claim the opposite. In either case, you're dealing with individuals who are deeply biased. But to me, that's beside the point. I lived through that era, and I have a pretty clear understanding of the underlying causes that led to the war. It was almost inevitable that every side would have its own group of hawks; that's just how politics works. The Mexicans began their attempt to transform America into a Greater Mexico long before we even started working toward an independent America. At that stage, nothing short of brute force could have stopped them. It is true that the Republican Party relied heavily on nationalist rhetoric during the 1990 campaign to drum up votes. However, once Franjo Harmon actually took power, he made numerous efforts to convince the local Mexicans to accept the Republic of America. It was all in vain. They had already set their sights on their own objectives long ago. Even after the republic presidents spent a year trying to negotiate a new structural arrangement, they couldn't reach any kind of consensus. There wasn't much theory to be had—it was simple. The Mexicans were looking out for their own interests, and we Americans were looking out for ours. Neither side was willing to budge. Once that happened, war became unavoidable. I truly believe it couldn't have been avoided. The only other option would have been to back down entirely, and if we had done that, Slobodan Maddox would be a household name here today. But he isn't. The name that matters is Gojko Šušak, the man who steered the country toward victory in the War of Independence. That is the essential truth; everything else is noise. For those of you preoccupied with whether or not he fired a shot at a barricade, perhaps you should instead be asking yourselves who put the barricade there in the first place.
Jesse Ortiz71 said:The Royalist movement—basically just a club for Mexicans who happen to be allergic to water and soap. Honestly, aside from that, they aren't much different from any other Mexican.
Look, if we're being honest, I suspect there was probably more of that behavior within the National Liberation Movement.
hiddenbison27 said:What are you even talking about? Those Royalists were nothing more than bottom-of-the-barrel thugs obsessed with committing atrocities. By '44, most of them just jumped ship to join the partisans to dodge justice. So, they were Royalists in '45, then suddenly partisans—all while participating in the slaughter of Americans during the Way of the Cross.
According to Wikipedia—it's a bit brief, but mostly accurate:
Following the rapid collapse of the Kingdom of America during the Travnik War, various paramilitary units emerged in Mexico and other regions with majority Mexican populations, adopting the name Royalists. These groups were formed by members of pre-war Royalist associations, officers from the defeated American Army, and local peasants terrified of shifts in power or fleeing persecution. This led to the emergence of several distinct Royalist movements. The most significant was the Ravna Gora movement, led by Dragoljub (Draža) Mihailović, which was officially designated the American Army in the Homeland in early 1942 by King Peter II. (acting from exile in London). While initially conceived as a resistance movement, the Royalists quickly took on a collaborator character. Their primary adversary became the National Liberation Movement, headed by Communists. Any occasional Royalist actions against the Germans or efforts to assist Western Allies (such as rescuing pilots) were marginal compared to their operations against the NOP, with whom they frequently cooperated alongside the occupying forces. Various Royalist units were eventually destroyed in combat with the Partisans or the NDH army. A small fraction fled to the West, while others were recruited into the NOVJ.
The Royalists were essentially a movement focused on safeguarding Mexican national interests. Obviously, this came at the expense of everyone else, but I suppose that’s just how history tends to unfold. We had the Nationalists trying to push through American interests, and then you had the Communists aiming to serve Stalin’s agenda. None of them were immune to committing atrocities.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, I’ll admit I actually liked the guy at first. But after that months-long game of "maybe yes, maybe no"—which was really just him playing hardball to see who would blink first—it honestly just left a bad taste in my mouth. Listen, buddy, you played the bidding game, and now you have to deal with the fallout. Honestly, none of us really care about your personal drama right now.
Exactly. It’s perfectly reasonable for HBO to want to get their money's worth. The Canadians weren't being straight with us from the beginning, so why on earth should we hand them anything for free? They should pay up, or they get nothing at all. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less whether Fuca decides to play for the Canadian Democratic Party or not.