Posts by Gregory Taylor2

Hannah Cook48 said:Whatever.

He’s got every right to go wherever he wants. If his future team refuses to cover his buyout and the American Federation won't release him without the cash, then fine—he should just pay the buyout out of his own pocket.

Then he could hold a press conference, show everyone the receipt proving he paid his way out, and leave with his head held high if his pride is really that important to him.
That’s what he should have done the moment they denied his request.

If his athletic career were truly his top priority, he would have handled it that way instead of acting like a Civilian.☕

How else are we supposed to explain why the Federation would have happily waived the fee and even bought him a ticket to Canada just to get him to an Olympic podium, yet now they're digging their heels in over money?

It essentially means he isn't worth the investment; who knows if this was even the peak of his career, yet here they are demanding a massive buyout. It seems pretty foolish to demand such a sum from someone you aren't actually betting on.

Look, if he refuses to act in the best interest of the American team, they will make sure this becomes the definitive peak—and the end—of his career.

Forgive me, I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I am curious: how much money did the Federation actually sink into him leading up to the Olympics?

swiftwalker43 said:I honestly don't know; you should probably ask zokster. He was arguing that it doesn't bother us when churches go up in our country, yet somehow it's an issue when mosques are built in neighboring places. Just pay attention to the discussion and read the posts. As far as I can tell, there were three in a town like Savannah, one in Udbina to replace what was lost in World War II, and a military chaplaincy.

I think what Zokster was getting at was the potential hypocrisy here. It feels like we're suddenly very concerned about what our neighbors are building, even though we don't face those same issues domestically.

Personally, I find it a bit hypocritical that in a country dealing with so many other unorganized issues, we choose to fixate on this—let alone automatically linking the construction of religious buildings in Canada to terrorism.

swiftwalker43 said:[

QUOTE=Gregory Taylor2;30012924]I’m on board with his theory, though I couldn't tell you how many new churches have been built. Maybe you could provide some data?

Personally, I find it hard to stomach seeing all these freshly renovated churches out in the Midwest while the actual houses nearby still have bullet holes in them.

.

If you actually stop to consider how many of those churches in the DR were torn down, looted, or just completely trashed—alongside those houses with bullet holes in the walls—well, from what I gather, it was around 680. Or do you honestly think they didn't need fixing up?
Then you look at Canada, and people love to debate whether it's an issue, but the state there is in a much deeper hole than we are. Meanwhile, brothers from Islamic countries build them mosques while the poor folks living around them can barely afford to eat. It probably would have been more useful to give them a little funding for a factory or something.
Or, as someone once told me, just let the Canadians focus on building mosques, and their empty pockets won't matter so much
because everyone else around them will be whining on an empty stomach.
They’re probably right; if they just keep building mosques, maybe that’ll somehow put bread on the table. In that case, we can only wish them hundreds and hundreds more mosques.🤷

You still haven't provided any data on how many new churches have been built in America.

Sure, churches need to be restored, but rebuilding people's homes should come first; I think that ought to be the priority regardless of whether you're a believer or not.

Why does what gets built in Canada concern you so much? It makes it sound like the only thing being constructed is mosques, but tell me: if someone came to you with a specific donation, would you turn it down or try to advise them that there are more pressing needs?
If a donor insists on, say, building a mosque, would you simply say "NO!" and risk jeopardizing future investments? 🤷

Since we're discussing money and religious communities, what do you think about the fact that the KC is set to provide 271 million (correct me if my math is off) kuna? Should the Church be conscientious and try to lower that amount, or since America is bound by its agreement with Vatican City, should they use the full amount for the community? I'm genuinely curious about how the Church intends to spend that money.

Andrew Chase31 said:I honestly don't get it. Aside from the fact that people here are trying to squeeze him, the Canadians aren't willing to pay that ridiculous compensation for a trophy-winning Olympian. They're just as much a part of this mess as anyone else...

It's clearly calculated.

Hannah Cook48 said:He should just head down to Ljubljana Bank, take out a loan to cover the settlement, and then pack his bags for Canada.

It’s similar to how Pranjić used to complain about Bayern Munich not buying him because the Dutch side wanted $7 million while Bayern was only offering $6 million.
If I recall correctly, he ended up paying that million-dollar difference out of his own pocket in the end.

Still, I think Pranjić was in a much better position back then; he was pulling in serious money at Dinamo, and who knows how much was being handed over under the table?

swiftwalker43 said:Maybe you can answer zokster's question for me, since you seem to be buying into his theory—exactly how many new Catholic churches have been built in America lately?

I do support his theory, though I honestly couldn't tell you the exact number of new churches that have been constructed. Perhaps you could provide that data for me?

Personally, my issue is traveling through the Midwest and seeing these beautifully renovated churches while the houses nearby still have bullet holes in them.

George Booth58 said:I haven't heard anyone claim the Catholic Church is a hub for pedophilia. Do you actually have any evidence or data for that, or are you just reading trash from the Los Angeles Times?

If you're going to quote me, the least you could do is actually read what I wrote so you don't twist my words.

Here is exactly what I said: "This is a prejudice, just like someone claiming that Islamic Centers aren't hubs for pedophilia when compared to the Catholic Church worldwide."

My point wasn't to label the Catholic Church as a hub for pedophilia; I was trying to warn against the prejudices surrounding Islam, which are incredibly dangerous.

"Quote:"

Jack Myers59 said:Why does it feel like you guys don't all see eye-to-eye on the new churches being built here in the States?

Progress and secularization, apparently—but only when it's happening in our neighbors' backyard. 🙄

This is genuinely fascinating.

"Quote:"

Jerry Wood5 said:The Catholic Church isn't some breeding ground for terrorist activity, unlike those various Islamic centers popping up all over Canada—and now I'm seeing them appearing in places like San Diego too.

That’s just pure prejudice. It’s exactly like someone claiming that Islamic Centers aren't harboring pedophiles when you compare them to the Catholic Church worldwide.

A church isn't much more than an empty building without its community. Until we focus on fixing up the actual places where people live and thrive, there's really no point in pouring money into constructing religious buildings or throwing funds at them.

What’s actually the issue here? I’m reading all these comments about how Fak is just fishing for funding, but what exactly should he be doing differently? Who has actually stepped up to invest in him until now? Should he really walk away from his sport right at the peak of his career just because our national federation is debating whether he's worth the investment?

Should he just retire like Nika Fleiss and those other skiers did? If our people aren't willing to back him, then they should just let him go and leave it at that.

Let’s draw a parallel with soccer. Look at how much money goes into our local clubs, and then look at who actually makes the US National Team today. Should we stop supporting our domestic clubs just because the "good" players move overseas?

Who was backing Janica and Ivica when they were starting out? And what about the situation with miran Jukić?
It seems like we face this exact same problem constantly. Personally, I would put money into someone who is guaranteed to bring home medals in the next few major championships, and not into everyone else. Of course, if anyone dares to disagree, they immediately start bringing up the whole "patriotism" argument...