Posts by Susan Price30

The only thing capable of failing—and indeed, the only thing currently failing—is communism.🤣

Capitalism, on the other hand, simply cannot fail.😉

Peter Morgan3 said:We can spend our time hating everything from the old USA era and Josip Broz Marshall to communism itself...
But if it hadn't worked, it wouldn't have lasted forty-five years.
People can spin whatever fairy tales they want about whether things were better or worse—it all comes down to perspective...
The reality is simply that it was different.
I never hated it, though I’m certainly no one's nostalgic dreamer.

Out of all of it, my only grievance is with our own people—every group across the former states who lacked the strength, the will, or the sense to resist the toxic ideologies that took hold in the early 90s.
If only the ringleaders had been dealt with at the dawn of the conflict, and everyone had sat down to negotiate like adults.
Perhaps we all got more or less what we thought we wanted back then, but I doubt we are all actually happy with the result.
As the old saying goes: be careful what you wish for...
☕
I can only hope that in the future, we all become a bit smarter, more cautious, and a little wiser...

Actually, I’d argue the opposite—if it were truly successful, it wouldn't have stopped at just 45 years.😉
In the context of an entire nation's history, forty-five years is nothing more than a mere blink of an eye.

Sarah Wilson95 said:just another person acting like they actually lived through communism, even though a true communist state has never really existed anywhere yet 🙄😁

So, looking at it objectively, the idea behind the USA was actually quite brilliant, representing perhaps the most significant step toward political emancipation for all the various ethnic groups involved (assuming they were being honest with themselves 😳😁 ). Unfortunately, when put into practice, the system proved unable to resist even the most primitive forms of nationalism, which essentially forced us to set the whole issue aside for the next century or so, if you ask me, and hopefully, that stays the case

In reality, it’s going to take some time to truly understand why the hunger for capitalism ran so deep, especially when you look specifically at the situation in California, which serves as such a tragic example of how that played out 🤷

Furthermore, when you consider the EU, where Americans won't possess nearly the same level of rights they once held within the US federation... it makes you wonder: did people give up their hard-won rights because they didn't grasp the trade-offs, or were they simply caught up in a nationalist trance?

🤦 But there was definitely a single ruling party called the "Communist Party." Why didn't they just call themselves Social Democrats or something else if they weren't actually communist? 🙄☕

Why do you find that funny?
What options did America have, for example, after its traditional allies like Germany and Austria were defeated? The other allies couldn't care less about us, and Stalinism was blowing in from the East.

America? What are we talking about here—our own country or the old USA? 🤷

Rachel Carter90 said:So, what was the actual reasoning behind backing the whole breakup of America and the creation of seven different states?

Aside from that whole communist setup, I don't really see anything else that could actually sink it. The republics were all on equal footing—I mean, America was set up as a totally symmetrical federation—so that whole "inequality" argument just doesn't hold any water if you ask me.

So, what exactly was it about America that you guys hated so much? Like, what was the deal that made you all so down with the idea of just tearing the whole thing down?

It was an artificial, sinister construct built on nothing but corruption and blind worship of some illiterate guy who declared himself the "leader of the people."

The mere thought of it makes my skin crawl. And the funniest part? They actually teamed up with those so-called independent nations like India, Bangladesh & Co. and treated them as their primary "allies."😬 😂

Jamie Chase6 said:So, as a theologian, do you actually believe in the existence of demonic possession? This is a real question, even if it seems like a theoretical one at first glance. 🙂

Follow-up question: Are you arguing that the symptoms described above (at least some of them) are specific indicators of possession that distinguish it from standard mental illness? And if so, according to theological doctrine, what exactly are the symptoms of possession?

Of course I believe in it. 😁

You’ve highlighted several symptoms there,🙏 though it could also be oppression or something else entirely. By asking the right questions when someone reaches out for help, you can often discern whether it's one or the other. But honestly, that isn't my field, and I wouldn't want it to be, to be perfectly frank.

restlessfox29 said:Hey everyone, I was wondering how psychologists typically view people who feel like they're being obsessed over or targeted in some way? Is that usually linked to a specific disorder, or could it just be someone having an overactive imagination? Aside from that, there aren't really any other symptoms present—unless you'd consider a total lack of interest in things to be a symptom too🤷 If there are any professionals in the group, I’d love to hear your thoughts😳

Speaking as a theologian, I can tell you one thing: very few people experience what is classically and "by the book" defined as possession. Most of those who think they are possessed actually aren't, which is why they end up seeing a psychiatrist rather than seeking help from clergy or religious institutions. And I think it will stay that way...

Furthermore, those dealing with spiritual disturbances almost always have underlying psychological or mental health issues, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way around.

For instance, I can often tell quite quickly whether someone is experiencing a spiritual issue or if there is another cause, and most experts in this field can do the same. The symptoms in the first case are distinct from those with purely mental health struggles, even when their outward behavior looks identical...

Daniel Ward87 said:The posts have been deleted.

The issue is that some parts of a post are fine, while others aren't. Since moderators generally avoid editing posts—to prevent arguments over whether someone changed their words after a reply was made—some posts stay up because they serve as the foundation for the rest of the thread. There isn't a strict rule here; it's just a matter of the moderator's discretion.

That’s exactly what was so confusing, because my deleted post was actually part of the ongoing discussion, whereas those posts above it weren't really contributing much.

It was the same with my perfectly relevant post on the 'Islamophobia' thread containing that PDF about the world; it got pulled, just like my on-topic post regarding the Kamala Harris administration. It made me feel like this inconsistent deleting was becoming a new trend.

Thanks, Uncle Sam.

I have a question and a request for the administrator in charge of this subforum, who I assume is Daniel Ward87.

I am genuinely curious about the reasoning here, because despite my best intentions, I simply cannot wrap my head around what this style of moderation is meant to achieve.

If certain off-topic posts are being deleted, why aren't all other off-topic posts treated the same way? Furthermore, if someone intentionally stirs the pot by jumping in with an aggressive, argumentative tone, why are the replies to that person removed while the original provocative post is allowed to remain?

thanks

For a few days now, I've been seeing posts and comments like this popping up on one of the current trending threads:

1.

Then what on earth are you even doing here? on an American forum And you're telling me? For Americans. What kind of policy are we actually following?
Take care of that trash heap you call America. I couldn't care less, and I certainly don't spend my time lurking on American forums. If you're the one with the problem, then go ahead and keep hanging around those American boards.

2.

Cut the nonsense and stop worrying about our backyard; just focus on cleaning up your own mess and leave us to manage our own business here.

3.

Who is talking about what? An American discussing culture.

Are you a taxpayer?

So, tell me, Capitalist—if heaven forbid a war breaks out, would you be willing to go fight against Iran?

So, this user has spent the last two pages throwing out personal jabs that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic. They aren't targeting me directly, but it doesn't matter—it's all just mindless provocation at this point. They aren't being deleted. My on-topic post on the last page of this thread was deleted again.

It seems to me like that new, breezy fashion line is called... Primitive. If I recall correctly, since he’s always out there, what does it actually look like?

Could someone please provide an explanation? I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind this approach.

Much appreciated.

Christian Taylor3 said:There is no such thing as permanent account deletion upon request. 🙂 😁

If you're wondering why it's "such a massive headache," feel free to check out the explanation at the link above.

Human Rights Ombudsman Office Forum.HR

for instance, Vicky thought something like that was perfectly fine.

Well, Vicky was clearly overreaching there.

Well, you're being a total killjoy too.🙏 😁

Just let people go through their little virtual meltdowns if they feel like it.

Vicky went a bit too far

Yeah, probably.🙂

casualwolf12 said:Personally, I am sitting here hoping that this individual is currently on their third consecutive day of drafting the most nauseating post in history—one so egregious it earns them a lifetime ban from every single forum across the entire internet.🍿

What exactly does one have to do to land that kind of 'casting'?🤣

@rustydrifter10, we should probably just implement a rule where there are no takebacks once an opinion changes, just so everyone is clear on the stakes. 🤷

Christian Taylor3 said:Don't kid yourself, he doesn't actually care about keeping his "account alive" on your forum.

It’s not that I find it hard to click a button, it's just that this whole pathetic display really gets under my skin.
If someone is actually looking to end it all, they should just go jump off a bridge onto some concrete instead of trying to stage some grand finale here on this forum.
And honestly, if anyone ever finds a clone of someone like that, they should probably just put "self-proclaimed pompous idiot" in their signature.

😬

It's funny how, right after the administration made that stance ("No more permanent bans upon request", which is still the rule), you always seem to find some supermoderator snapping their fingers and saying:

I'm really hoping we don't see this happening again, where a supermoderator just decides to override a decision made by the administration.

In the scenario described, the account would be... Semi-live. 😁 I guess that’s really the only alternative left.

Unless they're just looking to trigger a permanent ban, it doesn't seem like they have any actual plans... Besides, why hasn't a rule been established allowing people to request a permanent account deletion? I really don't see what the big deal would be.

For instance, Vicky thought that kind of thing was perfectly fine.

Gregory Anderson5 said:Well, the title pretty much says it all...
I reached out to the admins about this, and their response was basically "if you don't want to be here, just don't log in." Look, if I can't officially request to be removed from the forum, then why on earth can't I request a permanent ban? It's not like I can't get banned through other means anyway—I could always just stir the pot until they kick me out myself.
But let's think about what’s actually better for the community: is it better for the forum if I waste more of everyone's time here until I eventually earn a ban, or would it be cleaner if they just hit a button and handled it in one click?

At the end of the day, the end result is the same for the admins and for me—we both end up away from the site—we just happen to be taking two different paths to get to the same destination. So, I'm asking one more time: I'd really appreciate it if the administration would reconsider my request.
Thanks for listening.

If you're looking to effectively ban yourself—meaning you can't log in and your account stays dormant—all you have to do is head over to edit your details or edit your e-mail & password and swap out your current email address.

Just enter some fake address and hit save. Since the new address won't be valid, you won't be able to verify the account. That means no logging in and no posting, which is exactly what you're aiming for, right?

easy peasy 😉

I'm looking for something in pink *this one on the left is fine, but it's just way too... blue 😁

Maybe a pink animation or

something pink and glittery

If anyone has anything, please send it my way 😉🙂

Anyway, I'm out...

Aww, we really have the best admin in the world here.😍

slybison8 said:I suppose that isn't necessarily true. There is also a possibility that the European Union might consolidate into a federal state during that time—which, I suspect, is what most member states actually desire, even if they don't express it publicly. In such a scenario, the United Kingdom would likely secure a free trade agreement, which seems to be their primary interest, while the European Union could benefit from moving past British obstructionism. Furthermore, the United Kingdom might find great advantage in this, as any prospects for Scottish independence would likely vanish.

Afterward, the United Kingdom could function either as an associate member of NAFTA, or perhaps initiate its own integration alongside the stronger nations of the Commonwealth. This second option seems more probable, as such an association would probably offer much more benefit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it would to the USA, given that the US might not be particularly interested in bringing the United Kingdom into NAFTA.

In that case, the issue of Northern Ireland would likely return to the forefront. A British exit from the European Union would, for the first time in history, necessitate the establishment of a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This could become a significant complication, especially if the Anglo-Irish agreement regarding the Common Travel Area had to be suspended to accommodate Ireland's entry into the Schengen Area. It is quite possible that the United Kingdom might manage to retain Scotland but end up losing Northern Ireland.

The end of the Union as we know it—that’s essentially what I had in mind. 😁 As for whether that outcome is beneficial or detrimental for the United Kingdom or the European Union, one could certainly debate that...

However, I suspect the proposed referendum was aimed more at significantly stripping the European Union's central authorities of their power regarding decisions made within the United Kingdom rather than a literal 'exit' from the EU.

At least, not for the time being.

P.S. Honestly, most of this will likely amount to nothing at all. 😁- These old-school politicians of ours just keep throwing out ultimatums, while those folks in Brussels just nod along and agree... because they already know exactly which card to play once they reach a consensus. lol

Beyond that, what actually worries me more is David Cameron's blatant support for letting Turkey join the European Union, mostly just to spite the French and Germans... It's even caused David to start getting under the skin of some people in Brussels... as well as journalists in the United Kingdom and plenty of others, despite the fact that a huge number of Members of Parliament disagree with much of his rambling.

If the United Kingdom holds a referendum and there are signs that most Britons want out, we could be looking at the beginning of the end for the European Union.

The trouble started nearly a month ago when the ASPCA secretary labeled Potter an "animal abuser" and a "killer" on Facebook. She even went as far as posting his full name along with a photo taken from behind him next to his car, making sure his license plate was clearly visible, all while accusing him of being responsible for the puppies' deaths.

This one is even more unhinged, claiming he suffocated the puppies for no reason at all.🙏

People should just sue these crazed fanatics from that organization and demand damages, plain and simple...

Frank Moore4 said:This is just another textbook example of how inhumane these self-proclaimed animal rights activists can be. Honestly, half of them probably haven't even walked a dog on a leash, let alone handled actual farm work or livestock. They claim they’re "protecting" animals, but they’d happily step over a human being to do it.

Unfortunately, this is just more evidence of how twisted these Western "liberal values" have become. It’s honestly shameful that our local police aren't stepping in to deal with people like this and filing formal criminal charges for their threats and harassment. At this point, we probably need the courts—and maybe a psychiatric evaluation—to get a handle on them.

Some of them definitely go overboard and act like religious fanatics on a mission, sure. But it's also true that there are actual savages out there who kill or abuse their own pets, and that absolutely needs to be stopped.

I remember a neighbor back when we lived in a rural part of the Midwest; he was a hunter and had this amazing hunting dog that all the neighborhood kids adored. One day, he just lost his temper and shot the dog right in the head. My brother and I were literally crying for days—I mean, what kind of sick individual kills their own dog for no reason? After that, my brother and I didn't want to visit that area at all for a long time. 🤷