Posts by Paul Chase95

Unbelievable—talk about moving the goalposts. Suddenly, the far-left radicals are the paragons of virtue, while a mass murderer and dictator like Franklin D. Roosevelt is being painted as some kind of hero. Honestly, give me a break. And then someone like that actually tries to lecture us on education. 🤣 🙏

I have to admit, I’ve never actually heard anyone float this theory about Mexicans being behind the wildfires. Usually, the conversation revolves around random pyromaniacs or just tourists being careless with their campfires, but blaming Mexicans? Honestly, that’s a new one for me.

darksurfer4 said:Do you honestly believe those types of American right-wingers should be stripped of their right to vote? Or should there be some kind of legal sanction against anyone making public claims that the Earth is just some flat plane?

This is actually a textbook example of "intolerance from the tolerant"—which, if you think about it, just shows you're essentially the same as your average conservative. Nothing better, nothing worse. You’re only tolerant when someone happens to be echoing your own views; the second someone steps outside your little bubble of values, you suddenly turn incredibly rigid and reactionary. It’s a universal trait—don't think you're the exception here. I’ve said it before: the people who brand themselves as the champions of tolerance are often far more intolerant than those labeled as bigots. At least the latter don't pretend otherwise—with the "tolerant" crowd, the intolerance is what actually defines them.

You’d want to ban someone over Flat Earth theories; I’d probably suggest banning anyone without a PhD from voting (which, honestly, might actually be good for the country), and a third person might want to bar anyone without ten years of private sector experience. We all have our own little ideas about what constitutes a justified restriction, but once you start doing that, it isn't a democracy anymore.

darksurfer4 said:Ever since I first became aware of my own consciousness, I’ve harbored a deep-seated distaste for the right wing; I have always viewed them as fundamentally bad, even malicious people. Yet, driven by the philosophical notion that one should strive to understand those they disagree with, I eventually began engaging in discussions with them. I started noticing them in grocery stores, flipping through the pages of Time Magazine. I began browsing those same magazines myself, specifically to attempt to decipher the inner workings of their minds. After some time, however, my perception shifted; I no longer see them as mere political opponents, but rather primarily as mentally ill individuals.🎉🎉

During my debates with these types, I’ve been met with truly staggering claims regarding the former state—claims that, through extensive reading and dialogue with others, I have confirmed have absolutely zero connection to reality. This spans everything from the starvation crises of the 70s and 80s to the concentration camps used against Americans.☕ In that same Time Magazine, I actually read a claim that Milorad Pupovac is orchestrating a genocide against Americans in coordination with the cultural organization "Prosvjeta"🤦—a genocide supposedly funded by tax dollars from the American federal budget.🤣

Let’s step outside our beautiful...

Back in 1996, a certain American right-winger bombed a government building in Oklahoma City because he was convinced the administration was plotting a coup against the American people.🤦

Across the Atlantic Ocean, a right-winger committed an even more heinous act—I am, of course, referring to Andreas Breivik. That maniac slaughtered about 60 people, mostly very young individuals, all because he believed he was protecting Norway from Islamic terrorists.🤦

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, while they stem from a different cultural sphere, from where I sit, they seem to fall under the umbrella of extreme right-wing ideology.

Take Poland, for instance; they were once led by those two idiot twin brothers, one of whom died in a plane crash. One of those twin idiots, leading the nation at the time, was traveling to commemorate crimes in the Katyn Forest. They were supposed to land at the airport in Smolensk, but air traffic control diverted them toward Minsk due to heavy fog over Smolensk. But that was when right-wing paranoia kicked in; the paranoid leader convinced himself the fog was a Russian conspiracy and ordered the landing, which resulted in his death and the deaths of everyone else on that plane.

Right-wingers believe the Earth is flat—hollow, or whatever version of that nonsense—they believe vaccines are a deliberate way to spread autism, they believe in chemtrails, and they sink into all sorts of other idiocy.

It is fascinating how some people drift toward the right as they age; it seems that as the body and mind decay, people gravitate toward right-wing waters. In America, we have examples like Franjo Harmon and Zdravko Tomac. The case of Franjo Harmon is particularly interesting because of his brain tumor; one could argue the tumor itself caused his shift toward the extreme right.🤔

The ultimate point I am making is that membership in right-wing groups and parties should be classified as a mental disorder, and consequently, such individuals should be barred from participating in elections. It would be somewhat similar to what happened with homosexuality, which was once categorized as a mental illness.

No offense intended, but what you’ve laid out here is a staggering amount of human stupidity condensed into a single post. I’ll be the first to admit I’m firmly on the right regarding some issues and fully on the left regarding others, but this? This has absolutely zero connection to reality. Honestly, I started bolding the nonsense you wrote just to keep track, but at this point, the entire text should probably be bolded—it would make summarizing my response much easier.

You seem to have this deep-seated frustration with conservatives—and, funnily enough, you’re acting exactly like those very same people—which you vent across this forum through a fairly shallow and transparently passive-aggressive lens.

But let's get into it. Conservatives and liberals are more or less identical; there isn't actually a massive divide between them. When you talk about "conservatives," I assume you mean the rigid types—and they are essentially the same breed of person as the rigid liberals. Both groups are incredibly narrow-minded; they see and understand only their own bubble, and they claim to support freedom and diverse opinions only as long as those things happen to align perfectly with their specific worldview. A conservative is tolerant toward someone right up until that person threatens their vision of the world (national borders, religion, marriage), while a liberal is tolerant right up until a conservative challenges their values—because the liberal is "for freedom," but only the kind of freedom that fits their particular perspective. What they share is that once you touch that core set of identifying values, both sides tend to resort to insults—whether direct or subtle—mostly because they lack actual arguments or the brainpower to engage deeply. It’s the same pattern: for conservatives, the boogeyman might be someone like a hardline nationalist, while for liberals, it’s someone like a radical activist. One is labeled a fanatic, the other is called a pig. I’m not saying that about those specific people, obviously; I’m just using them as examples of how these minds actually function. A conservative and a liberal are identical down to the last hair; the only difference is the spectrum of values they cling to. They’re like identical twins where one only watches horror movies and the other only watches comedies. Naturally, they both think the other is an idiot, failing to realize how similar they are in how they operate. To a liberal, conservatives are just backward, toothless fossils, while to a conservative, liberals are mindless sheep easily manipulated by everything coming out of Hollywood.

Wasting time commenting on politicians or random individuals like Andreas Breivik is pointless when you can find the exact same behavior on the opposite end of the spectrum. And as for the idea that conservatives believe in a flat Earth? That makes no sense at all. I have no idea where you pulled that absurdity from. Sure, there might be some conservatives who believe it, but there are liberals who do too—it’s completely irrelevant to the broader point.

Kenneth Perez15 said:

says: I’m with you—honestly, I’d let them do whatever they want. Everything. You’ve got one group marching to celebrate the sanctity of life, while the other marches to glorify death. People want to organize Pride parades for any identity you can think of—it doesn't matter. We should just let everyone have their moment, whether it's radical fringe groups or anything else. Heck, if someone wants to march for every single mass murderer and criminal in history—be it Adolf Hitler, Ante Pavelić, or Josip Broz Marshall—so be it. It’s all irrelevant. Let people vent. In two or three years, they’ll get bored, the novelty will wear off, and then they’ll move on to actually intelligent topics. If there’s even one person out there today who feels an affinity for mass murderers like Josip Broz Marshall, Adolf Hitler, or Ante Pavelić, why bother trying to stop them? Politics actually thrives on this stuff because it keeps the focus diverted toward marches, commemorations, and birthdays instead of the real issues...

You’re twisting the facts. People aren't celebrating murder; they’re remembering what life was like during that era, and Josip Broz Marshall is the symbol of that period.
It’s not like people put up monuments to guys like those local mob bosses just because they were cold-blooded killers—they did it for entirely different reasons.

Using that logic, Germans could basically say, "Life was actually quite good during Hitler's reign; we had economic growth and a solid national economy" (which, obviously, was tied directly to the war industry). So, since Hitler is the face of that period, do you really think it’s okay for them to celebrate his birthday? Or if someone associates Hitler with the expansion of the Autobahn, would it be fine to celebrate him just because he represents those things to them?

Personally, I find it wrong. Even if both Hitler and Marshall had certain positive aspects—and let's be honest, they did—it remains an indisputable fact that these men were among history's worst criminals. No matter what positive context you try to wrap them in, I think celebrating them is fundamentally wrong. And sure, that includes a Pavelić, who is effectively the equivalent of Marshall or Hitler here—not that I want anyone jumping down my throat asking, "But what about a Pavelić?"

I’m not trying to turn this into a competition over who was the most evil monster—that’s not the point, and in my eyes, they're all on the same level. At the same time, I get why some people feel a sense of sympathy toward Marshall, a Pavelić, or Hitler. One is driven by nostalgia, another is convinced by the ideology, and I don't necessarily need to hold it against them. I'm just saying that from my perspective, honoring these people as individuals or symbols is wrong. That said, I also don't think we should police everything; people should be allowed to vent their views and move on. We shouldn't give undue importance to either the folks holding rallies in small towns like Kumrovec or the ones marching through the streets in black.

Larry Walker24 said:Let people have their fun. At least they'll blow some cash in Kumrovec.

Speaking of Kumrovec—what’s the deal with that building where they used to study Marxism? Was it sold off? Who actually owns the place now?

I’m with you—I’d let it all slide, honestly. Everything. Some people can march around celebrating the sanctity of life, others can march around celebrating death. They can organize Pride parades for any group they want—gay, bi, hetero, whatever. We should basically just let everything happen, from the five-pointed stars to the more extreme stuff. Let them celebrate literally every criminal and mass murderer out there—whether it's Hitler, or whoever else—it doesn't really matter. Just let everyone vent; in two or three years, they’ll get bored, the novelty will wear off, and we won't have to deal with it anymore. Then, maybe, they'll move on to actual intelligent topics.

I mean, if there isn't even one person left today who is capable of sympathizing with mass murderers and monsters like Hitler or Marshall, then why bother banning anything? Politics actually thrives on this—they just shift the focus onto marches, commemorations, birthdays... and that's how they win.

driftinggull13 said:I know you think so. A conservative is like a guy with a hammer... everything he looks at starts looking like either a hammer or a nail.😉

Alright, fair enough—I was actually starting to worry you might skip over the whole "Republicans are hammers" bit... but you never disappoint. 😁

driftinggull13 said:No... not everything, just specifically the Republicans. And as you can see, I mostly just debate them, which I actually find pretty entertaining.😁 Go ahead then, tell me which one of the people I mentioned isn't a Republican? That mindset of yours is just forgiving your own side for everything while blaming others for things that aren't even true. Honestly, it's a blast "debating" people like you and just... belittling...👍

See, driftinggull13, it all depends on your perspective. To me, those exact types are the real leftists. That’s why I find "debating" them such a treat—or why I prefer to just shut them down. 👍

Then again, even if I view them that way, I'm not going to go around shouting about "leftists" in every single thread.

driftinggull13 said:Honestly, none of us were expecting anything different, or at least I wasn't... what I thought would happen actually happened, the guy is a plagiarist, plain and simple, and it was officially confirmed by the very University of Chicago where he got his degree. Another thing though, it seems like you guys are totally fine with plagiarism being part of a dissertation, but like I said before, the Republican crowd always looks the other way when it comes to their own...😁

driftinggull13, if those famous Republicans didn't exist, who would you even argue with? Don't take this the wrong way, but "mean Republicans" is basically your answer to everything. Your life is so incredibly simple and beautiful that your solution to every single problem is just... Republicans. It’s never "maybe," it’s always the same. I get the feeling that if you order a pizza and it tastes terrible, it's because of the Republicans; if you buy a Ford Fiesta and it breaks down after 50,000 miles, it's the Republicans; if an antibiotic doesn't work, it's the Republicans; if Christian Bale wins an Oscar, or Gregory Perelman fixes Poincaré's conjecture... it's the Republicans. Seriously, do you have anything else? No offense, but please try looking at things through a lens that isn't shaped by those famous Republicans. You can't have every single answer—from the quality of a canned ham to rocket propulsion—be "the Republicans."

Christian Torres3 said:Besides, who even is Pavo? The guy who already kicked the Republican Party to the curb once when he left that Undersecretary position?

Total saint. A true pillar of morality for our society.

I honestly don't get why everything has to be such an extreme binary. Why can't we just exist in the middle? Who decided there's this supposed "moral compass" we all have to follow, or that someone has to be a perfect saint, or a legendary minister, or whatever else? It seems like for you, if someone doesn't fit your specific criteria, they're automatically garbage. Is it really that simple? Like, if you aren't a Republican, you must be a Democrat; if you aren't a fan of Marshall, you must be a fan of Pavelić; if you aren't Black, you must be White?

No, he isn't some paragon of virtue, and frankly, nobody is claiming he is. I haven't met a single politician in my life who qualifies as a "moral compass."

Steven Lee15 said:Why even bother paying attention to this forum drivel!?
They are insignificant. 😉

Then again, you have to understand where they're coming from—people were basically rooting for Pavo to fail his doctorate; they were just sitting there waiting for the inevitable disappointment, only to find out he actually pulled it off. 😢

It’s like that one guy in the YouTube comments section screaming, "Goal! Goal! No, wait, screw it, it hit the post!" 😁

dustymarlin10 said:The outcome wouldn't have changed much, except maybe we wouldn't be looking at a 98% "yes" vote.

Or maybe I'm just tripping?

Was there really not at least one coworker at every single polling station just waiting for the lights to go out so they could sneak in a little extra vote for their candidate?

Once you realize that whole situation was basically orchestrated with a wink and a nod from the people in charge, why would anyone actually buy into the official story anymore?

Even if the Mexicans were the ones who started the whole war, does it even matter at this point?

Look, I just asked about all five of them, nothing more. I was simply curious if you thought the results would have fallen below 50% if they hadn't rigged it.

Rebecca Diaz said:Let’s say JOHABI actually did forge those results.
What’s your take on an act like that, and what do you think of someone capable of pulling it off?

Don't give me any philosophical fluff—just tell me straight what you think about people who rig referendum results.

Alright, first things first—I didn't even bother looking up which specific case we're talking about, but since there's a 98% figure mentioned, I'm assuming this is about the independence referendum. In that context, my opinion on the act—and the person behind it—is pretty simple: I'm actually grateful they did whatever was necessary to pull us out of that criminal regime where we were treated like second-class citizens.

And please, don't start with the "we aren't doing so well in this country" theory—look, it's true, but that's on us. We blew our own shot. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you; I was just asking if someone thought the outcome would have been different, and that was it. If the results were rigged, then logically, the outcome would have changed—even if it was just by a single vote.

driftinggull13 said:The thing is, he’d have to prove he didn't rip off the work—which is why there's a legal process underway—but the University of Augsburg has already made it crystal clear that he did... 😁 And there’s another massive headache for him: he went ahead and publicly outed the people who filed the complaints against him at the university, even though they were supposed to stay anonymous, which the University of Augsburg has already apologized to them for... So, honestly, he might end up having to sue himself since he’s the one who leaked everything... 😁 If this actually goes to trial, it’s going to be absolute chaos, and frankly, pretty hilarious to watch. Pavo can be whatever you want him to be, but he definitely isn't an idiot...

I was just responding to your point about him not filing a lawsuit, but apparently, he’s already gone and done it.

dustymarlin10 said:Honestly, buddy, given how things are playing out, I’m actually feeling pretty bad about voting "yes."

Then again, even if I had voted no, it wouldn't have mattered much since everything at MZočit had already been strategically handed over to party hacks—the kind of people who made sure the "yes" vote hit 98%.

So, you claim you're defending people from baseless attacks?
The woman herself literally admitted she faked the results.
How exactly is that an "unjustified" outcry?

Maybe take your insinuations somewhere else.
Buddy.
☕

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm curious: if she hadn't faked the numbers, do you think the outcome would have been any different? And do you think there were others like her working to rig things for the opposing side? I'm mostly interested in whether the final result would have changed regardless.

driftinggull13 said:That link has absolutely nothing to do with what Barišić actually did. Augsburg CONFIRMED the plagiarism, so you really need to learn the difference between an action and the consequences of that action... Barišić isn't going to sue because he knows he'll lose hands down.

Well, if you go by the headlines in the news, he’s supposedly already filed it. I’m not saying it’s a fact, obviously, but every single news outlet reporting this is claiming the lawsuit is already in motion.

Harold Phillips54 said:Dr. Pavo Barišić tells CNN: 'It is now crystal clear whose scientific credibility was actually at stake and what the true motives were.'

Press release from Augsburg

The official statement from the University of Augsburg reads:

"In February 2017, formal complaints were filed against Prof. Dr. Pave Barišić regarding his dissertation titled 'world and ethos. Hegelian views on the fall of the West,' which he submitted during the summer semester of 1989 at the then Faculty of Arts and University of Augsburg.

Upon receiving the final reports from both university committees tasked with investigating these allegations, the University of Augsburg has reached its final conclusion regarding the matter in question:

A) There was no violation of the University of Augsburg's general 'Principles for Handling Suspected Scientific Misconduct,' and consequently,

B) It cannot be determined whether any violations occurred under the Promotion Regulations of the former Faculty of Arts and University of Augsburg that would justify accusing Mr. Barišić of intentional fraud or warranting further disciplinary action."

I highly recommend opening this link and reading the full text—with some perspective:

The man has now filed a lawsuit, reportedly seeking $2,000 in damages.
If I were in his shoes, I'd be asking for ten times that amount and donating every cent to charity.
He’s been dragged through the mud by the media and even by people here on this forum, all based on these baseless accusations. He deserves way more than what he's asking for.

Game, set, match—Pavo Barišić takes it. 😁

Gregory Chavez said:It's not "kid," it's a child. 😁

Awesome—turned two this past April, and he's already starting to act like a little rebel. 😁

What about you—marriage, kids, or just seeing someone?

Alright, cool. 👍

No marriage here.

Let’s just let Carbse go. Bato, how’s the kid doing?

Adam King6 said:Don't forget to cheer up Samuel Lopez9 with that book once you guys finally settle on lending him Haile Gebrselassie. 👍

You didn't quite hit the mark there. I actually wrote that hoping you'd tell me I overpaid or something along those lines—just a thought.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:First off, for anyone out there hitting the pavement for an epic run,🤦
Secondly, for those who keep buying running manuals written by an Ethiopian, just one more thing...🤦
And finally, thirdly, I think we have collectively overrated carbs. I managed to build quite a bit of muscle in the gym while staying strictly keto.☕

🤣

The sale was on, so everything was dirt cheap. I snagged the Bleigurg and The Hague stuff from Mladen Schwartz for just $3.00 or maybe 12. 😁