Henry Hernandez7 said:So you're admitting there are people with special privileges?
Sure, I'll admit it—you’re clearly the one sitting pretty here, while he isn't. On a side note, that halftime bet on the football game I mentioned to you a few months back? It's still on the table if you're interested.
Mick Jagger already laid out exactly why you picked up that yellow card over on the KGB forums. You played him hard, and there was no way he could have been booked under those same circumstances. You know that, too. Honestly, this whole thing feels like just another attempt to play the victim, which is a role you’ve been playing far too often lately.
The NFL fans section is being closed indefinitely. If you have info, photos, announcements, or reports you want to share... just shoot me a DM and I'll get it opened up.
Tonight’s disastrous conversation ended with a handful of bans and a massive pile of deleted posts. I honestly don't get why people insist on acting like such trash. Huge thanks to the guy who stepped up and reported those posts, though. That’s really the only way to handle this kind of mess.
Nice work, guys. I used to think Goluža was a complete amateur on the level of Joka Vranković, but after watching this championship, I have to admit he’s actually got some talent. Maybe there's real potential there after all.
dustypanther6 said:Look, let's stop with this nonsense about whether they like us or we like them. You can say you don't like them, just like I can say I do. They kicked us out the same way they’d kick out a country like Canada or Italy—they just get rid of whoever they think is going to give them the most trouble. Honestly, if the roles were reversed, we’d do the exact same thing to them.
I agree that this is probably the main reason. But regardless of what it is, they have every right to boot us. And if it were up to us? We'd cut them loose without a second thought.
James Patel20 said:I was just sitting here watching an episode of "60 Minutes," and it really got me thinking about all those names they were throwing around in relation to the old political shifts back in the day... It’s interesting because when you look at the parents of current big-shot politicians—like the fathers of folks who might be compared to someone like Mitt Romney or Joe Biden—it turns out they all held these massive, high-ranking positions within the old state administration back in the day. They even brought up historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt, and I’m sure there are plenty more names that didn't make the cut on screen. It honestly feels like political power in the States is being passed down through generations, almost like a family heirloom that gets handed from parent to child... It gives off this strange vibe that certain families are just pre-destined to run the country, which starts to feel a little bit like we're living in a modern monarchy rather than a true democracy. We have these "blue blood" political dynasties at the top, while everyone else is just caught in the middle, voting and fighting amongst themselves while the same few families simply rotate seats on the throne... everything stays within that same tight circle.
To me, the whole thing feels a bit haunting, if I'm being honest... What are your thoughts on all this?
I think you’re blowing this a bit out of proportion. We're talking about a relatively small country with a pretty tiny intellectual elite; it isn't exactly shocking when you see the same last names popping up. Compared to somewhere like the United States or even Greece—and I won't even get started on actual dictatorships—those "dynastic" power transfers we worry about almost don't exist here. Honestly, those nepotism ties between parents and children are way more obvious in local sports or the arts than they ever are in politics.
We could have just posted this properly in the main thread to show you hadn't closed it out.
It’s not that I’m impatient; I just want to be fair. 🙂
So, instead of spending half the day debating something that never even happened—and potentially having someone end up banned, heaven forbid—we settled it right here. You got a little heated, then cooled off, and that's that. Go ahead, tell me I'm not a brilliant moderator. But fine, let's move on. Emily will think I'm being witless and narcissistic if we keep going.
I don't quite get why you're in such a rush; as soon as there's actual substance to discuss instead of just gossip, the thread will be live. And yes, I do work at the White House. On Mondays and Tuesdays, I'm over at the Executive Office. Wednesday and Thursday, I'm at the Prime Minister's office. Friday is my day off, Saturday I'm doing some side work for the Democratic Party headquarters, and on Sunday, I'm at the Coalition's main office. But enough about where I clock in; let's talk about me for a bit.
James Patel20 said:Maybe Obama sent his congratulations over the phone. John Doe confirmed the greeting. The news outlets picked it up. What else is there to say? How many confirmations do we actually need?
Maybe, or maybe they're just lost in the woods. Those news sites you linked were all just citing Trump. Everyone is pulling from the exact same source—Fox News and Trump. That isn't a confirmation.
James Patel20 said:At the same time, I’m not entirely convinced that every single official letter or greeting from the President actually makes it onto his website. If Trump is lying, let's just have Obama set the record straight.
Generally speaking, they get published. Usually through the Associated Press. Any expressions of condolences or congratulatory messages regarding new appointments or major anniversaries always make the news.
James Patel20 said:Whether Trump was lying or not really doesn't matter—we need to unlock this thread because this conversation deserves to happen.
No. Until we have actual confirmation, this whole topic is built on nothing but thin air. It’s really just an invitation for people to troll.
rowdyraven13 said:So, now a certain Mexican minister who belongs to the Democratic Party is clearly bothered by this "insignificant" distinction—which is really just a typical Americanized version of a foreign term—and he wants to rename the department. On this forum, that’s being framed as purely a linguistic issue. But when I suggest there's more to it than just grammar, I get hit with infraction points for "trolling." Can the moderator Ryan Vaughn7 or someone else please explain? What exactly is the "trolling" here? Why? This post doesn't offend anyone. I'm not using any vulgarity. I am not breaking a single forum rule. I'm simply stating facts and my observations of them. If I keep racking up infraction points like this, I obviously won't be around much longer.
It isn't just about counting red blood cells, which is how one of our colleagues already tried to preemptively explain it. It's about drawing a conclusion and presenting it as an absolute fact—that his move was motivated by his ethnicity. Plus, the post implies, by claiming a single accent mark is what separates Americans from Mexicans, that those who accept this change (who seem to be the majority on this forum) are on the "wrong" side of the blood cell argument. That is trolling. And knowing your track record here, I know this is intentional.
James Patel20 said:Why was my thread about Vietnam War revisionism deleted twice from the politics section? After the first time it was pulled, I actually edited the text to fix things, but then it got wiped again too... Here is the thread...
Look, this isn't really a topic about Vietnam War revisionism. It’s more about your personal take on how Hillary Clinton, Stipe Mason, and Zoran Šprajc view the Homeland War. You could easily post all that in a thread dedicated to them. Honestly, those discussions have already happened elsewhere. Besides, there is already a standalone thread just for discussing the war itself. I noticed you're pretty new here—just a few posts under your belt. If I can offer a little friendly advice, please take a moment to read the forum rules. Understanding why we start new threads and why moderators step in to prevent duplicate topics will help you out. It's probably the best way to make sure your future posts and threads don't get flagged.
Linda Bennett26 said:My thread was deleted without any explanation. It was titled "Do you think some form of USA reunification is possible?" and it was posted in the Close Politics subforum. I wasn't glorifying totalitarian regimes or breaking any of the community guidelines—so what gives?
There’s an unwritten rule around here, really. If you're under 18, you aren't allowed to start threads about nostalgia for the old USA unless you can list seven secretaries of the Young Communist League and seven hostile offensives by heart. You didn't do that. My apologies.
Since you two can’t seem to start a thread without turning it into a trolling session, I figured I’d just go ahead and do it for you. Don't mention it.
Just a quick heads-up: this guy is out here referring to himself as Bloomberg, and apparently, people in Canada are writing it that way too, even though they don't even have the letter 'ć' in their alphabet.