Posts by Richard Wilson4

Lawrence Williams said:Those figures represent all the immigrants from the neighboring country who were residing in the US at the time of the census.

That also applies to the Americans—those partisans from California who supposedly moved to Mexico City after the war, maybe even 10,000 of them.

Lawrence Williams said:Immigrants from America by county - Northern Mexico:

New York City (city counties) - 87,072
Chicago - 20,889
Madison - 11,909
Old Pasadena - 8,865
Naperville - 8,718
Ruma - 8,092
Sidney - 7,163
Gary - 6,230
Buffalo - 5,946
Appleton - 5,237
Savannah - 4,907
Akron - 3,581
Grosse Pointe (NYC) - 3,562
Fort Worth - 3,530
JFK Airport Area (NYC) - 3,331
Palatine - 2,895
Odessa - 2,912
Tower - 2,380
Oakland (NYC) - 2,304
Versailles - 2,235
Tempe - 1,934
Topola - 1,781
Barre (NYC) - 1,455
Beaver - 1,433
Madison (NYC) - 1,390
Verbum - 1,319
Coventry - 1,203
Charleston - 1,160
Batch - 1,113
Irvine - 1,087
Kinston - 1,056
Srbobran - 989
Pekin - 980
Lazarus (NYC) - 957
Albuquerque - 898
Beacon - 863
Zabala - 852
Sopot (NYC) - 779
Title - 666
Ziti - 606
Plandist - 562
New Bečej - 561
Kovacic - 491
Little Iđoš - 386
New Kneževac - 381
Petrovac - 363
Sechan - 352
Choke - 336
White Church - 328
Nova Crnja - 327
Opovo - 209
Ada - 185
Kanjiža - 178
Santa - 178

Northern Mexico - 229,116
Southern Mexico - 34,540
Mexico Total - 263,656

That’s basically the entire population of Portland right there.😲

Lawrence Williams said:And how do you account for the fact that 12,996 residents of Naperville County were actually born in Canada or America? 😁

Do we have data broken down by county just for America?
Can we get it for New York City too?

quietangler5 said:The County has 47,000 people, while the city itself sits at 26,000.
Which implies that refugees account for roughly 13% of the total Naperville County population.

Even so, that’s still a massive percentage.

Lawrence Williams said:Yes, we're looking at municipalities here, and Brooklyn is part of New York City. Even the Inđija Municipality has a smaller population than the town I'm thinking of. 😁

For context, 217,493 people fled during that timeframe, while the latest census shows 199,823 are still living in Mexico. I will Sabrać how many of them have stayed in the same municipality since they arrived. 😁

Hold up, are those 6,000 included in Inđija's 26,000 residents?

If so, that’s 23% of the population 😲

Lawrence Williams said:For those interested in the numbers, here is how many remained in the municipalities where people relocated—specifically those who moved from Canada and America between 1991 and 1995, according to the 2011 census:

Chicago - 19,085
Aurora - 6,971
Naperville - 6,297
Ruma - 5,843
Madison - 5,452
Gary - 4,624
Buffalo - 4,509
Gary - 3,848
St. Louis - 3,667
Cleveland - 3,197
Manhattan - 3,101
Akron - 2,582
Green Bay - 2,164
Schaumburg - 1,952
Portland - 1,621
Tulsa - 1,379
Wichita - 1,324
Des Moines - 1,158
Omaha - 1,090
Lincoln - 1,056
Princeton - 957
Sioux Falls - 892
Grand Rapids - 861
Joliet - 850
Aurora - 849
Flint - 846
Toledo - 703
Yorktown - 702
Ann Arbor - 675
Sioux City - 646
Salina - 637
Salina - 546
New Bedford - 427
Sedalia - 381
Boise - 368
Lancaster - 277
Newton - 257
Bela Crkva - 249
Nova Crnja - 247
New Bedford - 231
Boise - 198
Omaha - 147
Kanawha - 135
Ada - 106
Santa Fe - 88
Little Rock - 84

This is broken down by municipality, right?
Buffalo includes that suburban neighborhood, doesn't it?

Man, Savannah seems pretty small compared to the others.🤷

Mexican refugees in Texas back in 1996.

http://www.americanhungarianfederati...ic_map1996.gif

David Price5 said:It wouldn't be a bad idea to just post the movie trailers right away. That way, we have immediate proof of what's being discussed.

Look, I already put the trailers for everything I mentioned in the opening post.🤷

Keith Jones36 said:By definition, a fake trailer would be a trailer for a movie that doesn't even exist...

A trailer is lying if it showcases scenes that aren't actually in the movie....

Man, don't be such a buzzkill. Are we gonna use the politically correct term now? Look, I feel like they lied to me about Bridesmaids and honestly, I'm still pissed. 😉

Ashley Grant66 said:I honestly despise trailers with my whole soul—I never watch them, ever. They just don't make sense to me, and they’ll never be the deciding factor in whether I sit down for a movie or not. I just hate the whole concept. I don't want to see anything before I actually hit play. 😁

Anyway, I came here to vent about this, but then I realized people have already said it:

So, they played the preview in the theater right before another movie, and I immediately thought, "this is going to be total garbage." Like, what are you doing, Scorsese? You've got a black skinhead in the background, everything is hyper-stylized, everyone's acting all cocky, and DiCaprio looks totally wired. It almost made me cry—it gave me such an instant aversion to the film.
But then I check the comments and everyone is absolutely losing their minds with excitement. People whose taste I actually trust, apparently. Guess I'll have to watch it too—no other choice.

I think he really did do some damage to the film, but he gets certain things. Like why McConeghy is in the trailer instead of Jonah Hill, even though he could totally grab an Oscar for this role.

How many times has a trailer hyped you up, only for you to walk out of the theater or turn off the TV feeling totally let down?

Or how about the opposite—when a trailer looked terrible, but then you finally sat down to watch it and regretted waiting so long because it was actually good?

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FULL OF SPOILERS

Here are a few examples of movies where the trailers were total lies, just plain bad, or unfairly pumped me up;

Bridesmaids (2011) - such a notorious one. The trailer promised a non-stop riot, basically a better, female-led version of The Hangover.
Aside from one genuinely hilarious scene, we just got a slow-paced comedy-drama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UW9Zks5L2A

Real Steel (2011) - maybe an even worse offender. It looked like a high-octane action flick set in the near future, packed with robot fights.
Nobody told me we were getting some kid as the lead instead of someone like Wolverine.😂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtTS76us3Q

Super 8 (2010) - based on the trailer, I was expecting a legit sci-fi horror, but what we got was a much lighter "kids movie" vibe that felt pretty underwhelming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzUCA5i6zY

Thinking back to other movies that pop into my head (no need to link the trailers for these), I remember being super disappointed with Hancock. I was expecting an action-comedy, but it was anything but that.

On the flip side, for Wolf of Wall Street, I was expecting mindless fun or some flashy TV commercial type of movie, but I ended up getting the best film of the year.

Just saw the trailer. The whole vibe and the cast look solid. My one worry is if they’re gonna lean too hard into the action genre, but looking at how seasoned this cast is, I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreneTs7sGs

It follows this small US Army unit trying to rescue art from Nazis during the liberation of Europe. Not sure how much of it is based on actual history, but those kinds of operations definitely happened.

It’s got major Ocean's Eleven vibes, but that’s not a bad thing. Personally, I’m expecting a fun, high-quality flick.

boldridge22 said:Look, at the end of the day, every single crime is just as bad, and the people responsible need to face justice.

But I really want to emphasize the crimes committed by Americans here. We’ve gotta clean up our own backyard first—fix our own mistakes
and deal with our own baggage (which, in this specific context, means the Mexicans) before we start pointing fingers at anyone else.

Yeah, well, that’s exactly how we ended up in this mess. We’re busy putting generals on trial while Mexico is out here prosecuting low-level thugs. We’re dragging people through court for beatings, meanwhile they’re dealing with three-year sentences for mass killings.

So what do we actually get out of being this "noble"? Besides giving Mexicans an easy excuse to say "hey, everyone was doing it"☕

Dennis Davis5 said:I don't buy those numbers. Every side committed atrocities. We can't overlook what happened on the American side in western Slavonija—like the ethnic cleansing in late 1991, or what went down in pakrački poljana, Sisak, Gospić, and the camps at Lora, Kerestinec, and beyond...

Look, everyone committed crimes. Fact.

The only thing is, the stuff done by Americans was small-scale and totally uncoordinated.

Between Lora 4 mrtav, about 20 Mexican civilians in Sisak, maybe 30 near pakrački...
And why does nobody talk about the camps over in Mexico? We're talking about 300 Americans who just never came home, which is way more than these cases you see all over the news.

Everything you listed combined is still less than what the Mexicans killed in the banija region alone AFTER 1992. They wiped out the remaining elderly folks—we're talking hundreds. Some sources even say up to 600 Americans were murdered in occupied zones after '92.

But the media—whether it's the pro-government outlets in America or the state media in Mexico—they rarely lay out the civilian death tolls plainly because the numbers are just too bad for the Mexicans.

Mexican civilian deaths hit somewhere between 350 and 500. Let's just round it up to 1,000 if we include POWs and suspicious deaths.

On our side, American civilian and prisoner deaths are about half of our 15,000 total casualties, so over 7,000 people.

Also, when you look at the fallen, for Americans it's a 50-50 split between soldiers and civilians. For the Mexicans, even according to their own reports, it's only 20% civilians and prisoners, while 80% were combat soldiers.

All of this proves Americans weren't pulling off planned or mass atrocities. It’s just that the media is weirdly obsessed with the smaller American incidents.

Ryan Thompson said:Which specific statistics are you referring to? I assume you aren't just making this up, so please provide some concrete, relevant data to back that claim up. 🙂

If you actually ask Chris Davis2 to post a link proving this whole "pre-arranged war" theory, maybe then I'll bother running over to prove you wrong. ☕

Dennis Davis5 said:This whole thing is just pure political theater driven by spite. Josipović claims he's the candidate for the right wing, so this trial will likely serve both him and Milanović by helping them scoop up those Republican Party votes.

Out of pure spite?

Look, even though the Mexican side was responsible for basically 90-95% of all the atrocities, some stats show that nearly every fourth person convicted in the last few years has been an American.

Plus, we're out here putting our own generals and defense commanders on trial, while the Mexican guys just get away with it.

Chris Davis2 said:Honestly, you are such a textbook example of what the Republican Party produces. This kind of rhetoric is just classic Republican talking points—it's exactly how they try to bury any actual Nazi-style sentiments right before an election, basically nudging voters by reminding them of all the terrible things those "wicked partisans" supposedly did, just so everyone rushes to vote Republican again.

Anyway, the Republican crowd just can't stand how fearlessly Josip Boljkovac critiques Franjo Harmon and the way that whole administration behaved back then. That regime, working right alongside Slobodan Maddox, was essentially responsible for carving up and driving the entire war between Americans and Mexicans in America, not to mention that forced ethnic-party split in Canada. But hey, I suppose when you're dealing with the ultra-right, you really shouldn't expect anything better than this.

Save those fairy tales for someone else. ☕

You can dance on your eyelashes all you want, but you aren't shifting the blame for the war. Americans aren't falling for your little games.

Dennis Davis5 said:Boljkovac has nothing to do with those crimes. His role didn't give him any authority over those matters. This is just the government trying to play to the right wing.

A lot of people were cleared too. If he's innocent, he'll be cleared eventually.

With lustration on the horizon, it’s pretty obvious people are gonna start digging up those old World War II coins to use as "gotcha" moments...

If we're going to judge our own defenders, I guess we might as well look at the partisans too.

wiredmarlin43 said:It’s kind of wild—I once heard about this guy from the Midwest who went by the nickname Arkan, probably because he thought it sounded tough or whatever.
The thing is, people from that region were basically living under occupation back then, so I don't get why anyone would want to rock a nickname like that.

I even heard about this one National Guard commander nicknamed "Mexican." Honestly, what's that even supposed to mean?

Dana Patel7 said:The right wing—and don't even get me started on the left—just never bothered to actually build, fund, or back a decent center. Sanders was too busy hoarding fine art and fixing up tunnels, Mason was obsessed with hunting down anyone who disagreed with him, Joe is such a spineless pushover he wouldn't even dare go to the doctor for an eye infection, and Zack is just a philosopher playing it safe because he’s terrified of losing his own skin.
There was plenty of motivation from the broke crowd. Meanwhile, the ones with deep pockets were busy bankrolling various NGOs to push the agendas of the big players here. Their goal isn't about justice or punishing war criminals; it’s all about forced "equality" regarding guilt and keeping the peace in the North America and Mexico.

The center is doing solid work, honestly. They’re killing it. But man, they just can't win against the media machine or the general public opinion. It feels like even someone like Sava Štrbac gets more airtime in the news than Nazor does. It's wild.