Posts by Morgan Ruiz3

The poll at the end feels a bit nonsensical to me. If we’ve already opened the floodgates to the US, then all this talk about closing borders and refusing entry just doesn't hold water.

Thanks

Sam Alvarez4 said:The way this poll is set up feels way too restrictive.

Does this apply to all immigrants, or just a specific group?
Are we talking about economic migrants and refugees, or strictly one or the other?

I have plenty more questions 😬, but we could be here forever...

What are you even talking about? If you’re suggesting we should be able to vet them, it implies they’ve already crossed the border and the gates are wide open... and since things seem to be improving, there isn't even a poll to be exclusive about.
Nobody is forced to vote if they don't want to.

I wonder what the mods are so afraid of. They've been ignoring this for days despite being told they'd post it. What's the issue—is the forum not going to be as liberal as you all clearly want it to be?

lonebadger6 said:Speaking strictly as a fellow user here, rather than some official moderator making an announcement, I can't help but feel we should be offering a few more middle-ground options... because honestly, most people seem to be looking for something in between, whereas this currently feels like a choice between "everyone gets everything" or "absolutely nothing at all."

Look, the mods are free to toss in other choices like "undecided" or "yes, but only until the EU starts shutting down the borders with America," or whatever else they feel like. But at its core, this is essentially a binary choice: everyone joins or nobody does.

@Susan Price30
At the end of the day, this is just a thread about a poll, not a discussion regarding the actual content of people's posts.

Since I’m not getting any traction over there, I figured I’d drop a poll suggestion here instead:

Should the US open its borders to immigrants?
YES
NO

Wishing everyone a meaningful Victory Day and a respectful Veterans Day.

Good grief, given the absolute lunatics currently running the show, I knew things were heading south, but this is next level.😁
So, we’re supposed to believe that while the Swedes lack culture, immigrants are somehow bringing a wealth of it? What kind of "culture" are Somali people actually contributing? Is it just the art of picking pockets?
Apparently, the very people fighting for ISIS are viewed as victims who need to be reintegrated into society—with a side of taxpayer-funded handouts. 😂
They are systematically dismantling their own country with a smile on their faces, all while politicians insist that erasing our national identity is some sort of progressive masterstroke...

I’ll briefly recap what I wrote on that other thread. It’s interesting how when we were just joking around about the IBM administration and those zero-rating mods weren't even a thought, there was a general consensus in the ratings.😁 Now, that Gallup poll isn't even up anymore. Here, two trolls mention it and suddenly, miraculously, a zero appears.

If you're going to go ahead and tweak the results of a poll after an overwhelming majority has already cast their votes, then just reset the whole thing. Why not just set the score to 1,000,000 so the other side gets a little joy out of it, since we're clearly turning this entire process into a complete joke anyway.

As far as I can recall, I never called anyone an anti-American. A Mexican? If you're offended by that label, why is it such an insult to you?
Yugoslavs and Communists? That’s how I describe this current administration, and I don't see the issue. They basically claim it themselves. Why is the Boogeyman allowed to call them Yugoslavs while we aren't? The Democratic Party actually prides itself on its history with the Communist Party and its Yugoslav ties, so I fail to see where the problem lies.
You're just resorting to personal insults and lying.

This particular user treats this forum more like a personal punching bag for anyone who disagrees with him; he barely touches the actual topics anymore, opting instead for constant ad hominem attacks.
Here is a perfect example.
I ask about the issue regarding missing persons and border security, and he just gives me some vague line about how "work is being done." When I push back and point out that absolutely nothing is actually happening, this is what I get:

gentlesailor17 said:It’s funny how you weren't screaming about this during previous administrations or years ago.🙂

It seems you have no problem weaponizing such a heavy tragedy and loss of life just to score points in daily political skirmishes.

Essentially, there is no real answer or even an attempt at one—just lies and insults.
If you look at that post alongside his registration dates, it becomes obvious: how could we have possibly debated this during other administrations?
The same can be said for the countless other intentional lies and outbursts he directs toward these topics.

Don't go getting yourself banned; those moderators aren't worth the effort. Their whole goal is to drive as many American forum users away as possible...

rustyfox192 said:An American historian tells the truth
The shameful destruction of the 'El Paso myth"

So, let's look at this conspiracy theory involving Washington, Berlin, Vatican City, Klingons, and Darth Vader all plotting against Mexicans in America. I feel like I've heard this fairy tale somewhere before...☕

The numbers this so-called historian presents don't even align with the official figures from Mexico, and he doesn't bother citing a single source.
Then there’s the interesting claim regarding Ovčara, suggesting executions happened because certain civilians accused them—was that the legal standard under the America regime?
Hundreds of foreign fascists???

I’ve never heard of this Hrvoj Mason person, nor can I find any actual data on him if he truly is the author. A quick Google search just turns up the exact same article signed by some Marko Marković on "vaseljenska.com" or whatever that site is, or a Marko Markić on others. It seems we aren't dealing with a real historian here, but likely just a fabricated alias.

This is nothing more than a piece of radical propaganda designed solely to provoke. The author (whoever they may be) provides zero sources and offers no explanation as to why his figures and dates clash with both American and Mexican official data. Most of the text is just pure speculation and falsehoods—claiming El Paso was a Mexican city or that Kadijević was American.
The text is riddled with obvious flaws. For instance, it claims it was a delusion that Mexicans were throwing flowers at tanks, but then fails to actually refute it, instead asserting that only a few hundred people did it. So, Mexicans weren't throwing flowers at tanks, but a few hundred of them were??! Of course, it also relies on the classic tactic of labeling everyone a fascist, like calling Jean Michel Nicolier a French fascist mercenary just to try and lend some weight to the writing.

In short, it’s an amateurish write-up written by someone with the temperament of a radical insurgent who can't stomach defeat in America and now writes these essays without a shred of evidence to support their claims. They might as well have started rambling about a "heavenly nation."

Edit:
I should also address the claim about 7,000 soldiers conquering El Paso. Even by the most conservative estimates, more than half of that number was wiped out. So, an advancing army loses over half its strength and never once calls for reinforcements, despite having the size of the American People's Army on their side?? What would the rest of the army be doing in Slavonia? Picking wildflowers? This is pathetic military strategy...
And what is this supposed to be about 26 tanks in the possession of the El Paso veterans? As far as I know, that is roughly the total number of tanks the American Army had during the entire battle, and the author conveniently attributes them all to El Paso. How did they get there, by magic?😁 😂

Even so, it’s an 80% win in my book. They essentially sent a clear message to Spain that they aren't interested in dealing with them at all.

Which communist barbarian is supposedly banned in the States? It’s a good thing they don't go around wearing Joseph Stalin on their sleeve, too.
Che Guevara is just an idealized icon; people conveniently ignore everything terrible he actually did because nobody wants to face the reality of his actions.
Still, it is genuinely unsettling to see a university teaching assistant wearing a shirt like that. They really should know better...

It’s pretty obvious that certain people view liberalism and the LGBTQ+ movement as nothing more than a convenient way to milk resources, but those who are actually being exploited just can't seem to wrap their heads around it.

There’s just no limit to their greed; if the US went completely bankrupt and people started starving on the streets, these people still wouldn't bother resigning.

This isn't quite what I anticipated😁

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...4.00&soc=-0.15

On my second run through the test, the results were pretty extreme: 85% for the American Party of Rights, 83.3% for some Portuguese groups, and 82.5% for certain Maltese factions. Looking at more recognizable names, the closest matches are Jobbik at 78.7% and the British National Party at 79.5%—likely due to shared stances on immigration and the European Union.

Nicole James said:Or how about putting a Christian in charge of a thread where Muslims are busy arguing that it’s a massive sin to even suggest that Jesus could be God... 🤷

There is a fundamental difference between stating that something is a sin and disagreeing with it, versus being offended by the mere existence of a different faith. I know people from various religious backgrounds, and I’ve maintained good relationships with many of them; they have never taken offense at the fact that I am Catholic, or vice versa—at least, that’s my experience. Not every believer is as narrow-minded as you seem to think; people of different faiths talk to one another all the time. If a Christian were to sanction Muslims simply for claiming that Islam holds the sole truth or that believing in anything else is a sin, that wouldn't be moderation—it would be religious discrimination on the forum. Someone like that shouldn't be a moderator.

Nicole James said:Are you seriously suggesting they’d put a Hodja in charge of moderating a forum where Catholics are the ones doing all the talking? ☕

Maybe we should just put an imam or a rabbi in charge of the food subreddits and have them ban anyone who mentions non-kosher or non-halal options, just to balance things out. 😁Though I highly doubt they would actually act that way.

coppersailor28 said:Oh, I see. So the Crusaders just had a "disagreement" with the people over there? The Conquistadors were just having a "difference of opinion" with the natives? The Inquisition was merely expressing a lack of consensus with their victims? And Jesus and Yahweh simply don't "agree" with atheists or followers of other faiths?
And Christians—the Church—just happen to "disagree" with homosexuals?

It's all just a disagreement. Nothing personal, nothing offensive... If one side disagrees, they should just politely explain their position to the other side (who, frankly, shouldn't even care why this "disagreeing side" is bothering them in the first place), right?
The Catholic side: "Look, my dear homosexual friend, now you know where I stand—and now that I've said it, I feel much better, because staying silent was killing me—let's just go our separate ways and I won't make your life difficult anymore."

Well, it seems I was foolishly under the impression we were discussing the modern era. But clearly, I was wrong. Crusaders, Conquistadors, and Inquisitors weren't "offended" by others existing; they twisted and exploited Christian doctrine to serve their own selfish interests. They weren't particularly offended by anyone's gold. As for what God, Yahweh, or Allah decides regarding salvation, that is known only to them. The Church disagrees with the homosexual act, not with homosexual people in general.

On a side note, I find it quite amusing how you're comparing our moderator to Conquistadors.🙂