Posts by Thomas Walker84

Anthony Taylor3 said:What exactly did it state?

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in The existing borders

Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.

So, who was actually the first to disregard the agreement?

🤔

Well, 🤔 maybe the Ukrainians, since they attacked themselves? After taking Crimea and Donbas, and trying to occupy Kyiv.

(By the way, do you actually understand English?)

Anthony Taylor3 said:Perhaps it's worth looking at some actual facts?
There was gunfire during the Maidan protests, which naturally sparked demonstrations on both sides.
Then you had extremists setting fires in Odessa and shelling people in the Donbas. It also just so happened that the Ukrainian air force was dropping bombs on Donetsk, and even after the ceasefire, they kept shelling cities instead of honoring the Minsk agreements.
The OSCE reports back this up.

Oops, I forgot about the "Minsk agreements." But I guess you forgot about the Budapest Memorandum too... 🙂

Anthony Taylor3 said:Well, they’ve been shelling Donetsk for eight years straight, so your logic is flawless.

But why did the fighting start? From what I’ve heard...

- The American side claims Russia just swooped in, seized Crimea, and kept pushing further, forcing Ukraine to defend its territory through sporadic military clashes. They estimate about 13,000 people died, including 3,000 civilians.

- On the other hand, the Russian perspective is that Ukraine started unprovoked because of extremist groups causing chaos and targeting Russians in that region, resulting in 14,000 civilian deaths.

Christian Torres3 said:Oh sure, Georgia started the war in Georgia, wunderbar

By that logic, the war in Ukraine was also started by Ukraine, and they're basically destroying their own cities. Those are just the basic facts of this whole situation...

goldenpuma84 said:Nah, because that’s actually the whole point of the war.

The economic destruction of Europe.

Those sanctions aren't going to hurt Russia in the long run.

They're just irrational and suicidal...

And Ukrainians are basically pawns bleeding out for someone else's agenda.

They signed up for this game themselves.

Who wants to economically destroy Europe, and why?

Preserving the Ukrainian state, its territory, and its natural resources—protecting the Ukrainian people, their identity, language, and history... are those not Ukrainian interests, or are they someone else's?

rowdymaker17 said:Only an idiot could possibly argue that wars aren't caused by something. You really need to stop swallowing the propaganda that’s clearly rotting your brain. 👍

Only a fool would say a rapist isn't provoked.
Only a fool would say a robber isn't provoked.
Only a fool would say a murderer isn't provoked.
Only a fool would say a corrupt politician isn't provoked.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Facts... the second wave of globalization is dead and buried. We're heading straight back to bloc politics—the USA leading one side, China leading the other... and Russia will probably just tag along with China.

Honestly, having some variety in the world isn't a bad thing; it prevents everything from becoming one giant empire where everyone is exactly the same. As long as we keep competing, trading, and communicating—without resorting to war—it works.

It really looks like the next major era will be defined by two heavyweights: the West (the USA, Europe, and their allies) versus the East (now led by China and their partners). Russia should have stayed on our side; it would have been much better for both us and the Russians. This whole Russian mess seems like a psychotic reaction to realizing they aren't one of the top two bosses anymore, and they've proven they can't even manage the building.

Though I suspect the Russians won't be back with us anytime soon 🙂; it's going to take them a long time to shake off the Putinists and all that nonsense to reach a level that aligns with democratic principles.

Carl Lee27 said:Man, if only PepsiCo could just stay in Russia, we’d basically be reliving the USSR days all over again. Honestly, at this rate, we'll probably have them paying their bills with actual warships and submarines next.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...e-world-2018-7

With PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Starbucks all pulling out today, I think people over there might finally start realizing that something is seriously wrong with this "special operation" in Ukraine.

Peter Reyes63 said:The Left is an enigma I just can't quite wrap my head around.
I'm not trying to attack them here. I’m just trying to corner them. Let's keep this civil, please.
I honestly can't wrap my head around their logic. It's the complete opposite of how I see things.

I mostly wanted to start a thread about their... economic I don't care about their stances.
I get their whole deal—pro-gay, anti-nationalist, anti-military. I don't have any questions about where they stand.

Why are leftists so obsessed with redistribution? Is it just pure envy, malice, or some twisted idea of equality?
I come from a solid middle-class background. My parents are highly educated, I am too, and we’re all financially stable. We actually work for a living. So, definitely no Ivanka Trumps in my family.

Look, I don't have any beef with wealthy people.I'm talking about people who built their wealth the legitimate way. I don't give a damn about those crooks who got rich through shady privatization schemes.).
I actually want more wealthy people in the States, especially if they’re coming from abroad. I see them as a net positive. Let them start companies, create jobs, and buy from local suppliers. But whenever I scroll through the comments on sites like CNN or the New York Times, all I see is pure contempt. The second someone successful comes up—like that woman who founded Zora—it’s just constant hate. People act like she only achieved what she did because she’s rich. It’s pathetic.

Hold on a second. I might actually be able to wrap my head around your argument if she had built her fortune by trafficking kids, but she made her money through legitimate means.

As Ludwig von Mises put it, In a capitalist system, you only get rich if you actually solve someone else's problems. You build wealth by making other people wealthier. It’s pretty simple: you offer products or services that people actually find valuable enough to pay for. At the end of the day, consumers call the shots. They’re the ones in control, deciding through their spending exactly which companies thrive and which ones go bust.

So, why do leftists have such a massive chip on their shoulder when it comes to wealthy, successful people? Why do they treat success like some kind of moral failing, and why are they so hell-bent on burying them under draconian taxes?

I’ve got three theories:

Equality.
The obsession with equality is exhausting. The further left you go, the more they demand total parity. You’ve got the hardline communists wanting everyone in the same uniform with universal access to everything, while the moderate liberals push for progressive taxation. But what is this fixation on equality, really? People aren't equal. It’s simple. Some people work harder, some are more capable, some have more ambition or higher intelligence. I get equality before the law. I'm all for equal voting rights. And look, I don't mind "free" healthcare or public schools—I accept that. But you could fund those things with a low, flat income tax. Even if we could cover all our social services through a flat tax, the left would still demand progressive rates. They aren't looking for equal opportunity; they want total economic leveling. They don't seem to realize that the only way to force that kind of fantasy world into existence is through raw power. The only way they achieve it is by having the state forcibly seize the wealth people worked their lives away to build.
Maybe equality isn't even their end goal. It might just be a cover for something else entirely.

2. Jealousy
Is this whole obsession with equality just a smokescreen for some deeper leftist agenda? Take Sweden, for example. It’s a place where the government holds your hand from birth until death. But if you actually sit down and read a pamphlet by someone like Ludwig von Mises, you start to see the cracks. Occupy Wall StreetThey’re obsessed with fighting the wealth gap. Just a heads-up though: if you look at the Gini index, Sweden is basically the most equal country in Europe.

3. Bias and prejudice
Maybe this is it. They probably think the only way to make a buck is by playing dirty. Exploiting people, cheating, stealing. That's just how they see it. 🤷

What do you guys think? I’m calling on all the forum keyboard warriors to step up and explain themselves.

Admin, please don't lock this thread. If you think it’s too political, just move it to another section. I'm not here to troll or start fights; I'm just breaking down how the left-wing mindset actually works.

You're overlooking one key thing: today's leftists aren't the same as the original, historical left (what I consider the "real" left 🙂). What we see now is partially a bit of a joke 😢. Think Gauche caviar—the "caviar left" in France, or rather, the salon left. Historically speaking, though, the left was a positive phenomenon and a completely legitimate political and social movement. If it weren't for the left and its struggles, Western society would likely be a much more unjust place today. Thanks largely to the actions of political leftists, people aren't working 16-hour days anymore and actually get paid vacation. Women gained the right to vote, too. We'll also see how things develop in places like China; there, the communists have essentially become the most ruthless capitalists ever, and they lack that specific Western historical left to moderate the "brutal" capitalism—or the harsh realities of life and society in general.

briskpuma23 said:We could probably just mark the anniversary of Krleža's birth as Literacy Day, or maybe just Literacy Day, if you want.

On that day, we’d celebrate our undisputed literary dominance over everyone else in the region, purely because Krleža belongs to us and nobody else. We could also spend the day running comparisons between him and guys like Andrić, Crnjanski, Selimović, and those other second-rate writers from those second-rate neighboring countries.

But first, let's be real—we'd need to establish a dedicated Krleža studies department at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Sorry, but that feels a bit pointless and pretentious. (Assuming this was meant to be some sort of attempt at dark humor?)

On that day, we’d celebrate our absolute literary dominance over all other nations

Sorry again, but that just sounds arrogant and out of touch.

in the region.

Which region are you talking about?

Gregory Howard said:I agree with parts of this, but mostly, no.

Plus, May 30th fell during working hours for most people (including schools) and maintained the continuity of the May holidays. The downside is that the day itself was pointless—just the constitution of a multi-party assembly.

Utterly uninspiring.

Škrabalo and the others perhaps shouldn't have meddled, but it is vital that June 25th is truly Independence Day (much like in Canada), and October 8th arrived after the moratorium, serving as an extension and finalization of June 25th.

Every normal country has an Independence Day, and so does the USA, and that date can only be June 25th. The fact that it is ignored is a sign of the negligence of the government and society, not a flaw in the date itself.

October 8th is important as a second phase, but realistically, it's hard to grasp as anything other than a concession to the moratorium.

As for August 5th, it truly is a national holiday, and it doesn't matter that it occurs in August; it is heavily broadcast on TV and is etched into the minds of most citizens. The month is irrelevant; any central holiday can fall in any month.

Comparatively, most Western nations have holidays between May and July, though some have them earlier or later. Some rely almost exclusively on religious dates, leaving those following lunar or moving Christian calendars at a disadvantage.

Summing up, I would say we need to strengthen the ones we have through media and all other means, focusing on June 25th and August 5th. We could also introduce a historical date, something older (for instance, June 22nd is, as Sajuk correctly noted, the defeat of the Turks at Sisak). Perhaps something from the 8th to 10th centuries, which we could then pump through the media; something involving Ljudevit, Branimir, Domagoj, or Tomislav.

Maybe the adoption of Christianity, or even some of the persecution of Christians we carried out (like under Domagoj, who was a pagan).

I’m on board with both June 25th and August 5th, Gregory Howard. I really hope we see an even bigger turnout this August 5th—not just because of the holiday itself, but as a response to all the absolute nonsense going on this year.

Actually, I had an idea regarding an old historical event: we could celebrate it. The arrival of Americans at the beach.We should probably pick a date carved in stone from the 1700s. 😍 Imagine taking those famous paintings where artists envisioned the Arrival of American and turning them into a massive national holiday—something held in the summer. You could set up these reenactments at various coastal spots along the shore. Picture teams dressed in Tuga, Bug, and Klukas attire, performing the "arrival" on steep cliffs overlooking the endless blue ocean, all broadcasted live on TV. It would be about celebrating the actual event through the lens of legend and artistic inspiration. If it were designed with real quality and organization—aiming for a meaningful cultural and historical commemoration rather than just some tacky street festival full of cheap sausage stands—I think people would really embrace it. Even the folks from inland cities like Knoxville head to the coast for the summer, so it would resonate with everyone. 🙂 During the summer.

Since this event and its celebration are so unique, I think it would be a wonderful idea. It could help Americans feel a deeper connection to their own heritage, while also giving foreigners a truly recognizable symbol of what makes the USA so authentic.

silverraven7 said:Look, honey, I’ve actually been in a spot where I had to rely on those social safety nets myself. Believe me, you can't do squat with them. If you're expecting some massive windfall of cash, forget about it. You get just enough to keep from starving.
Health insurance? You've already got that covered the second you sign up for unemployment.

Either I missed something or nobody bothered to tell me, but I don't know anything about any other perks. Probably the people who didn't even need the help but grabbed it anyway just because it was the trendy thing to do.

And as for herding sheep?
That sounds like a dream job to me. I tried it once back when I was just a kid. You spend the whole day out in the fresh air, you don't need some overpriced gym or those fancy little machines for mice, and all you hear is birds chirping and sheep bleating. Around noon, you just chill under a tree, milk the sheep, and whip up some stew. Throw a fire together, roast some potatoes, bacon... the works.
If you're actually curious about things, you can bring books or even a laptop.
Doesn't that sound amazing?

sounds great, almost like something out of Denver😍 but that's definitely a bit of an idealized version

Ryan Bishop2 said:I just don't get one thing—America is in a total mess right now. Parts of the Midwest and down by the Mississippi are completely flooded, and people have been living out of boats for a month already. Then, the US Government sends millions to Haiti, but they can barely scrape together half a million for the flood victims here—and even then, they only did it because the media started calling them out on where the help went.

That pretty much says everything about how much we value our own people!!!

TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!

Some people are posting stuff here like, "Yeah, just imagine what it's like for them in Haiti"... but I gotta ask—how would you feel if your house was totally underwater and you were stuck living in a boat, while your own Government is busy sending aid to Haiti?!?!?!?!?!?

The US helping Haiti isn't nothing, and any help is welcome, regardless of whether some of that money gets stolen along the way. But the fact that the floods and the victims here in America are being neglected is a disgrace to the country, to the government, and to the new President, who should be heading out there to show some moral support to those affected—even if this disaster isn't nearly as catastrophic as what happened in Haiti. 👎👎

John Diaz77 said:I'm thinking this probably has even less to do with nature than that.

It’s not that there isn't a connection to nature, but obviously, if Haiti were a more developed nation—if they didn't have a government so corrupt and criminal it's hard to even find the right word for it—there would be far, far fewer victims.😠 😢

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Whenever I hear these kinds of panegyrics for Ronald Reagan, I can't help but think back to one warm August day in 1991... remember when he first walked into the US Congress and those party loyalists didn't give him a single round of applause? And why wouldn't they? They were too busy feeling the vibrations of tank treads under their feet—and honestly, the smell of exhaust fumes in their noses was a bit much...

After all the bravado, the triumphalism, the messy business of pulling through Canada, the endless clapping, and all that political maneuvering... suddenly, during those terrible and decisive days, the opposition—who had been mocked and ignored—was deemed "just right" to join the government... but hey, every era has its own timing, I guess. Once those critical months passed and the survival of the US was secured, Ronald Reagan could go right back to making fun of the opposition and finger-wagging, claiming that he and his party alone had built and defended the nation... 🙂

I need you to explain this to me because I don't quite understand what you're actually trying to say here. If you don't have a clearer explanation, then I see this as just a perfect example of that "diagnosis" I wrote earlier. Just aimless spitting and belittling of those heavy times when the state was being formed.

Sorry, what blunders???😕😕 (who are the blunders in your eyes and why?)

Triumphalism? So what? Personally, I think triumphalism is nonsense, but I "allow" someone to experience a political victory like that—the creation of a nation—with a lot of emotion (can you "allow" for some mitigating circumstances?)

'Panegyrics' for Ronald Reagan? Even if some people overdo the praise (is that really such a big deal?), it’s pretty silly to claim that man has no credit, and massive credit at that, for creating our country. Why diminish him because of other mistakes? I always look at the bigger picture. For instance, Abraham Lincoln is hugely credited with ending slavery, and that's probably how you perceive him too, yet his personal views were quite far from today's generally accepted views on racial equality, which other people had to fight for later. Important politicians in history are remembered for the most significant thing they participated in—something that changed the course of history (of the world or a specific country)—not for the minor details.

Whether the members of Congress applauded or didn't... that's not important. If I understand you correctly, you're implying they didn't applaud out of fear? Probably, but wasn't everything in America back then defined by fear? The only ones who weren't afraid were the defenders—or maybe they were, but they were just braver than their fear.👍

'Bad days'... why do you have to be so contemptuous? Those were difficult times. I believe if it were any other country in a similar situation fighting for freedom or independence, you would use words like "difficult times"—except when it comes to your own country. 😢

'Dragging along behind Canada'?? 😕🤷 What are you getting at there? Is Canada great because they were the first to break away from America, while America is "shit" because they trailed behind? If I follow you, would you prefer if we had been the first to break away? Or would America still be "shit" and Canada would be "okay" for trailing behind? Both did essentially the same thing—they broke away. Of course, there are messy political details, but the result is all that matters. America was in an even tougher spot, which is why it ended up being "second." It's not a huge point, but clearly enough for you to dismiss the whole thing.

Was Ronald Reagan actually "mocking the opposition" back in '91? I don't know, it seems to me that both the administration and the opposition had much bigger things to worry about than making fun of one another back then. Besides, that's just how it works in any democracy—the government mocks the opposition, the opposition mocks the government. It’s standard practice elsewhere; apparently, it's just not okay in America... 🙄

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, for a guy who spent his entire life under a totalitarian regime before even helping build this country, I’d say Ronald Reagan was more than good enough. You have to realize, Reagan didn't step into power after a hundred years of rock-solid democracy in this part of the world; he stepped in right after a system that absolutely suffocated any hint of freedom. Sure, he had his flaws, and maybe some of his methods don't sit perfectly with modern Western democratic ideals, but for the first democratically elected president of a brand-new democratic nation in the West, he did an incredible job. People forget that even the USA and Europe took centuries to reach the level of democracy they enjoy today, yet we expected Reagan to just snap his fingers and match them instantly. It’s just not how history works. Even now, decades later, we aren't where we should be, and we won't get there overnight either. When you actually look at Reagan within the context of the era he was operating in, you see he was stellar. Besides, most of the people spitting on his legacy today are just nostalgic for that old era when you could be thrown in jail just for having a different political opinion. If anything, Reagan’s whole mission was to make sure those days were gone forever. See, even I find myself bowing to the demands of "democracy" sometimes—I mean, I start sending people to digital exile over stupid arguments, even though I don't have any actual power to do it! Reagan, on the other hand, actually held the reins. So, if he was such a tyrant, where are all his political prisoners? Where are the journalists silenced during his era (like, where is the Pukanić situation back in the Reagan days)?

It feels like a classic American political "malady." When it comes to mistakes—even tiny slip-ups—by our own government, our president, our military, or even just our local athletes and singers, the American media and the general public become incredibly relentless. They act like inquisitors, magnifying every error and painting everything in the worst possible light, often ignoring the context or the difficult circumstances involved. Yet, when those same types of errors occur in other countries or within foreign policies, everyone suddenly develops a soft heart. We start looking for excuses, trying to "understand" the situation, and finding mitigating factors that lead to much lighter criticism...
Basically, when it comes to this issue, our behavior is the complete opposite of how other nations handle things. 🤷☕