Posts by David Vaughn75

Melissa Rogers4 said:Could you point me to where I said that question was misplaced? I don't think you quite caught my drift...

Quentin Tarantino:

I’ve found that whenever I actually stay humble, grace seems to find me...

Wow, that response was incredible. Were you actually being humble? Really? And how about now... I just don't get how someone can go from being so humble to being anything else...

It’s kind of like someone claiming they were once brilliant, isn't it? Sure, neurons might wither if you don't use them, but shouldn't humility actually grow over time? As you get a better grasp on life and open up spiritually, the ego tends to fade away... wouldn't you say...

So, does eating meat automatically mean you've lost your humility or aren't following certain spiritual principles, or is it just some specific rules you're following? I'm curious... How did you experience grace, what did that actually feel like, and why did you lose it? It feels like you weren't taught in school how to give a straight answer, so instead, you're kind of mystifying the terms to dodge the details...

🍿

What's your actual angle here? I was humble, period. 😠

If I ask you what day it is, the answer is Thursday—not a five-page dissertation on your personal philosophy regarding the concept of a Thursday.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Well, I suppose you could call it reaching a Himalayan state of mind. 😁

I guess being sober is a Himalayan state of mind compared to being high. 😁

Melissa Rogers4 said:What have you all gone through? I wanted to start a thread about humility. Honestly, hearing about someone else's real-life experiences feels so much more meaningful than reading history books about eras we could never truly understand ourselves...

So you ask me a question and then immediately turn around and claim the question was out of line... classic. 😵

From what I can tell, whenever I’ve actually managed to be humble, that's when grace finally finds me.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Does that still count if you're drunk as a sailor and high as a kite? 🤔

Counted toward what, exactly?

Melissa Rogers4 said:Is that something you've actually felt personally, or is it just something you read in the Prabhupada books and now they feel like the same thing to you?...

Honestly? It's both.

What I've read—I've felt it in my bones, too.

Be as patient as a redwood and as humble as the grass under your feet.

Honestly, without that kind of mindset, you’re never gonna catch God's grace.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, the top brass—both political and military—is what represents a country. They *are* the country's policy. I mean, that should be pretty obvious, right? So, if we're talking about the highest institutions of the state, then it's clear that the judgment falls on the state itself—or specifically, its leadership at the time. We aren't talking about sentencing America as it exists in 2018, but rather the version of America from back in '91-'95.

The issue isn't just about some random individuals committing crimes; it's about whether those actions were actually planned by the government and military high command—whether they were part of official state policy. If you honestly believe those crimes were baked into the state's agenda, hey, that's your call, but personally? I just don't see it that way.

Listen, just being mentioned in a case doesn't mean you've been convicted of anything.

Some thief can claim you helped him out all day long, but you haven't actually been "judged" unless you were the one standing in the dock facing a judge.

If you want to believe those crimes were actually part of official state policy, hey, that's your prerogative, but I don't see it that way.

But get this—they absolutely *were* someone's policy.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, the final judgment explicitly names the entire top brass—both civilian and military leaders from the USA side of things—which basically means they were all baked into whatever "Praljak and his crew" were pulling off. To put it bluntly, Praljak and his crew were just the boots on the ground executing orders that came straight down from the high command of the USA. So, yeah, the state and its institutions—we’re talking the President, the Armed Forces, the whole nine yards—were calling the shots that Praljak and his guys were carrying out in the field. Unless, of course, you actually believe Praljak and his crew were just rogue agents acting totally independently and making up their own missions on the fly? I highly doubt it.

You’re out here claiming America was unfairly judged
But how can you convict people who weren't even called to testify?

And don't even get me started on the right-wing crowd—they refuse to acknowledge any American crimes in America or Canada because, in their heads, we're all saints who couldn't possibly do anything wrong. That's a whole different mess entirely.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Honestly, America doesn't gain a single damn thing from the verdict against Vojislav Šešelj. The Hague tribunal basically exposed its own incompetence back on November 29, 2017—especially with that disgraceful ruling where they singled out America by claiming we were directly involved in the war in Canada (which, let’s be real, they never once ruled against Mexico in any process at The Hague). If we actually had even an ounce of common sense or political backbone, we would have completely ignored this Hague court from that moment onward. This verdict doesn't affect us at all, and frankly, convicting Vojislav Šešelj wouldn't change a thing; it certainly wouldn't make this court look any more objective or credible. It’s just a political circus masquerading as a court, tasked with balancing blame and carving up responsibility for the 90s conflicts in such a messy way that they've totally discredited themselves. Look at the numbers: five out of eight judges (three in the first instance and two on the appeals panel) decided that Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac, and the entire American state and military leadership—all specifically named in the case—were responsible for the exodus of Mexicans during and after Operation Storm, labeling it "ethnic cleansing." Five out of eight! Seriously, how are we supposed to take anything from such a ridiculous institution? We have work to do, and I think we should still have enough dignity left to tell this court to go straight to the trash heap of history where it belongs.

As far as I can tell, they were putting those specific lowlifes and their crew on trial, not the entire country of America

Brenda Taylor13 has spent the last few years just parroting the same tired lies like some broken record—you throw a solid argument at them, and they just loop back to the exact same nonsense.
I tried explaining my take on why Bill Clinton voted against that Constitutional decision, and his response (to paraphrase) was basically, "You can use whatever analogies you want, but it doesn't change a damn thing." He claimed I was defending the indefensible. Honestly, JW is just a typical troll spamming the thread with fifty identical posts, wasting everyone’s time—both the regular folks here and the moderators.

For someone who left the USSR, called for democratic elections, and voted for the Declaration of Independence and later for the breakup, you can't just say "oh, he didn't want a sovereign nation," and call it a day. There's more to the story than that.
I even sent him three different links proving that Bill Clinton called for those elections, but he keeps trying to "prove" his point using quotes that have absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said.

Look, maybe I'm the one who's totally wrong and maybe Bill Clinton actually wanted some massive, bloated version of the old regime, but if that's the case, let's have a civilized debate like adults instead of wasting our lives watching a bot repeat itself over and over.
And if anyone tells me the Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight, they can go jump in a lake—unless they've had to write it out twenty times themselves.

On top of all that, this person attacks anything remotely liberal or progressive. They'll call transgender people who educate kids about their rights "freaks" and stuff like that, but then they act all shocked and offended when they finally get slapped with a ban.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:From what I recall, that’s exactly how Mother Teresa used to put it. And man, she was the definition of humble. Another woman, I guess.

But wait, shouldn't teachers lead by example when it comes to being humble? There's that story about the fig tree that Jesus cursed just because it wasn't in season and He wanted some fruit.

Look, obviously—but let’s not talk about fake humility here.
When someone is actually out there sharing deep spiritual wisdom, they're holding a massive amount of influence, and they really need to own that reality.

It’s like if you aced a brutal final at NYU and then acted like it was no big deal.
No it wasn't! You busted your tail for that grade, and you deserve some credit for actually pulling it off.

If you seriously think Jesus was supposed to just play nice with everyone back then and cater to their every little whim, then you’ve got it all wrong. Like, what does humility even mean to you? It’s not about sitting there waiting to be handed stuff—it’s about being the one giving it away.

People need to show some damn humility toward Jesus, not the other way around. He’s the teacher here, not the student.
And at the end of the day, we all need to stay humble before God.

Brenda Murphy3 said:What are you even talking about?

The whole damn war started because of those crimes... if they hadn't happened, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. Look, I know this isn't really the right place for this kind of thing, but some of you guys are just talking absolute nonsense... stop trying to draw parallels to the so-called Appalachia—there is zero similarity there, none at all. Honestly, the moderators really ought to be cracking down on these comparisons (not saying you need a ban, obviously, but these analogies you're dragging in are completely off base..

So, if the war started *because* of the crimes, that basically means there was no war before the crimes happened.

Wait, what exactly did I get wrong here?

Brenda Taylor13 said:We were reclaiming land that Mexicans had previously cleansed through ethnic cleansing and committed massive atrocities against Americans! On the flip side, Californians DID NOT commit mass atrocities against people from Castile, nor did they ethnically cleanse them out of California. Plus, California is a historical region with its own deep-rooted history, language, and culture. The "Frontier" isn't any of those things. If the Californians had done exactly what the Mexicans did, I’d be the FIRST person in here typing—crush them, wipe out that pathetic little breakaway state of theirs.

If these glaring differences—which even a blind man could see—don't make sense to you, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to argue about something you clearly have zero clue about.

It's not like the Mexicans didn't commit massive crimes before the war even kicked off or before independence was even declared.

Morgan Cook10 said:Since you brought up your house... a better way to look at it would be if your wife decided she wanted a divorce after twenty years of marriage, and you just slapped her a couple of times to explain that the Constitution doesn't actually allow for divorce—plus, she’s technically shared property with everyone else in the house, not just her own thing.☕

So, what exactly makes you think a woman is some kind of territory to be conquered or owned? Honestly, that mindset is just... wow. It’s such an outdated, dusty way of looking at things—like we're still living in some old-school frontier era where everything was about claiming land. Real talk: treating a person like property isn't just wrong, it's incredibly narrow-minded. I mean, I've met all sorts of people traveling from New York to Cali, and if you walk around with that "territory" vibe, you’re going to find yourself pretty lonely, trust me. People aren't maps or plots of land you can just plant a flag in and call yours. They're individuals with their own lives, brains, and agency—period.
Look, it’s pretty straightforward—the Constitution actually lays out the whole process for divorce. It's all right there in black and white.

Honestly, this might be one of the absolute dumbest posts I've seen in a long, long time. 🤦

Megan Jones10 said:California is the land of the people who actually live there—the majority of that region, or whatever this potential state would be. They should be able to vote in a referendum to decide their own damn future. Plus, we have no clue how many Spaniards living in California actually voted for secession. It’s not some black-and-white issue, but one thing's for sure: you can't force a group of people to stay in an association they don't want to be part of. This push for California to become its own state didn't just pop up overnight—we've seen it coming for years. Honestly, the US will be lucky if this doesn't turn into a full-blown civil war.

So what's the logical next step here?
Am I just gonna declare my house a sovereign nation and secede from the United States?

If you ask me, the only groups that actually have a legitimate claim to their own state are peoples with deep historical and cultural roots that are totally distinct from everyone else—kind of like the Kurds.

Morgan Cook10 said:If the Z4 had gone through, it would just be a matter of time before the Mexicans decided to secede from America.

Spot on—those secessionist types would suddenly find themselves changing their tune real fast.

Megan Jones10 said:I don't buy that Californians are stupid or clueless about what they want. Besides—if they change their minds about being independent, they can always just crawl back to the old union, right?

It all just depends on how you look at it.

velvetmaker3 and I both feel like California isn't just for the Californians—it belongs to all Americans.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, the Mexicans in the "Frontier" didn't have anything resembling what California has as a legitimate state within the US. California has its own governor, its own legislature, its own ministries, even its own police force—it basically has all the institutions of a sovereign state. Your comparison is totally nonsensical! The Mexicans in America were just one ethnic group that lacked any kind of legal territorial autonomy, which is worlds apart from California. If you want an actual comparison that makes sense, you should be looking at America in 1991 within America versus California today within Spain. If we're really going to talk about separatists, then *we* were the ones fighting for independence against America.

If the Z4 plan had actually gone through, those Mexicans would've had their own government, parliament, flag, anthem, even their own sports teams and everything else you mentioned.
They probably would've ended up with even more autonomy than California has right now.

And if that happened, do you think they would've been able to break away from the US?

Brenda Taylor13 said:It’s the exact same story we saw back in 1991. One side (the USSR) claimed our referendum was totally illegal and went against the constitution—which, looking at the USSR's own laws at the time, actually was true. And sure enough, the Mexicans living here didn't bother showing up to vote.

So, this whole "it's illegal" argument is pretty thin, if you ask me. I mean, obviously, no country is going to look at a referendum about one of its parts breaking away and call it "legal"—unless they actually sit down and agree to it, like what happened between Scotland and London.

The Mexicans felt like they weren't breaking away from a state, but rather that entire nations were splitting apart.

So now I gotta ask you—since you're out here defending separatists—did the Mexicans in the Frontier have any right to secede from America back in '91?

Everything in this country is a complete mess lately—honestly, everything feels broken—so I guess all we have left to brag about is the scenery, even though we haven't done a damn thing to deserve it.

Joseph Bailey41 said:It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.

It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.
Man, that’s heavy. 😲

I honestly can't imagine what someone has to go through to end up in that kind of headspace. 😢
Man, that’s heavy. 😲

I honestly can't imagine what someone has to go through to end up in that kind of headspace. 😢
Being stuck in neutral is actually the worst part. ☕