Posts by Mark Clark6

Things are about to get incredibly interesting here in New York City. T-Mobile can't even manage basic logistics, let alone waste management. Once the stench finally penetrates the collective consciousness of New Yorkers, Eric Adams won't be able to retreat from the mayoralty fast enough. Tick tock...

feralhawk45 said:What’s buried underground should stay there. That's been my mission for forty years when it comes to fossil fuels.
Yeah... I've been an eco-warrior since I can remember.
Glasgow carries more weight than people realize. The EU and China know it. As for the US, I'm not sure what Biden's administration is up to.
If you ask me, Putin played a losing hand in the long run by trying to grab control over every global oil and gas source.

So, you're one of those eco-hypocrites, aren't you?
Shall we begin then?
I notice you haven't seen fit to renounce computers or the internet in your crusade for the planet.
What about washing machines?
Do you weave your own clothes out of leaves?
Do you traverse the globe entirely on foot?
It is because of people like you that we find ourselves in this predicament.
In truth, you represent a modern iteration of fascism. Who is stopping you from renouncing all the comforts of civilization and living accordingly?
Instead, you insist on imposing your half-baked opinions upon everyone else. 🤦
Perhaps I am being overly emotional, but someone must occasionally call out these eco-fascists to their faces.

rowdyraven112 said:Oh sure, and the working class is going to foot the entire bill. ☕

They're buying 4th-gen jets, they're buying Bradley fighting vehicles. The Prime Minister is only even thinking about getting a Patriot missile system just so he can act tough. For Christ's sake, the average salary is $70,000. We've got the money, if we want to spend it. ☕

A nation requires funding, and an army demands its share. It is an absolute necessity. But one must ask: what is the true price of a lost war?
What is the true price tag on national survival?
What is the true price of liberty?
What is the true price of admission to the Western world, if one seeks a life that possesses even a modicum of human dignity?

Should we simply surrender and hand everything back to Russia within their sphere of influence? I might actually be open to that proposition if someone could point to just ONE nation that has truly benefited from a marriage with Russia. Just one single example...

hiddeneagle98 said:Look, countries like Ukraine and Georgia weren't even allowed to think about joining NATO or the European Union. Instead, Putin’s whole grand scheme was to force them into some sort of Eurasian Union—basically a rebranded version of the USSR 2.0. If they had actually managed to secure membership in the EU or NATO, it would have completely blocked Russia from being able to bully those nations into submission to rebuild their old Soviet empire. It's pretty straightforward: Russia was essentially demanding that the West just hand those countries over on a silver platter, leaving them entirely at their mercy.

You see, there lies the fundamental flaw, and the reason why Putin will ultimately emerge as a loser, even if Ukraine were handed to him on a silver platter today. Consider this: the European Union, or the West, or the American sphere of influence—whatever label you prefer—expands because nations actively BEG to join, waiting patiently in the wings and checking every box just for a chance at membership, seeing as such affiliation guarantees prosperity.
Yet, Putin fantasizes about spheres of influence, some sort of USSR 2.0 that can only be maintained through raw, brutal force, which inevitably collapses the moment that force is withdrawn.
The Putinophiles will never grasp this reality.
Look at China as a comparable example; despite the endless chatter from high-society dilettantes regarding the superiority of their model, they struggle to find voluntary allies, as no one truly wishes to align themselves with them. Does that not speak volumes?
One does not require immense intellect to observe the world and track the movement of the masses:
Are people drifting on rafts from Miami toward Cuba, or the other way around?
Is there a mass migration into China?
And look at the people from Ukraine—the most recent example—are they rushing into Russia? Even when corridors are opened, they refuse to go, preferring to stay under shelling rather than live in the "glory" of Putin's Russia.
Thus, the conclusion is quite simple.

Larry Fox5 said:Look, it's obvious things were already stalling even before this war started—especially the supply chain stuff, which was a mess for plenty of reasons. This war just kicked the inflation and shortages into overdrive.
On the flip side, yeah, obviously the West is going to weather this storm easier than Russia. No argument there, but I'm saying it isn't quite as black-and-white as people try to make it out to be.
The whole damn world is heading into a recession, and a huge part of that is because of this war.

I just hope these sanctions actually do something useful—like finally pushing for a regime change in the White House.

So many people here who seem to revel in the supposed downfall of the West fail to grasp a fundamental truth: even during the deepest recession, life in the West remains an unattainable dream when compared to how people live in Russia during times of stability.☕

Larry Fox5 said:Look, we’re just throwing out guesses here—you can’t predict this stuff without a crystal ball. All these sanctions being slapped on Russia are going to hit the West too, no question. It’s hard to say exactly how bad, but here in the US, they're already forecasting inflation north of 8% this year. Wheat prices are skyrocketing, and we're looking at massive shortages...
I don't know how much you guys actually realize, but even in places like Germany, you can barely find sunflower oil in stores right now—people are paying over $10 a liter on eBay! Seriously, go check it yourself if you don't believe me.
And don't even get me started on oil and gas. Diesel in Western Europe is hitting $2.50/L, and electricity and heating costs have absolutely exploded. This is going to bleed into every other sector because higher transport costs automatically drive up everything else. Families will have way less cash for vacations, so the tourism industry is going to take a massive hit too.

It’s just a vicious cycle that leads straight back to recession, business bankruptcies, unemployment spikes...

Stop being naive and thinking these sanctions are only hitting Russia.

The problem is that your timeline doesn't quite align with reality. The world actually entered this inflationary spiral slightly before that moron in the White House lost his mind. Price hikes, driven by inflation, were already underway. Energy is its own complex narrative; while the current situation with Russia certainly accelerates things, the West lived perfectly fine without Russia before, and it will manage again. Business will adapt because liberal democracy and liberal capitalism are inherently superior systems—there is no debating that. Of course, there is no dispute that sanctions hit both sides, but the stakes have shifted significantly. The West is making a conscious choice to sacrifice a portion of its profit and its standard of living because it has been realized that a Russia like this poses an existential threat to the West as we know it. Therefore, rest assured, the West will find its footing, whereas I am far less certain about what lies ahead for Russia.

Amy Diaz222 said:The bolding here is truly laughable—a transparent attempt at manipulation... 😵

Specifically, this part: '....Maduro is somewhat open to selling oil to this wicked empire...' is both a lie and a blatant attempt at spin.... 👎

In reality, Maduro has always been '...open...' to selling oil to the US—

—but the US/the West simply convinced themselves that the Venezuelan president was some sort of minor player, or rather, they acted like the person they claim is the "president of Venezuela" is actually the one in charge... 🤣

So, now the US/the West is coming with its "tail between its legs" to both President Maduro and the Persian Ayatollahs—

—begging for help.... 🙂

One cannot help but wonder how far the most dominant economic and military superpower in human history will descend, eventually finding itself on its knees before a man like Maduro...
Some people truly shouldn't exist...

George Robinson43 said:Nigel Farage 2014:
Nigel Farage: I admire Vladimir Putin

Nigel Farage 2022:
Farage: ‘I was wrong’ about Putin

Well, at least the man had the decency to admit he was being foolish!

The issue isn't just that he's foolish; it's that truly foolish people rarely possess the self-awareness to realize it...

Kyle Nelson2 said:I mean, I guess that's why there was a war going on, or at least one of the reasons. If things had gone differently, we'd actually have another option today. Honestly, we should just be happy we even have an LNG terminal.

The very forces fighting against them were local anti-communists and patriots, all conveniently powered by the Russian Federation...☕
And yet, once construction was complete, wouldn't you know it—Russia suddenly decided to let those patriotic movements drift downstream...

vividtiger72 said:Most of that land we lost to those militias at the start of our war was actually seized by local paramilitary groups operating near their own majority strongholds.

They didn't just march straight into Washington, D.C. within forty-eight hours. If they had, we'd all be reading Cyrillic right about now.

There was no necessity for a forced entry when they were already positioned within our borders. We entered the conflict having already allowed the aggressors to establish themselves in nearly every one of our cities from the very beginning.☕

Given that Russia is a nuclear power with a psychopath holding the detonator, I honestly can't decide which outcome warrants more dread: a defeat for Putin or a victory in Ukraine. Just imagine the fallout if that madman actually loses in Ukraine... the idiot is going to ruin his own people regardless of the result.

Betty Murphy3 said:The real experts here seem to be those constantly preaching about the fall of Ukraine and claiming Americans aren't fighting back. They clearly aren't looking at the maps. Aside from a few outskirts around larger cities, the Russians haven't penetrated deep anywhere. At this rate, this will drag on for weeks, perhaps months, before any sort of truce. And I suspect Putin won't have the luxury of waiting months; he'll likely feel pressured to commit additional forces to Ukraine. If he makes that move, we're talking about full-scale conventional war—and unfortunately, significantly more casualties on both sides.

As it stands, the death toll is somewhat contained; it isn't the catastrophe it would be if that little man launched a total offensive.

Then again, I wouldn't doubt his capacity for such madness. He was certainly reckless enough to invade a nation that, prior to the Maidan protests, was practically his puppet—back when he wasn't busy claiming Ukraine has no right to exist or denying they are even a real people. He didn't mention "Nazis" back then, did he? No, because he had what he wanted: a compliant government in Ukraine. Now, some people try to defend the Russians simply because Americans share a similar modus operandi. Or because Europe is kept on a short leash. I see the pattern, but that doesn't change the fact that Putin is a primary driver of this crisis. These are opportunists fighting for plunder, not for justice, morality, or democracy. Both the Americans and the Russians are predators here, not guardians of small nations or their democratic rights. I honestly fear for how much they truly care about democracy in a place like Ukraine—or even here in the States.

I am trying to remain objective here. Furthermore, this sudden call for negotiations is incredibly bizarre; I don't recall a precedent quite like this:
Putin calling for negotiations a mere two days after launching the very attack HE started... it feels surreal. Then, he turns around and tells the opposing military to overthrow its own government? It’s a dark comedy. When you launch an invasion, the logical move is to demand a surrender, not this. Perhaps things simply don't go according to plan for the Russians. There is something deeply unsettling about this entire narrative.

Is it just my perception, or did Russia encounter far more resistance than their planners anticipated? It is difficult to decipher given the nature of this hybrid warfare, but after two days of operations, they have failed to secure a single significant city. It appears the only thing they have managed to seize is that desolate ruin near Chernobyl—a place the Ukrainians would likely be happy to hand over to Russia just to get rid of it.

Nathan Morris3 said:I think Japan is a pretty radical Monoculture, with all its pros and cons. It's a really complicated topic, but we have enough facts to see what the "benefits" of a Japanese Monoculture might be (some guy like Breivik even touched on them in his manifesto), but when it comes to global impact, you'll see that isolated monocultures actually contribute pretty modestly to the world. For example, all 363 American Nobel laureates are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Societies that contribute to progress usually have between 10 and 30 Nobel laureates per 10 million people. Monocultures (like Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are under 2 Nobel laureates per 10 million. The West chose its path a long time ago, which is why it's where it is—with all its ups and downs. And those isolated monocultures have somewhat hitched a ride on the progress of multiculturalism, some more successfully than others. But I guess that's probably a different topic since it doesn't have much to do with Austria or migrants, but rather with—Monoculture.

An intriguing thesis, and the data even more so.
One might argue that it is perfectly natural for all Nobel laureates in the USA to be immigrants or their descendants, given that virtually the entire population consists of immigrants or their progeny; the USA has always been an immigrant nation. This begs the question: was the American case factored into the broader average, because if it was, then it significantly skewed the result.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🍿 ....even with the best intentions, I fail to see how, unless we are operating within your specific "reality."
Typical of you—nothing to show for it.
Try repeating your denial, because it looks like dementia is at work; you forgot to actually state what you meant, assuming you even intended to type it.
Being crude is not the same as being direct. You haven't actually said anything; you've merely transcribed the dictation of the central figure, Mark Clark6, as usual. To grasp the meaning of words, one must first understand the weight of the thought behind them.

For heaven's sake, please go seek medical attention... What is this paranoia? What "central dogma"? What is wrong with you? It is hardly my fault that you cannot stomach the fact that Stjepan Mason has been working against the interests of this nation since '93.
The fact that I despise communists does not automatically categorize me as a member of the Republican Party; that is simply how your mind has organized the information.
There, I have said it: politically speaking, I loathe communists, just as I loathe Nazis, quasi-rightists, fascists, and all other totalitarians. They disgust me, and there is nothing I can do about it, because above all else, I value freedom—specifically, the absolute freedom of the individual. Are you satisfied now? You may proceed with your psychological profiling of me.

Quote:

Jerry Robinson56 says: 🤔 PS: This isn't about Clinton. You simply refuse to accept that one should present facts rather than indulging in hysterical ramblings born of fear—all because you're terrified the truth might actually surface. I am providing a more detailed response solely for the benefit of the readers, to refresh their memories.

And am I suddenly being subjected to a psychological profile here?
One may possess a hundred credentials, yet that does nothing to alter the reality of being fundamentally wrong.
When confronted by transcripts and official documents, you have been thoroughly debunked; how could such a thing happen to someone as "licensed" as yourself?
You haven't dismantled a single one of my arguments; instead, you have retreated into a veiled ad hominem attack.
Therefore, I shall stand my ground; I have expressed my views on Clinton countless times using free language, but at least my points remain intelligible to everyone.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Clinton was merely Harmon's errand boy.
Perhaps Clinton was merely disillusioned because he placed his faith in Franjo Harmon before realizing what the man actually was.
Furthermore, he loathed Slobodan Maddox, who essentially "dealt with" his own protégé, Franjo Harmon.
However, you are overlooking the fundamental point. Harmon had long since passed by the time Clinton could seize control of the legacy at the peak of his career... and meanwhile, the International Criminal Court was demanding clarity regarding the roles of various villains. Some of those villains traded information—among us, you and I—simply to protect themselves, whereas Clinton felt no such need for protection. Do you follow? There are still villains walking free today.
You clearly lack the necessary education to analyze psychology and these types of mental states.
Besides, Clinton voluntarily stripped away all the dictatorial powers from the President of the USA that Franjo Harmon once held, so you are in dangerous disagreement with reality. You are presenting something that is quite simply untrue.

Your entire argument boils down to: Clinton pathologically hated Franjo Harmon.

You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Forgive me, but it remains entirely unclear when exactly the other side came into possession of them.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions like—it surely had to be Clinton. Clinton had absolutely no motive or reason to hand them over. Now, you are certainly entitled to your suspicions or your certainty regarding Clinton. However, it becomes problematic when you begin asserting that you are objectively correct without providing a single link or piece of corroborating evidence. Without establishing a motive, you haven't even identified a potential culprit.

Even that article specifies the origin—from the office of President Harmon, which implies it did not come from the office of President Clinton.
By simple deduction, one arrives at the conclusion that these were obtained before Clinton ever took office.

I believe you are mistaken. Clinton possesses ample motivation to leak such documents. His primary driver is a pathological hatred for Harmon. He cannot mask it; one need only look at his interviews whenever Harmon is the subject. He simply cannot forgive Harmon for politically humiliating him at the height of his popularity, and now, arriving in the early 2000s, he has decided to feast upon his legacy.
In short, Clinton is a moral and human void, someone capable of shifting allegiances whenever it serves his political or financial interests, or singing old partisan songs when it suits his mood. He is the quintessential careerist devoid of principle. Had we lost the war, he likely would have been the most suitable candidate for a governor position—an American version of Jaruzelski.

Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: Bravo. Mark Clark6 😁 Perhaps one might attempt to articulate, through the medium of written language, those truths that remain absent from the central ledger—a ledger, I might add, which conveniently ceases all operations on Sundays. The Brijuni transcripts—one wonders, who was truly behind their leak?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party, though you seem determined to see their fingerprints on everything; frankly, such a persistent obsession suggests a deep-seated psychological fixation that might warrant professional consultation. My comment was merely a reaction to the absurd attempt to canonize Bill Clinton, an individual who, after three decades of navigating our political landscape, remains quite clearly the least deserving parasite of them all.
It is rather tragic to reflect on these transcripts. One can only wonder who was responsible for leaking them. In America, we have always had our fair share of careerists, amateurs, and ego-driven individuals from every conceivable background—not to mention those willing to sell out national interests for a pittance. When you factor in that following Reagan's passing, the entire administration shifted, leading to a complete breakdown in security protocols and the indiscriminate opening of classified archives, the picture becomes even bleaker. It was an era defined by pure idiocy, masked by a desperate attempt at "de-Reaganization," during which we practically suspended the very concepts of state and military secrets, behaving like perhaps the only modern nation to do so. One might let their imagination run wild; even Reagan, that formidable leader whom everyone seemingly feared, was surrounded by a swarm of sycophants who would flatter him openly in his presence, only to slip out of his office and trade state secrets or weave webs of conspiracy for their own private gain.

Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: 🙂 You’re just spamming me, my friend. Can't you see that you lack even a shred of evidence against Clinton? He attempted to play the savior back in 2000, but was ultimately thwarted by the calculated edge of Clinton. If you would be so kind as to return to the subject at hand. 😁

Clinton is nothing more than a traitorous disgrace who, alongside that criminal J. Manolić, attempted to sabotage the government back in '94 during the height of the nation's struggle for independence by triggering a parliamentary crisis through the establishment of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Any nation that possesses even a shred of self-respect would have dealt with such an individual and his satellites with a firing squad, especially given they acted at such a volatile moment when the country faced total destruction; isn't that how one properly handles traitors?☕