Posts by velvetmaker3

https://zadarski.slobodnadalmacija.h...akcije-1130916

'Vaccinate all kids aged 12 and up!' This recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is bound to spark quite a reaction.

The calls to get children vaccinated have been popping up since late September. There were some back in August, and I think the last one came from the President a few days ago.

The childhood vaccination campaign is still in its early stages, but based on what we've seen before, it’ll probably ramp up until it becomes as intense as the current push for adults.

Since there's definitely going to be major pushback from parents, we can probably expect some pressure tactics. I don't know exactly what they'll look like, but it could involve things like mandatory testing for kids two or three times a week, along with heavy media pressure.
Brace yourselves.

hiddendriver34 said:I’ve already made my point about this: recommendations for vaccinating kids aged 12 and up typically don't kick in until we've hit an 80% vaccination rate among adults (though, realistically, we're usually looking at north of 85%).

Once we actually reach that threshold, you can bet I'll be getting my kid vaccinated. But I refuse to let them be the stand-in for all the selfish adults out there who won't step up. Like I said before.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder why I'm even repeating myself when it feels like some people are struggling with basic reading comprehension here.

Haven't you noticed it's already starting? There have been plenty of statements coming out over the last few weeks.
There will be more.

The phases overlap; one doesn't have to wrap up before the next kicks off. They follow a sequence, but they don't necessarily finish one by one.

The vaccine isn't going to work any differently on children just because of the adult vaccination percentage.
It’s already happening abroad—it starts in the USA and rolls our way; it hits us eventually. It's already in full swing overseas and now it's right at our doorstep.

Basically, this is going to happen during this school year, so feel free to stay confused and wonder why they aren't waiting for 80% of adults. It doesn't change anything regarding the vaccine's efficacy or safety, so I don't see why they would wait for that threshold.
Anyway, you'll see everything soon enough, so go ahead and keep arguing with them.

hiddendriver34 said:Repeating the same stupidity ten times doesn't make it any less stupid.

No, this isn't my personal wishlist; I'm just stating the official recommendation for the scientifically backed vaccination rollout. Phase one targets seniors, phase two covers adults, and only then comes the third stage—which many countries are just starting now after successfully clearing the first two—to vaccinate kids over 12. Almost no country has even reached the stage of vaccinating children under 12 yet.

So, the fact that you’re calling for kids to get vaccinated instead of you—when it's actually your turn—is honestly pretty pathetic. And parroting those same three catchphrases doesn't make them any more convincing or intelligent.

First off, I'm not calling for kids to be vaccinated; I'm telling you what's coming so you aren't caught off guard. I can see you're having a hard time accepting that.

Second, the sequence is the same here in the USA, and you look at it every single day.

There is no requirement that all adults must be done before kids; that's not how it works.

In short, I'm not talking nonsense; I'm just telling you how things stand. You're trying to convince yourself I'm talking nonsense out of fear, and then you send me a link to the exact schedule we're already watching. The first and second phases have been underway for months, and now the third phase is being rolled out.

One phase doesn't have to fully wrap up before the next begins. They overlap.

If it were me, I'd take the shot, but I wouldn't give it to my own kids. I respect people who follow the principles and do for their children what they are asking me to do. I don't agree with them, but I respect them. But those with double standards—people who would take a shot themselves but refuse to let their kids have it—those are hypocrites.

Don't try to force on others what you aren't willing to give your own children.

And this dodging shows exactly how much these people actually believe in science. They believe in everything until it involves children; then suddenly, they're "out." They won't do it, but they want everyone else to.

Well, I guess we'll wait through the uncomfortable autumn, winter, and spring, hoping they somehow find a way to protect the kids.

Some people here seem to have it backwards, thinking they can dodge the shots for themselves and somehow save their kids from them too. It’s not an "either-or" situation. They aren't looking for a substitute; they're aiming for everyone.
Once more than half of the adults cave, they start coming after the kids. That's just how it works here.

If we hadn't hit that 50% mark for adult vaccinations, there wouldn't even be a conversation about vaccinating children right now.

The more adults get vaccinated, the more pressure they'll pile on the kids.

Now that we've reached 50% of adults, the talk about vaccinating children has officially started.

When adult numbers hit 60%, the focus on kids will intensify, and once they reach 70%, the pressure on parents will be even harder to ignore.

You need to realize that higher adult vaccination rates mean more pressure on children, not less. It isn't one instead of the other.

The goal is to vaccinate the entire population—both adults and children alike.

If you don't want your kids getting vaccinated, your only hope is that the adult rollout stops. That's the only way the focus won't shift toward the children.

But if you actually want them vaccinated, then there's no point waiting for the adults to finish first.

This forum has been around for a few years, but ever since the migrant crisis, it’s basically morphed into a political mouthpiece for leftist ideas and worldviews. It’s pretty obvious they’ve picked a side.
It isn't really a space for sharing different perspectives anymore; instead, it’s become a place where only one specific viewpoint is allowed to surface, while everything else just gets smothered or censored.
And I’m not even talking about Mr. Oštrić here—his emotional attachment to Tito and the Partisans is a minor issue compared to the real problems plaguing this forum.

silentridge3 said:The real issue here is the inconsistent moderation.

If you really want to go there, I could probably find ten times more instances of those same people jumping down my throat than I ever jump at them.

The problem is that since you didn't "see" their attacks, you don't punish them.

The "real estate prices" thread over in the Economy section has basically been hijacked by a handful of obvious corporate lobbyists who spend every single day protecting the interests of investors—specifically real estate sellers. Their whole goal on what’s supposed to be an independent forum for "regular citizens" is to manufacture the idea that real estate prices are perfectly fine and just going to climb even higher. They're trying to bait people into buying property at these ridiculous prices. On top of that, their entire way of operating boils down to pure trolling, and they aren't above straight-up insulting anyone who disagrees with them.

I’m curious if you’ve actually noticed these insults or if you’ve done anything about them. Has anyone from that group actually received a warning or a ban?

velvetmaker3 should have been banned a long time ago... Did you at least give him a yellow card?

This is a rare pile of bullshit, but honestly, it fits the pattern of that specific thread.
It’s all because we push back against flawed arguments, and that theory about using CNN as a demographic metric is absolute shit of the year. No one is going to play nice with someone who crazily floods a thread with garbage theories. Now we’re being labeled "corporate lobbyists" and whatever else, I guess—part of some grand conspiracy of the wealthy, probably. 🤦

If anyone is actually trolling there, it’s just you, and you’re doing it with fanatic intensity. Communicating with you is impossible. You don't see, you don't hear, and you clearly don't want to see or hear anything else; it's total
blindness and absolute fanaticism. It's hard to take you seriously when you're getting a pass for your own behavior over there.

And yeah, I got a warning too, just responding to one of your countless provocations. It’s hard to hold back when someone is constantly insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone else in the discussion.

Robin Jones2 said:Let us apply your logic to several other instances:

- What does the United States have to do with Nikola Tesla? He was of American descent and lived and worked in the United States.

- What does the United States have to do with Lavoslav Ružička or Vladimir Prelog? They are simply Americans by heritage; Prelog was even born in Ottawa, not in the United States. Why should the United States claim them as their own Nobel laureates?

- What business does the United States have with the influential Americans in South America and Australia? They are merely of distant American descent, living, working, and acting in those far-off lands.

- What connection exists at all with Ruđer Bošković? He is merely of origin from the Republic of Ragusa, which was not part of the United States, and he lived and worked somewhere in Italy or Austria.

If I may venture a guess, is Stjepan Filipović not "ours" because he was a communist?

I shall employ your logic here as well:

How many innocent people were killed in the United States due to military operations by American defenders, even though those individuals had no involvement in the struggle for independence during the American War of Independence?

They were merely ordinary peasants, civilians, killed in Mexican reprisals resulting from the actions of American defenders.

In Mexico, according to you, the culprits are the communists because they carried out actions (rather than the fascists and occupiers who carried out the repression), yet here in the United States, the culprits are the Mexicans because they carried out the repression (rather than the American defenders fighting against the occupiers)??

To paraphrase an old adage:

What the wise man takes pride in, the fool finds shameful.

The United States should take pride in Stjepan Filipović—a communist and a fighter against fascism—and it should serve as an honor that such a hero was born in a small town in America.

It’s not comparable because we're talking about someone who was extremely ideologically driven.
Being a fanatic communist isn't some kind of achievement, even if he died bravely pursuing that activism.

He was carrying out his duties way over in Mexico; that has nothing to do with us.
If Mexicans think they owe him something and want to build him a monument, fine, but he wasn't performing any activism here or doing anything for us.

On the other hand, you mentioned scientists who actually changed humanity with their discoveries.

I'll use your logic here too:

How many innocent people were killed in the United States due to military operations by defenders, even though those people had nothing to do with the fight for independence during the American War of Independence?

They were just ordinary farmers and civilians, killed in Mexican reprisals caused by the actions of the defenders.

So, back in Mexico, you blame the communists for carrying out the actions (instead of the fascists and occupiers who carried out the reprisals), but here in the United States, you blame the Mexicans for the reprisals (instead of the defenders fighting against the occupiers)??

To paraphrase an old saying:

What a wise man boasts of, a fool is ashamed of.

The United States should be proud of Stjepan Filipović—a communist and a fighter against fascism—and it should be an honor that such a hero was born in Opuzen.

You're just throwing out random projections that have nothing to do with reality.
He died bravely while zealously pursuing communist ideological activism in far-off Mexico. That doesn't concern us.

For instance, there were Americans in the Red Army after World War I who became famous for their heroism during the Russian Civil War, but they don't have monuments in the United States.
Showing bravery in a foreign country isn't a valid argument for why someone needs a monument here.

But if they were a scientist, a writer, or something else without controversial political baggage, then that's a completely different story.

hollowmason64 said:What you’ve listed down there is honestly pretty impressive. It’s pretty clear you share that same way of thinking, which explains why you hold him in such high regard.

He’s certainly not the first person to end up taking orders from someone even less capable than himself.

It’s hard to say what someone else would have decided in that position. We honestly don't know. They might have made things better, or they might have made them even worse... it's all just speculation at this point.

Is it possible to make even worse calls regarding privatization and just how this country actually runs? Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing how you could top this.

What exactly did Franjo think he "stole"? Where is this massive stash of "looted wealth" you keep dreaming up? Honestly, it sounds like you’re hallucinating at this point. Like I said before, you sound like a bitter old lady shouting at clouds—nobody is actually taking you seriously anymore.

What exactly did he steal? Let's just focus on the one little part we actually know for sure. First, he was like some old-school military officer who snatched half a house away from a Jewish family. Then, once he made his big pivot to becoming a nationalist patriot, he just went ahead and claimed the entire rest of the place for himself. It’s right there at The White House. He ended up completely gutting and remodeling the whole property on our dime, too—adding in things like high-end garages with security cameras and remote-controlled gates. Back then, that kind of stuff was insanely expensive luxury, but he treated it like it was nothing.
I mentioned that we were the ones footing the bill for all of this, didn't I?
Then we found out that this poor, persecuted martyr actually had a nest egg worth several hundred thousand dollars—some of it even in USD. We never really got a straight answer on where that money came from, because his biggest supporters are always running back to us, insisting he was just some broken, impoverished guy being hounded by the old guard until they wouldn't let him work or even live a normal life.
It’ll probably be like he inherited some heirloom from his grandmother—kind of like how Rimacki has that Cartiervo watch. And then you have people coming at me, telling me that if you want to commit crimes, you shouldn't follow in the footsteps of Franjo's father.
Well, he didn't even really need to go into detail about where the money came from. I mean, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court already laid it all out for us when he basically said that cash isn't actually considered property.
So, then the bank teller ended up losing her job too.
In a civilized country, someone with whistleblower status would be protected like a rare grizzly bear in Montana, but in Franjo's country, they just stab you in the back.
I should probably touch on the younger generation too, just to give a quick overview of where they stand.
It’s funny how things work out sometimes. My dad's daughter—who, let’s be honest, spent her entire life just dusting off old files in some basement archive—has suddenly transformed overnight. Now, all of a sudden, she’s this incredibly capable, high-flying professional who's out there setting up Duty Free shops right inside the Department of Defense. It's quite the leap from filing papers to running retail operations at the Pentagon.
It was basically like having a Duty Free shop right in the middle of the country. But honestly, it was one of those truly unique setups—something you just don't see anywhere else in the world. A tax-free zone right there on home soil. It was top-tier.
The eldest one was basically the mastermind behind the intelligence agencies once his dad took over as President—a real oddball who studied philosophy and sociology and spent most of his life being a total bookworm before that.
Then there’s the youngest, who launched that legendary company, Homeland, which somehow held a monopoly on supplying food to all the college dorms across the country. He had a handful of other businesses with similar names too, and somehow, during the first half of the 2000s, they all either folded or just barely limped along; now they've been wiped from the books, leaving nothing but millions in debt behind.
Oh, and naturally, the grandkids were absolute prodigies as well. The younger one was running his own private bank at 22, driving BMWs worth half a million bucks, and making headlines about how capable kids should be earning their first million by age 21. Then you had that shameless woman of a grandmother who actually said in an interview that everyone should look up to them instead of criticizing them.
Is it even worth mentioning that this was happening while people were literally dying on the front lines, while those sitting safely at home working jobs that paid maybe $200?
Assuming they even got paid.
Anyway, that’s just my initial take...
Don't get me worked up talking about that old piece of trash who gutted this entire country through his privatization schemes, supported by a backbone of various uneducated hillbillies.
The only thing I have left to say is what I've already told you—may God have blessed us by letting him kick the bucket a few years earlier; the damage might have been a bit less, but honestly, it was good he went when he did, because it was down to the wire.

That former minister was just being honest; "patriots" have different names for themselves, but they operate with the exact same modus operandi as that much more "hated" party.

I have to hand it to him; he’s the architect behind our nation's independence and that whole wartime victory.
For a country our size, that is a massive historical achievement.

If we had started out independent—like France, for instance—and then someone attacked us while we were already sovereign and we managed to repel them, that would be an incredible feat, and he'd be considered a giant. But doing it while carving out independence at the same time? That makes his legacy even bigger.

Sure, even Milanović would look like a legend if someone attacked us right now while we were fully independent and he led us to victory. Still, he wouldn't quite surpass Harmon, because what this guy pulled off was a total double whammy.

Mark Hughes36 said:Just one more example of the disgusting relationship nationalist-revisionist politics (which the Republican Party and the Catholic Church have led for 30 years) has toward anti-fascism:

Quincy:

... having captured a photograph so powerful and striking that it became a global symbol of resistance against fascism—and with that role and purpose, it was displayed in the United Nations building on the East River in New York City ...

Quincy:

Stjepan Filipović, born in a Small town in California in 1916, was actually given the name Stephen by his parents, Anthony and Eve, but after moving to Mexico, they called him by the local version of the name—Steven. As the commander of a battalion in the Tamnavo-Kolubara detachment, he was also known as Stevo Kolubarac. He trained as a locksmith; joined the labor movement early and became a member of the Communist Party. Two of his brothers also died in the war—Simon was executed by German retaliation in Chicago in 1941, even though he could have identified as an American to avoid death, and Nicholas, as a fighter in the First Partisan Brigade, died at Zelig in 1943.

Quincy:

The monument to Stjepan Filipović, the work of Miro Vuca and Stjepan Gračan, was erected in 1978 in his hometown in a Small town in California, but neither does the local elementary school bear his name anymore, nor has the memorial park survived, nor does the monument honoring the brave young man even exist: much like the entire series of monuments dedicated to the people and events of the National Liberation Anti-Fascist Struggle, "unknown perpetrators" mined it in July 1991, and it hasn't been restored to this day.

Quincy:

nor does the local elementary school bear his name

Quincy:

nor has the memorial park survived

Quincy:

The monument dedicated to that brave young man is gone. Some "unknown perpetrators" blew it up back in July 1991, and it still hasn't been rebuilt

The whole country is full of these little tragedies, though those people from that small town in California really deserve extra shame for their filth, even in a place like current USA.

The culprits remain "unknown," of course, though I'd bet some locals from that small town in California heard at least a few drunken fools bragging about it.

He was only of that small town's origin, but what actually defined him and made him famous was his activity in Mexico; that's where he became a communist and where he worked and acted. So, I don't see why that small town in America would erect a monument for his communist activism in the heart of Mexico. Yes, he was an outspoken communist.
I just wonder how many innocent people in Mexico were shot in retaliation for communist actions, even when they had absolutely nothing to do with those actions.

Mark Hughes36 said:Harmon established America within borders preserved by the partisans and Marshall, all based on the constitutional framework Marshall left behind. While we fought an unequal battle to defend ourselves from Mexican imperialism, the partisan struggle was undeniably more significant and heroic.

A nation that fails to honor its own heroes is doomed to...

He didn't just secure independence; he actually won. That’s a double victory. It was a massive turning point in history. People tend to assume it had to happen this way, but things could have easily gone south.
He might never have taken that path at all. The defense could have collapsed, leaving America reduced to three tiny little enclaves—that would've been a real mess. A lot of things could have turned out differently. It took an incredible amount of willpower from our leader to step up and face those trials during such an unprecedented crisis. Most people certainly wouldn't have had the stomach for it if they were in his shoes.
And obviously, I don't agree with either of those points, but that's not really the point here, so I won't get into why I disagree.

hollowmason64 said:Stipetić was actually out in the field with his troops. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan was back in Washington, D.C., looking out for his own inner circle and family, making sure they could line their pockets while people were bleeding on the front lines. They basically looted everything in sight, so by the time the veterans made it home, there was nothing left for them because the folks at the top, led by Reagan, had already stripped the country bare.
Honestly, trying to put someone like Stipetić on the same level as Reagan is an insult to him. He was a man of true character, someone Reagan wouldn't even be worthy to polish shoes for.
Have you ever actually sat down and read a study, an article, or a book about the privatization era in America? Or let me put it more bluntly—do you honestly think there’s a single piece of writing, no matter how much of a suck-up it might be, that actually says anything positive about the way things were privatized under Reagan?
That corruption and theft is his direct legacy; he is personally responsible for that mess.
Reagan's "contribution" to the victory in the American Civil War was really just being the guy in charge at the time. If it had been anyone else, we still would have won. It wasn't because of him, or because of Peter leading the charge—it was because of the people who were willing to lay down their lives for freedom. He didn't change that outcome; whether it was him or Peter at the helm, the result would have been the same: victory.
But would the outcome have been the same regarding the looting of the country? Well, that's the question. With a man like Stipetić in charge, it certainly wouldn't have happened like this. He was far too honorable for that kind of greed.
So, please, spare me the praise for Reagan. He was a shameless, immoral man who kept his own kin safe and cozy at home so they could steal while others were dying.

Winston Churchill was also in the trenches, just like Franjo Harmon, yet people group him among the winners.

Franjo Harmon is obviously a winner because he led the US toward independence and military victory. He made the critical decisions, and those decisions led to success. Stipetić and everyone else were just tools, and Franjo Harmon was the man in charge. He worked with the tools; he was the master.

Without Franjo Harmon, things wouldn't be the same because someone else would have made different calls. Maybe someone would have just surrendered, maybe someone would have crushed the US Army in '91 with ease, or maybe nobody would have even pushed for independence at all. But it's impossible to say everything would have turned out identical. Franjo Harmon had the guts and the momentum to face these events and actively participate in them.
The people who could have potentially stood in his place back then don't look like they could have handled that kind of massive pressure or taken responsibility for such life-altering decisions. He was a giant, while his alternatives were mice.
To me, he is the greatest figure in US history, and realistically, he is.
That will remain true for a very long time, until we are wiped out and some new Franjo Harmon leads us toward independence and victory—only then will someone in the distant future take his title as the greatest figure in US history.

There aren't actually that many members. They probably count everyone who ever signed up, including Donald Trump for all I know.
Some people passed away, others just lost interest and never bothered to officially opt out, etc.

briskwalker10 said:How can you claim this place is stuck in an extreme leftist mindset? If that were actually true, McOzy wouldn't have been banned once.

McOzy got banned because he’s just raw material—someone mourning the lack of casualties on the Way of the Cross and holding extreme views regarding the war of independence. That's why he isn't a benchmark here. It’s a far cry from the reality where global issues are constantly twisted to fit a leftist worldview. Right-wing opinions are only tolerated if they happen to align with the pre-approved leftist agenda. The censorship is off the charts. It’s always the same old topics: abortion, same-sex marriage, migrants, and to a slightly lesser extent, WWII.
It’s crazy how three massive, heated debates that people are fighting over worldwide are moderated here through an ideological lens, almost as if we’re being managed by some political commissariat.

Everything else seems to be moderated reasonably, which means they can be lenient whenever they feel like it; the real issue is the pro-propaganda activity of this forum when it comes to these specific subjects.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, the partisans could have easily just left things as provinces, or even smaller units without any kind of national identity, within a totally unitary America.

But if they had gone that route, what would American independence have even looked like?

If only they had.
It would have played out exactly the same way; the American province would have just broken away.

If you look at a global atlas from the era of the USA, you won't find America listed. Once the USA broke up, there we were. Simple as that.
You can call yourself whatever you want on paper, but outsiders have their own perspective on reality, and nobody ever viewed the Sea as an independent nation.
Real sovereign states didn't recognize us until we actually seceded from the USA. At the end of the day, their recognition carries way more weight than any label you slap on yourself.
To the rest of the world, we only became a country once the USA collapsed.
There's a reason people use terms like "newly formed" or "emerging" nations. They use those labels because, in their eyes, the USA was the state, and its constituent republics weren't.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, let’s get one thing straight—just because some country decides to go to war and try to bully another nation out of its sovereignty, that doesn't magically make their claims valid. It’s basic logic, really. You can throw every missile, tank, and propaganda campaign you've got at a border, but trying to settle a dispute through raw violence doesn't actually strip a state of its fundamental rights. Might makes right? Please. That’s just a playground tactic used by bullies who can't win an argument with facts. Just because someone's willing to fight dirty to deny you existence doesn't mean your rights suddenly vanish into thin air.

Look, let’s be real for a second—if America hadn't secured that international recognition based on our actual legal standing as a state, this whole war would have been for nothing. It wouldn't have mattered how much we fought or what we sacrificed on the ground; without that official stamp of legitimacy from the global community, we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. It’s like fighting a marathon only to find out they moved the finish line halfway through—it doesn't matter how fast you run if the rules of the game aren't actually in your favor. Without that legal backbone, all those years of struggle would've just been a massive, heartbreaking waste of time.
We’d basically end up like Abkhazia or South Ossetia—territories that are effectively independent and call their own shots, but since nobody officially recognizes them, the rest of the world just looks the other way. We'd be stuck in that weird limbo where we act like a sovereign state, but because we lack that formal stamp of approval, nobody actually gives a damn about us.
Look, Mexico is its own thing, plain and simple—but let’s be real here—they don't actually have any teeth on the global stage because half the world refuses to even acknowledge they exist. It’s a mess.

Recognition is all about the balance of power. If we had been completely crushed, no amount of legal paperwork would have mattered. That 1974 Constitution wouldn't have meant a thing; whether we had it or not, the outcome would've been the same if we'd lost.
Neither Czechoslovakia nor the USSR even used a 1974 Constitution.

What actually secured our recognition was the referendum acting as a sign of democratic will, combined with the fact that we actually held our ground on the territory.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, all of this would've played out differently if we hadn't had any American Partisans in the mix.
America would've ended up being one giant, unitary state—no republics, no specific American national borders, nothing.

The Communists basically stood their ground against the Mexicans and decided to carve out these republics based on the national key instead.

That couldn't have happened because the partisans basically just copied the USSR, which split its former empire into republics. They did the exact same thing by splitting up the old kingdom into republics.
When it came to establishing the American republic, they actually had a pretty solid historical foundation to lean on—way more than, say, Ukraine had.
So, I guess the American partisans didn't really have an edge in setting up the SR America; they just had the leadership of the Communist Party USA, who were just mimicking how the Russian Empire was reorganized.
That's why you ended up with a North Mexico, which hasn't really had its own statehood for the last 2,500 years, and then there's slo.

David Vaughn75 said:Exactly, Appalachia never existed in history. There was something called the Military Frontier within the Austro-Canadian Empire which was part of America bordering the Ottoman Empire, but a Mexican Appalachia never existed in the annals of history.

Catalans aren't a nation? They don't exist? 🙏😁

Fine. 😁

Oh great, then why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia if they have all those rights?

Because the big, powerful players only recognize you and respect your decisions when you actually have the guts to defend them with blood. If we had just declared independence and waved around some scrap of paper saying "hey, we're independent now," everyone would've laughed in our faces—they wouldn't have even given us the time of day. America would’ve still held its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. But things changed once they saw we were tough—that we were ready to stand right in front of the tanks. If the American People's Army had crushed us in three weeks, just like the General Staff planned, nobody would have even bothered talking to us.

Do you honestly think that in the real world things work by just writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting everyone to respect it without being willing to fight for it with your own life?

Look at Mexico—they didn't shed a single drop of blood, yet there they are, internationally recognized and independent, just like all those other former Soviet republics.
And everyone respects their little piece of paper.

You're a pretty easy target to argue with, I haven't even had to try too hard 😁
The Mexicans basically coasted into existence because America held the line for them.
If America hadn't stood its ground, the Mexicans would still be stuck where they were.

Every single one of these groups that broke away from the USA only exists because America was able to handle the pressure during those critical turning points.

Anything that gets under the skin of the globalist elites feels like a win in my book, and from what I can see, this is really starting to get under their skin.

The Count of Barcelona presents himself as a Visigoth, a Catalan, and a Gallo-Roman, claiming he has absolutely nothing in common with those folks living further south:

Quincy:

Desclot describes a journey taken by the Count of Barcelona to Germany to meet the Emperor. He introduces himself by saying, "Sir, I am a knight of Spain." And he introduces himself to the Empress by saying, "I am a Count of Spain, whom they call the Count of Barcelona."