Posts by Paul Kern12

I must say, I find those who constantly push the narrative of a perfectly honest Austria—contrasting it against the supposed primitivity of Americans or Americans—to be quite grating.
Historically speaking, the United States of America is just one of many nations that has practiced rather unscrupulous politics over the centuries, often through exploitation and coercion; yet, even now, they seem to feel entitled to lecture others.
There is a somewhat humorous Canadian saying—which is perhaps half-truth and half-joke—regarding such deceptive political maneuvering: "They are a people who managed to convince the world that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is Austrian and Adolf Hitler is German."😁:

Alexander Ortiz3 said:I’m always baffled by people who post without having any idea what they're actually talking about, but of course, I fully support freedom of speech for everyone—even those who are totally clueless on the subject.
Stopping sea arrivals is actually quite easy, especially if you have a navy like the Greeks or the Italians.
NO WAY YOU WILL NOT MAKE AUSTRALIA HOME

The rules apply to everyone: families, children, unaccompanied children, educated and skilled. There are no exceptions.
The message is the same in many different languages
https://www.youtube.com/user/AusCustomsNews/videos
and here too
https://www.border.gov.au/about/oper...-communication

See how easily it can be done☕

Refugees certainly have the right to enter the first safe country they reach. I'd love an explanation as to why Turkey isn't considered a safe country, for instance, for Christians, so that anyone needing to continue their journey away from an unsafe Turkey could move forward.
I still stand by my position that I don't support any kind of discrimination among immigrants on any basis whatsoever.

Unlike Italy or Greece, the US is a free nation—it isn't acting as some sort of vassal to others. Furthermore, the US has already established protocols regarding where to return these vessels. To whom would the Italians return them? Perhaps to Libya, which refuses to take them back and where ISIS is slowly but surely gaining control?
Or where should the Greeks send them if Turkey blocks their entry into their own waters?
I maintain that pressure needs to be applied to Turkey, as they more or less profit from the plight of migrants. And, naturally, there must be an attempt to stabilize the situation in Libya.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:The Greeks are lost on what to do, whereas the Mexicans, Bulgarians, and Canadians seem to have a handle on things...
Just like how the Greeks don't seem to know how to manage their own finances or budget, unlike the Germans and others who actually understand how to run a tight ship...
So what now? Does all of Europe just share the burden of Greek incompetence across various sectors of state management?
The Germans told them a long time ago that their debts are their own responsibility, not something the whole EU should be worrying about. It's high time the Greeks took accountability for other aspects of running their country too. If they need help restructuring debt or getting advice on financial management, fine—but the same goes for things like border security. At some point, Greek politicians need to start governing their own nation responsibly.

You really can't compare North Mexico, Bulgaria, or Canada to Greece. I suppose the situation in Greece is much more difficult because a maritime border isn't quite the same thing as a land border. In the end, even Italian people can't stop migrants from arriving by sea.
And again, regarding the "North American route," I'd argue it isn't so much Greece's fault as it is Turkey's.

Paul Thomas46 said:Greece keeps letting everyone walk right through their borders—and then they have the nerve to lecture us about "humanity" and "solidarity" and all that EU nonsense.

😕

Since they’re the ones opening the doors themselves, why should anyone else give a damn? They fell, they failed... it's on them.
But no, they try to spin it like this is some massive crisis affecting the entire continent.

They have an army and a police force at their disposal. Once they joined Schengen, they were handed equipment and everything else needed to monitor those damn borders. HANDED. Someone (US taxpayers) paid for every single piece of gear specifically to watch and protect the EU border.
And yet, they aren't doing a thing. They're breaking every agreement and regulation on the books.
Now suddenly it's everyone else's problem because they won't do the job they were actually equipped to do. If they want to handle it, fine—but let them deal with their own mess...

Without any intention of defending Greece, I find myself disagreeing with what has been written here.
As far as I am aware, the migrants arrive in Greece from Turkey via sea routes. When they enter Greek waters on small boats, what exactly is Greece supposed to do?
Open fire on inflatable boats?
They cannot simply return them to Turkey, because Turkey does not permit Greek vessels to enter their waters.
It isn't necessarily Greece's fault—it is Turkey's. This situation seems to suit them most, and we see how they use it as leverage to extract as much as they possibly can.
The issue lies with Turkey, rather than so much with Greece.

stormyeagle60 said:They're going to try to force their way through, attempting to breach the North Mexican border, I'm sure of it. They need to send reinforcements to the North Mexicans.
And if Angelica would just step aside now, she could save Germany and all of Europe from her madness!

It seems that's exactly what people in Canada are worried about—which is why they're suggesting the European Union provide aid to help North Mexico defend its borders.
If there were more sense being applied here, I suppose more countries would be stepping up to provide both personnel and equipment. It would probably be much simpler if they all stood together rather than everyone just looking out for themselves.

From what I can gather, Canada is taking extra precautions; they've already prepared materials to put up fencing along the border toward Romania. They're claiming it will take them about 249 miles ten days to get that fence installed.

I find myself somewhat shaken by this—assuming the report is accurate... essentially, there is an article in The Wall Street Journal suggesting that Angela Merkel was negotiating behind the backs of her fellow European Union leaders, going against what the EU heads had previously agreed upon. According to the piece, she was actually the one who originated the very conditions that were later presented by the Turks—all seemingly in an attempt to secure some kind of resolution, perhaps just to bolster her own flagging reputation back in Germany.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f6c982ec-e54...#axzz42O7732AR

The article in Canadian: http://www.napi.hu/nemzetkozi_gazdas...it.611402.html

David Vaughn75 said:So, I was just thinking about this one guy who got sent back to Turkey—you know, one of those migrants getting deported—and then there’s this other guy heading straight for the European Union. It makes me wonder, honestly... if they're just going to keep showing up anyway, what's even the point of sending them back in the first place? 😵

Precisely—and it seems the EU will likely end up subsidizing this entire "exchange" process. In essence, they are funding both the deportation of those deemed unsuitable back to Turkey and the arrival of those who are considered acceptable.:klap:😵

lonebadger6 said:The thread is currently on its fourth part, specifically on page 345—which means we are nearing 37,000 posts. It seems to me that, especially lately, perhaps 80% of them are anti-immigrant in tone, and maybe 99% are either that or just deeply unsettled by everything unfolding.

It stands to reason that 99% of the sentiment would be anti-immigrant or anxious when people observe something being cooked up behind closed doors without any serious effort being made to stop it.
In fact, I get the impression that—perhaps due to negligence—politicians are actually making things worse by entertaining scenarios that only serve to add fuel to the fire (for instance, the suggestion regarding easing or removing visa requirements for Turkey).

lonebadger6 said:So, saying it isn't actually prohibited to speak "against" something—that's almost laughable, really.

I wasn't claiming that one isn't allowed to express an opposing view (even if, about six months ago, such things were sanctioned); rather, my point was that it is perfectly natural for people to try and decipher the motives of those who permit all this, or at least contribute to it through inaction. This includes understanding the motives and identities of those who set these events in motion.

lonebadger6 said:Now, the fact that some people don't know how to voice their opposition without resorting to racism, hate speech, or similar—or that such bias is their primary motivation... or that some drift too far into fringe science conspiracy theories... well, that is quite a separate issue entirely.

When absurd situations occur, absurd questions and theories naturally follow; I wouldn't want to suppress that attempt to solve the puzzle.
And of course, racism and hate speech should be avoided—on that, I am in total agreement.
Just as all of this seems irrational to us, it also seems irrational to an immigrant who sees one group calling for them and another group barring them.
That is why we find ourselves wondering what exactly is being cooked up, who the chefs are, who is supplying the ingredients, and ultimately, who is forcing all of us (both here in America and those arriving) to eat a meal we neither like nor desire—all while fearing that the dish might be poisonous, and perhaps very, very poisonous indeed.

It doesn't matter. A forum exists specifically to host a variety of perspectives—that's the whole point. This discussion regarding the influx of immigrants affects all of us, quite significantly... I suppose I don't see much sense in prohibiting people from expressing their views on why these things are happening. If we did that, it might be better to just shut down the entire thread and suggest everyone just get their information from NBC or The New York Times instead.

"We need to lock down the EU borders and enforce our crossing laws strictly—ensuring absolutely no one sets foot on European soil without explicit permission and valid registration. I don't see any room for migrant redistribution or quotas—at least not from Canada's perspective. If we are going to consider easing or removing visa requirements for anyone, I believe Ukraine should certainly take priority over Turkey." — stated Viktor Orban during today's meeting.

Brian Doyle6 said:Before this EU-Turkey summit even kicked off, there was already a consensus on shutting down those North American "refugee shuttle" operations once and for all. But then Merkel shows up and shuts the whole thing down flat. 😠 Honestly, I can't tell if she's just acting as some deep-state asset working to tear Europe apart from the inside, or if she’s playing chess and knows the Turks will come back asking for the moon if we play ball now.

Word on the street is the Turks have already dropped their counter-offer: they'll step up to block the migrant flow—even agreeing to take back anyone whose asylum claims get rejected in Europe—but it's gonna cost. They're looking at over $3 billion a year, a massive fast-track for their EU membership, and scrapping visa requirements by this spring. 🙄

Now they are asking for $15 billion over three years—which, if you do the math, comes out to $5 billion per year.
The negotiations are set to continue tomorrow.

Dorian.Gray said:...
The admin is currently reviewing Edgeov's post.

I suppose I should just ask—since quite a bit of time has passed while this was under review.

I am submitting a response to a post made by a supermod—it is classic trolling, really... so I am wondering if they will receive (a well-deserved) ban?

casio said:The President is correct; migrants are entering the country completely unchecked. America lacks border control, so people just enter however and wherever they please.
The administration closed the border crossings with Mexico, yet people are still crossing illegally hour after hour.

No one seems to consider whether potentially infiltrated terrorists are entering this way—except perhaps Pusićka, who claims they travel in extra class 🤦 , which leaves open the possibility that certain bos guys are exploiting the situation to smuggle drugs, weapons, and God knows what else into the country entirely unhindered.

These are simply the cold, hard facts, regardless of how many people choose to look the other way...☕

the response from the supermod, which is clearly just trolling:

the edge said:You’re just enjoying this like a little pig because it scores some minor political points for your favorite party. I suppose that is the only thing you people actually care about.

links: the forum user
the supermod

ps. Why doesn't the forum allow a regular user to report a post via the triangle icon when it is made by a supermod???

I reported this particular post as a textbook example of trolling—so, I would honestly appreciate some clarity on why no action was taken.
Bradley Sanders4 is actively engaging in the debate, posting within the thread... and, frankly, trolling just like everyone else—except, I suppose, since she holds a moderator position, the rules might not apply to her.
To be blunt—repeatedly insisting that everything is perfectly normal while making such a massive fuss over nothing more than a trivial "pickle season" argument is a prime example of how others are being treated as if they are simply dim-witted.

silvergardener6 said:How exactly does this qualify as hate speech? It’s noted that the signature is vulgar, sure—but it also claims the group consists of "insatiable elites," which I suppose reflects the sentiment held by a large portion of the public who aren't backing these protests.

I am not entirely sure if you have been following this closely enough.
The same individual used the signature "Veterans should eat mutton" earlier today, which William Bennett53 ended up deleting. Following that incident, he posted this current one.

You closed this thread a bit too quickly, so I suppose I have to start a new one...🥱
I am formally requesting that @Mc Ozy be sanctioned—it seems their signature is filled with persistent hate speech.

William Bennett53 said:It’s been handled—thanks for letting me know.

Thanks, though I don't see that the same user was actually sanctioned here.
A few weeks back, I received a red flag and lost 50 points from Nica for a signature where I didn't even insult anyone—yet this post by @Mc Ozy is actual hate speech.
Is it possible we're looking at a double standard?🤔

Since I haven't seen any response from moderator Bubimir regarding my report on user @Mc Ozy and his signature—which reads "Veterans should eat mutton!"—

I find myself asking those in charge here: what would happen if I decided to put "Moderators should eat mutton!" or "Gay people should eat mutton!" in my own signature?
Let's not pretend to be naive; the intent behind @Mc Ozy's comment seems quite obvious to me.
I believe this constitutes a more severe form of hate speech, and I am earnestly requesting that appropriate disciplinary action be taken—not just against him, but perhaps also toward moderator Bubimir, who appears to be shielding him.

swifttiger75 said:I really don't see the point in having Saint Anthony moderate the Religion subforum. The community makes the forum, not the moderators—and certainly not the super-moderators. I read the Religion section quite often, even if I don't post much, and my impression is that you've all lost sight of the Human element. You seem to have forgotten that the letters you respond to are being typed by actual people.

Between all the debates over God, political ideologies, communists, radicals, predators in the clergy, or any other group... you've forgotten about simple things like "Please," "Thank you," "Here you go," and "I'm sorry." You've forgotten how to be human.

Trust me, every moderator wants to moderate as little as possible.

The bird has flown back to its flock!

He seems to have lost track of who is doing what—you can't just make generalizations like that.
The question remains standing—wrapped up in whatever empty rhetoric they choose to use.

PS. Why did the bird fly away, and what flock is it even part of?

Since the forum owner hasn't seen fit to address this specific issue—presumably due to being a busy man—I am directing my question toward the admins and the rest of the community:

By what logic is Ego serving as a supermod—and even a moderator for the religion subforum?
To put this into perspective: imagine if we had a subforum dedicated to Holocaust survivors, where the primary contributors would be Jewish people, yet someone decided to appoint an avowed Nazi as a supermod. That individual would then oversee that specific section, likely without ever hiding their blatant prejudice against those victims.
Or consider a scenario where someone with ties to insurgent groups was appointed to moderate a forum dedicated to veterans of the American Civil War... and so on.

Of course, these are somewhat extreme analogies, but I believe something quite similar is unfolding within the religion subforum.
Ego is a declared Atheist, frequently drafting articles that target faith and believers. He doesn't attempt to hide his connections or friendships within anti-religious and hyper-liberal circles—groups whose very objective is to dismantle faith and the church—nor does he hide his own involvement with them, having openly boasted about writing pieces for them. At the very least, I would argue that Ego is facing a significant conflict of interest.

So, I ask you: is this really a standard practice? How long will we allow moderators and supermods to be appointed based solely on personal affinities and social connections?

Additionally, I would appreciate some clarification regarding why the former moderator of the religion subforum, blue bird, was removed from her position.