Posts by urbanotter

Hiawatha87 said:You're just swallowing Kremlin propaganda.

I mean, obviously, but what else can I do?
When you choose to look at the bigger picture and analyze how things play out on a global scale over the long haul—rather than just consuming whatever is being spoon-fed to us by state-run media or certain YouTube channels—you inevitably end up seeing things differently.

Anthony Hill5 said:On the contrary, shouldn't he be heading straight to the capital of Belarus, given that they are actively participating in the invasion of his nation?

He might actually be safer there than in Kyiv, where he's currently being hunted by Chechen special forces.

Roy said:Not really. You're just spinning your wheels here, much like everyone else with one of those half-baked, two-digit usernames.

If you were to strip away the context regarding Ukraine and focus strictly on the most recent developments, I suppose you might be able to make it work.

But for someone who tries to look past the immediate headlines and see through the Murdoch propaganda, swallowing that argument is a pretty tall order.

Maskeron said:How are the peacekeepers getting on? Have they managed to de-Nazify the country yet?

Zelenskyy suggested Warsaw as the site for negotiations.

Honestly, Zelenskyy is such a comedian; it’s a good thing he didn't suggest Kyiv as the meeting spot.

feralpilot0 said:What freedoms? They know exactly what life is like in the rest of Russia—they just don't want it.

It’s certainly better than what's happening over in Ukraine.
The idea that we’re all going to live the American Dream just because we're part of this is a bit of a fairy tale that was sold to us, and frankly, we fell for it, thinking our economy would suddenly transform into something like Switzerland's.

Even my old neighbor back home used to make promises like that, and from what I can see, nothing ever actually changes.
As the old saying goes, "a promise made to a fool is just a way to keep them happy."

frozenpanther11 said:Looks like there's plenty of rotten Western attitudes floating around here—whatever.

We’re seeing the start of a new East versus West divide, and the winner is pretty obvious.
We're entering a new era.

It feels like this is just the specific bone that’s getting stuck in the West's throat.

China is playing it cool, acting like they aren't interested while secretly reaping the benefits because Russia is essentially doing all the heavy lifting for them.
Ukraine is nothing more than a pawn being sacrificed in this high-stakes game of chess.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:So, you really think someone’s gonna pull up a chair to an eight-meter table? Like, seriously? That’s not even a dining setup anymore; that’s basically a runway for a suburban banquet. You’d need a GPS just to pass the salt to the guy at the other end. It's like trying to host a dinner party in a converted warehouse in Chicago—you spend more time traveling between courses than actually eating them. Probably better to just grab a burger at a local diner and call it a day. 🤣
You don't sit at the negotiating table with an occupier. Period.

The size of the table doesn't actually matter here,
because if you refuse to sit at the negotiating table, the only alternative left is violence, especially when you're dealing with an occupier.

William Anderson5 said:Give me a break... do you people honestly still believe Putin is out there conquering nations just because he's feeling defensive against NATO?

But have you actually considered his real motivations?

He really doesn't need Ukraine, especially considering their shattered economy and the massive number of retirees they're struggling to support.

Also, you really ought to realize that NATO basically is America.

Everything reached a breaking point once the US started leaning on the Germans to stop them from getting ST2 up and running.

Arthur Watson4 said:Putler will keep moving until someone stops him by force.

Looking forward to that.

But who exactly is going to be the one to step up and stop him?

The idea of "tough" sanctions🤦

Personally, I am just hoping for a swift end to the fighting. My biggest wish is that we can get everyone back to the negotiating table as soon as possible,
specifically bringing in people who might actually be willing to listen more effectively than those who have been sitting at the table up until now.

Andrew Martinez8 said:Honestly, I'm not interested in getting dragged into hypothetical scenarios with someone who thinks it's perfectly fine for Russia to block Sweden from joining NATO. 🤣

Russia invades a sovereign nation, and now the conversation has shifted toward justifying it based on the actions or perceived intentions of Ukraine.
That's nonsense; it just doesn't hold water. 🙂

Sovereignty😁🙏
it seems like you don't quite grasp how the world actually works. 🤦

Melissa Peterson19 said:Go read this on Wikipedia before you come over here trying to act like you're smart. In 1945, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Mexico were established. The internal borders separating the various states and provinces were officially finalized between 1945 and 1946.

How exactly do you think he worked to strengthen the federation? He did the exact opposite. The 1974 Constitution was his handiwork. If his goal had actually been to bolster the central government, he would have pushed for centralization rather than the confederation he essentially established through that new Constitution. If he were truly a committed federalist, he would have worked to reinforce the central state and diminish the power of the individual states, instead of weakening the union and handing more authority to the states, which is precisely what he achieved with the 1974 Constitution.

It’s quite telling. Twenty years after declaring the old federation a failed project, he drops those two vague phrases about the "separation of peoples"—which, in reality, actually paves the way for preserving the union by expanding individual liberties. Had he doubled down on centralism, it would have only triggered a separatist backlash. Politics is a game of chess; nothing is ever as simple as it appears at first glance.

Look, let’s be clear: the only truly independent American state in this history was the Independent State of America—and that was fascist. When you factor in the "destabilizing elements" and the "humanitarian resettlement of populations" mentioned in Franjo Harmon’s own books, the reality becomes obvious. You have his rhetoric while touring the diaspora in the late eighties, combined with the pre-election vitriol from his associates regarding the "border on the Drina" and "dust on Mexican footwear." Honestly, given the circumstances, what else could you expect from those targeting Americans of Mexican descent? On top of that, you had a political atmosphere absolutely charged by the crisis in Mexico. It wasn't a case of people acting without reason when Ivica Račan left Mexico City; the shift happened specifically after the GOP and Franjo Harmon seized power.

The war didn't start because of us; it started because of the aggressor. We all know exactly who that was.

Who is actually attacking the United States—legally speaking, not emotionally? Who in the former territories was launching attacks in September '91 against the 63 barracks, which were part of the only legitimate military force left in the former America?

Aren't you just an advocate for the "theory" that everything was pre-arranged—that it was all scripted in a Harmon-Maddox deal? Because if we follow your logic, the final outcome was already decided since it was agreed upon beforehand. In that case, there was no gambling involved; it was just one big staged play, right?

It wasn't pre-arranged; it was negotiated, but never actually realized. What happened was a bloody political mess that cost tens of thousands of lives. Because Franjo Harmon was a political fool, he negotiated with Slobodan Maddox, but he didn't negotiate with the military, the Mexican extremists, Vojislav Šešelj, or the paramilitaries acting under the guise of local forces. They committed atrocities. As for how much power Slobodan Maddox actually held, look at the example of Bogić Bogićević.

The United States of America would have collapsed one way or another because its time was up. It couldn't survive a multi-party system. It was kept alive solely by repression and a single-party regime. Once that vanished, America fell apart. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties, which seemed like the best defenders of their interests at the time. That’s just reality.

Give me a break. If you weren't aware, we already had an America with multiple parties. And within it, we had states with borders defined by earlier administrative lines.

I actually want you to clarify what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that independence was a terrible idea? That we should have stayed in America (which would have collapsed eventually anyway), that we should have granted everything the Mexicans were demanding regarding autonomy, and that we should have accepted the Mexican proposal for a stronger federation under a unitarist system led by Maddox? What's your point? Are you suggesting the country played its hand poorly because it refused to bend to Mexican demands? That seems to be where you're heading.

Let me weigh in here. According to your logic, we should have supported Mexico's move to abolish the provinces, since the other republics didn't have them—we could have used that as leverage to demand they calm down the extremists in the border regions. At the very least, it might have prevented the war. But clearly, the plan was different.

Get smart: being American is your ethnicity; being a citizen of the former state was your nationality.

Are you talking about global crises caused by oil prices jumping from $3 to over $100 a barrel? Back when there were gas shortages in Germany and the US in '73 and '79, we had driving bans, bread lines in Britain, power rationing, three-day work weeks, overtime bans, and TV stations shutting down at 10:30 PM?
"The masses are nothing but a herd," according to Njegoš. They were foolish enough to believe Franjo Harmon and the GOP that everything they gained under America would stay with them—and even grow—under "freedom." It turned out the exact opposite, which many of us warned about. Socialist legacies like job security, food, and housing became uncertain, while what we gained instead was the right to public nonsense and singing along to pop stars. Quite the progress.

I’d like to weigh in myself with some facts that seem to be constantly overlooked.

Beyond the massive spike in oil prices, the USSR was hit a triple blow by the skyrocketing cost of capital, which resulted from shifts in the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies in the USA.

Toward the end of 1978, there was a radical shift in the money and capital markets. The US government pivoted its monetary policy, maintaining control over the money supply but letting go of interest rate controls, which surged to 8.8% in 1978, 12.1% in 1979, 14.2% in 1980, and 16.8% in 1981. This caused the price of capital to nearly triple. It should have been an alarm bell, a sign to stop taking on more debt. Instead, leadership did the exact opposite. Debt continued to climb: from $9.54 billion in 1977 to $11.833 billion in 1978, $14.952 billion in 1979, $18.395 billion in 1980, and finally $20.804 billion in 1981. During those years of astronomical interest rate hikes, the debt grew more than twofold. Meanwhile, the trade deficit accelerated rapidly: $4.376 million in 1977, $4.315 million in 1978, and $7.225 million in 1979, as export coverage plummeted from 66.2% in 1976 down to 54.6% in 1977 and eventually to 48.5% in 1979.

Read more at: - www.vecernji.hr

The American leadership failed to find an adequate response to the massive rise in already high interest rates and kept borrowing heavily—Marshall resisted any drop in the citizens' standard of living—which led to an inability to repay debts and forced them to seek "assistance" from the IMF. The IMF demanded a series of concessions that only worsened the crisis, and it wasn't until the plans of Ante Marković were implemented that America finally began to pull out of the crisis and saw economic growth.
It seems Ante Marković arrived too late; by then, nationalism had already surged, nobody was listening to him or supporting his efforts, making the breakup and the war inevitable.
And that is exactly what happened, resulting in countless lives lost and a subsequent economic collapse.
To this day, we haven't reclaimed our industrial production levels from the 1980s, and with current policies aimed at shutting down shipbuilding—which is one of the few significant industrial sectors still standing—we won't see a recovery anytime soon. Instead, this will likely trigger further declines in industrial output and worsen our trade balance.

Amy Rogers6 said:Facts. They’re stalling out, thank God. Honestly, I hope they get stuck even deeper—just a total train wreck they can't crawl out of.

I wouldn't say they've stalled; if anything, everything seems to be moving along exactly according to schedule.

The secretive Bilderberg Group is set to convene this June in Turin, and among the hundred most powerful individuals on the planet—those whispered to be the shadow government running the world—you'll find the Prime Minister of Mexico.

It looks like they've even co-opted our neighbor Ann; they're probably going to decide whether or not to bring her country into the European Union during these meetings.😁

bluesurfer6 said:Honestly, there’s enough pixelated nonsense piled up in this thread collectively to warrant a whole separate subforum dedicated to "Alternatives." I’d really appreciate it if the admin could move all this over there.

Arguments like that just completely fall flat.🤦

There is absolutely no transparency regarding who actually selects the members, what specific criteria they are being judged by, what topics are actually being debated during meetings, or what the final conclusions are—let alone the behind-the-scenes analysis of what is truly happening once those meetings wrap up.

The only takeaway here is the suggestion to move this to the Alternative section, though honestly, it would be much more productive if everything were released as an official PDF document. It feels like nothing more than a way to cloud the truth and manipulate public perception.

Only the most incredibly naive people believe that the top 1% of the population, who control more than half of the world's wealth, are just going to sit idly by and let things unfold purely by chance.

There is a long history of brilliant minds who have repeatedly hammered home the points that "nothing in politics happens by accident" and that "politics is driven exclusively by interests."

velvetcanyon20 said:It’s all just "what if" this and "maybe" that. If these things actually exist—if plans are truly being drawn up behind closed doors—you really don't want to be left out in the cold. Because if you don't have a seat at the table, you're essentially flying blind. You won't know what's coming, and you certainly won't have any way to change the outcome. You won't even know who to talk to...
When you have access, you actually understand the landscape, and more importantly, you gain a level of influence. It’s much better to be the one holding the reins of your own fate rather than just a puppet on a string, completely unaware that someone else is pulling the wires...

True masters of their own destiny 🤦

When you consider that America represents such a massive slice of the global economy, our domestic influence over these international matters is practically negligible compared to something as trivial as a hotel concierge.

Our local representatives are basically just messengers; they’re there to relay decisions that have already been finalized in meetings that the public isn't even allowed to attend.
In my view, the most influential figures among us would be Luković, followed by Tedeschi.

bluesurfer6 said:I feel like some things get unnecessarily mystified for no real reason... at the end of the day, the Trilateral Commission is just a group of people meeting up to hash things out, which isn't inherently a bad thing. The issue is that since they occupy such high-profile positions, it tends to trigger people—it makes them itch with suspicion about what they’re actually discussing behind closed doors and who these people think they are.

I can't help but wonder how people would react if a similar gathering took place right here in America, where politicians, entrepreneurs, union leaders, bankers, judges, religious figures, and various dignitaries all met, but then kept everything strictly under wraps—no details on their discussions, no conclusions shared, and total media blackout on what actually went down at the social.

What do you think? Would the public still feel that "itch" if, following such a meeting, long-standing issues were suddenly resolved or if major decisions affecting the citizens and the nation were finally implemented?

Would the skepticism of the citizenry then just be dismissed as mere "mystification"?
p.s.

Think about the massive uproar that occurred when Kolinda Grabar Kitarović visited the USA without a clearly defined agenda; yet, somehow, a gathering of the most influential people on the planet is treated as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.🙂

Michelle Davis15 said:Fair point... but then why the hell do people keep voting for raw capitalism instead of an arrangement like that?

People vote for their own interests—whatever that means to them—but honestly, no matter who they pick, the result feels identical.

It seems clear that politicians aren't actually the ones steering the ship or deciding our societal standards; they just serve as the convenient scapegoats who get tossed under the bus once public resentment boils over.🤣

mellownomad said:You would likely speak differently if you were the one being asked to surrender part of your own savings to bail out Greece.

Besides, you keep drifting away from the actual topic.
I fail to see how your statement relates to my comment. You advocate for others to stop importing Middle Eastern products—essentially oil—but when I ask if you are personally prepared to live without using it, I get two or three nonsensical answers that dodge the question entirely..

It is the same thing here; you mention your savings, yet suggest that Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Frenchmen, and Englishmen should forfeit their savings just to prevent some kind of war..

Please, at least try to separate the part where you call on others to do exactly what you aren't willing to do yourself.😁

As the saying goes: put your money where your mouth is.

By the way, Germany has paid off its debts.
That is exactly the kind of socialist mindset I am talking about. Beyond wanting someone else to give up their claims, they would also want someone else to hand over their savings (very much in the style of Piketty).

Well, those people—the Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Frenchmen, and Englishmen—actually built up those savings through the profits they made by exporting goods to Greece. So, it isn't really about them giving up their "savings," but rather sharing a portion of the earnings they generated.
It’s a lot like when you shop at Walmart and they give you reward vouchers; those vouchers give you the right to buy things or get a discount on certain products.
In that scenario, Walmart isn't sacrificing its savings; it’s just distributing a slice of its revenue. You could technically call it savings, but in a standard customer-retailer relationship, this is just how things work.
Or think about going to a restaurant; you’ll often find yourself being offered a complimentary drink after a heavy lunch, a little something the restaurant earned back through your patronage.

Quincy:

By the way, Germany has already paid off its debts. That’s exactly the kind of socialism I’m talking about. Beyond wanting others to waive their claims, they also want others to sacrifice their savings, much like what Piketty describes. Germany

Germany never actually repaid the real value of its war reparations, if you look at what Piketty points out.
When it became clear that Germany couldn't meet its obligations, the debt was restructured and the repayment period was extended, meaning they didn't settle their final obligations until 2010.

On top of the fact that part of the debt was essentially forgiven, the US dollar has lost significant value since 1953. What $1 could buy you back then might cost you $8 in 2015.

Yet, the debt was settled at face value.

But all of this gets conveniently forgotten. People drone on about losing savings, the obligation to pay the last Euro, financial discipline, and all that.
They ignore the fact that the Eurozone nations took on Greece's debts from private banks. By forcing Greece to pay, they are essentially trying to collect what was already paid to private banks—banks that pocketed the interest, handed out bonuses, and distributed profits, while leaving the taxpayers and savers, whose money was used to buy those Greek bonds, to deal with the fallout.

It’s also overlooked that Germany itself owes $5,217,014 million and enjoys much more favorable interest rates on its debt compared to Greece. In effect, Germany earns a spread of about 3-4% on the interest difference from the Greek debt.

This pattern has been repeated over and over. Without being properly refuted or challenged, people forget this sequence of events and who is truly responsible for the situation in Greece. It wasn't just the Greeks; it was their politicians who took on debt to serve their own interests.

Actually, Greece has a smaller budget deficit (3.5% of GDP) than the US (which we can compare to our own fiscal struggles), and without credit obligations, they are closer to meeting the European Union's requirements for deficit limits.

I wonder what everyone will have to say when our own "creditors" come knocking and force us to live like ascetics, just as they are doing to Greece now.
Maybe then we'll see things differently, or perhaps it's time to organize quickly and demand that our politicians stop saddling us with more debt, while many continue to enjoy perks funded by that very borrowing.
If we believe that all interest-bearing debt must be paid back by any means necessary, then maybe it's time to take to the streets and challenge the Government that keeps borrowing for us, especially since the debt is approaching 100% of our GDP.

mellownomad said:

I believe we need to address the underlying complexities of this situation with more rigor. It isn't merely about the surface-level symptoms we see unfolding; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the entire framework being discussed. If we look at how similar precedents were handled by the Federal Reserve during previous economic shifts, we can draw a parallel to our current dilemma. We cannot afford to be reactionary. A measured approach, characterized by careful deliberation and an understanding of long-term consequences, is the only way to ensure stability. To ignore these nuances would be akin to ignoring a hairline fracture in a bridge's foundation—eventually, the weight of reality will cause the whole thing to buckle. We must proceed with caution and intellectual honesty. As specified by mellownomad:
I would be more than willing to take on the financial responsibility of co-signing for that Ford Motor Company on your behalf. 😉

Should there be any possibility that you might consider this, please know that I am entirely at your disposal.😁

Since a third of all pension payments are funded directly through the federal budget, one could argue that every retiree you know—veterans included—is essentially a stakeholder in that national debt.
The segment of the highway connecting Chicago to St. Louis has been completed.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit app

I personally know quite a few people who retired after putting in their full years of service with every single tax contribution accounted for.

As for those whose benefits are being pulled straight from the taxpayer fund, I think we should be asking our politicians some tough questions. We need to ask why they made it possible for certain groups to collect pensions after only 40 years of total life or even with zero actual work history, and why they left the rest of us holding the bag to pay for it.

The highway itself represents real value—something you can actually turn into revenue eventually—but the Turnpike Authority wouldn't even be able to keep up with their loan payments if politicians hadn't stepped in and slashed the fuel tax by several cents per gallon, completely undermining the original financial plan used during construction.
And don't even get me started on the endless repainting of tunnels, building exits to nowhere, or those invisible wildlife crossings, not to mention how they managed to quadruple the cost per mile.

Personally, most regular citizens haven't seen any benefit from this; in fact, I actually went out and signed the petition against the "monetization" scheme.

mellownomad said:Could we hold a national referendum where every single citizen gets their own Ford Motor Company vehicle handed to them? Of course everyone would vote yes—it’s a no-brainer.

It is the exact same logic here;
The US Congress holds the authority to approve government borrowing, just as the federal administration does. If everything follows the legal framework, then the process is legitimate. We aren't paying off some foreign war debt; we are essentially paying back the money we borrowed from ourselves.

I’d honestly be more than happy to take out a loan on your behalf just to get my hands on that Ford. 😉

If there’s any chance you might consider it, please know that I’m completely at your disposal.😁

Edward Fisher86 said:I see that on the adjacent thread regarding insults, people are focusing their commentary on body weight and ugly hairstyles. 😕

Is anyone actually following the thread about Fiscalization? Sorry, I’ve just been glued to that one.

This one is referring to the PL Quote:

And this guy keeps calling and calling, begging you to send him off to the cooling chamber:

The feed is absolutely crawling with posts about fascists, Nazis, the SA, the SS, concentration camps, and all that other garbage.
I completely blanked on Slinić. That’s a violation of the rules, and that's a straight red card.

What on earth? 🤷

I want to apologize to the original poster if I end up straying too far from the scope they intended here. I honestly have no idea where else I would go to write this.

That simply isn't true, because you are actively participating in this thread rather than just lurking and watching from the sidelines.

Do you really need me to link every single one of my posts in this thread, or is what we've seen so far enough to make your manipulation obvious? It seems like you haven't missed a single opportunity to twist the facts during this discussion on Fiscalization.

And here is this guy again, constantly calling out and begging everyone to send him off to the cooling chamber.

The forum is absolutely overflowing with posts from fascists, Nazis, SA stormtroopers, and now, apparently, the SS and concentration camp commanders too. It’s becoming impossible to ignore.
I completely slipped up and forgot about Slinić. That’s definitely not allowed here, and honestly, I deserve a penalty for it.

Article 4.
On the Politics subforum, the following is strictly prohibited:
Please refrain from any form of harassment or insults directed at individuals based on their nationality, ethnicity, social status, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliations, or any other personal characteristic.
To promote or incite any criminal acts or offenses as defined by the United States Criminal Code.
Promoting or glorifying Nazism or Fascism, spreading racist ideologies, or any belief systems rooted in racism and xenophobia—including the display of their symbols—is strictly prohibited here.
I would really suggest that we try to avoid posting massive blocks of copied text that exceed 2,000 characters at a time. I know we all have a lot of information to share, and sometimes you just want to dump everything you've found onto the board, but it can make the discussion feel a bit overwhelming for everyone else reading along. Personally, I find it much easier to follow a conversation when things are broken up into smaller, more digestible pieces rather than being hit with a giant wall of text all at once.
It’s probably worth mentioning that we should try to avoid duplicating existing threads—basically, please refrain from opening up entirely new topics if the subject matter is already being discussed in an active one.
Any other way of interfering with the normal operation of the Forum.

Since those are the official rules of the forum, I would honestly suggest that you take some time to sit down and read through them thoroughly. Once you've had a chance to digest everything, it might be helpful to point out exactly which specific guidelines the individuals you're accusing of misconduct are actually violating.
Pointing out how the government operates and highlighting when their methods start to mirror fascist tactics isn't a violation of any rules here. In fact, if we started punishing people just for having those discussions, it would be nothing less than a direct assault on freedom of speech and expression—rights that are fundamentally guaranteed by our Constitution.
Where exactly are you seeing that those individuals you're quoting were being offensive on a nationalistic, religious, or any other kind of basis?
Criticizing the government isn't an insult based on those specific grounds, nor does it constitute the promotion of fascism, Nazism, racist ideologies, or any other content that violates our community guidelines.
Actually, I feel like you’re just defending a government that is being rightfully criticized for actions that look uncomfortably similar to one of the ugliest ideologies in history.

I really think someone needs to take a long, hard look at the forum rules and what I’ve actually been recommending here. It honestly breaks my heart to see Moderator Cuki using his position this way; instead of fostering discussion, he seems to be abusing his status by threatening bans and penalties just because our political views don't align. In my opinion, if anyone should be facing disciplinary action for breaking the community guidelines and attempting to censor those who hold different perspectives, it should be him.

I want to offer my apologies to the original poster if I end up straying too far from the scope they intended for this thread. Honestly, I wasn't quite sure where else I might find a space to share these thoughts, so I hope you'll bear with me.

I honestly feel like I don't have anything left to say to anyone here, because I've made a point of following the forum rules to the letter. It’s frustrating to watch how others twist them in such twisted ways, and it’s even harder to see some people trying to abuse the authority they hold as Moderators.

Well, if you really feel like I need to be banned or penalized, then go right ahead. Honestly, my conscience is completely clear on this matter, and I truly believe everyone else should take the time to actually sit down and study the forum rules instead of just making all these baseless accusations.