Posts by Morgan Carter

Nathan Price3 said:I really have to, my friend... unfortunately, I just don't have the patience when it comes to stuff like this. I'm just too sensitive to those kinds of provocations, and I simply can't help myself from responding!

I understand. But engaging with him is like trying to argue with a brick wall. He hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. By responding, you are actually helping him achieve his goal. He is trolling the subject specifically so the admins won't notice the most critical points of this discussion.

Nathan Price3 said:Alright then, why don't you try proving me wrong with some actual arguments? Go ahead, I dare you. Step up to the plate. You clearly lack even the most basic understanding of this subject, yet you're arguing so aggressively that one might actually think you have a thousand arguments tucked away in your sleeve just waiting for the right moment to unleash them one by one...
Let's take this step by step. First point. You're seriously claiming that 120 years ago, the Catholics and Orthodox in Canada didn't identify as Canadians???

I am not sure why you allow him to drag you into a debate that is entirely irrelevant to the core of this discussion. 🤷
If he believes he is correct, let him start a new thread dedicated to history, and we can discuss it there. As it stands, he is merely diluting the essential points that led to this topic being opened in the first place. Please, do not continue responding to him within this specific thread (I am not commanding you, simply offering some friendly advice).

Timothy Davis59 said:I’ll call Canadians whatever I feel like. As long as I'm not subject to the laws of Canada, I couldn't care less...

EDIT: obviously, I don't mean to offend 😬

So, it seems the Canadians have developed a massive superiority complex. 🤷
All right then.
Since we are discussing legalities, you can look at any post here and see that under the Constitution, the term used is Canadian. However, I believe your insistence on using "Canadian" suggests you don't quite grasp the nuances of what you're talking about. What exactly does being Canadian have to do with this entire situation, given that the groups involved are Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians?

I would actually like to revisit one specific point. It doesn't matter to us what labels you choose to apply; however, I believe the forum administration needs to take a definitive stand on this issue. In my view, there are three possible solutions.
We must respect the Constitutions of both Canada and the United States, which state that there is a Canadian people rather than Muslims.
The administration will claim that we are free to call ourselves whatever we choose. But what does that actually mean? It implies that everyone possesses identical rights—which essentially means Canadians can refer to Americans in Canada however they please.
The administration claims there are double standards at play—essentially suggesting that Americans can act however they please while the Canadian forum members aren't treated as equals. Once again, this is the case. At least now we know exactly where we stand, and life goes on.

Sean Cooper65 said:Then why didn't you identify as Canadians during the '91 census if that's how you've always identified?

The option to select Canadian was available in the census.

That was the last census for Canada. Since then, none have been conducted.

Instead, you chose to identify as Muslims in a national sense.

😂
Look, it wasn't as if we were forbidden from doing that for hundreds of years prior. You certainly could have informed the public about anything related to it; nobody was stopping you. You had media outlets that reached every corner of Canada.
Since we are discussing this—you claim you weren't calling yourselves Americans until the 19th century, yet you've been Americans since the 7th century. Surely someone must have prevented you from acknowledging that. 🤣

Nathan Price3 said:It’s just a classic case of identity crisis. No matter if your ancestors were Canadians, you go out of your way at every single opportunity to emphasize your American identity... and on top of that, you flat-out deny the very nation your own people belonged to!

You are debating someone from Canada about Canadians. Why does it concern you? For him, the Canadian Constitution and laws apply. Let him stay over there and speak his mind. That is exactly what he wants—to poison this discussion with his chauvinistic outbursts. Do not give him that satisfaction. We have already proven our point. No matter which Constitution one cites, the argument remains that we are specifically a Canadian people, not just Muslims.
My point from the beginning, however, is that this is all futile, as the rules here seem to be applied selectively whenever a moderator feels like it.

Roger Robinson682 said:Which Constitution, exactly? Are we talking about that same Constitution that even Muslims from Canada don't bother following—the one they only seem to invoke when it happens to suit their immediate interests? 😉😉

And frankly, I fail to see why the moderators of an American forum should have anything to do with the Constitution of Canada. I mean, does that logic apply to the Constitution of the Republic of the Congo too? Should the moderators of an American forum feel obligated to follow the laws of the Congo as well? 🙄🙄🙄

If the topic is Congo, and if that Constitution states the people of Congo are called "Trees," then that name must be respected because it is the official designation. But by that logic, should one ignore the Constitution of Canada just to respect the Constitution of America?

Based upon the historical facts presented, and the universally accepted principles of
modernity regarding the inalienability, indivisibility, and non-transferability of
the right to self-determination and the state sovereignty of the American people, including the
sacrosanct right to secession and unification as fundamental prerequisites for
international peace and stability, the Republic of America is established
as the national state of the American people and a state for its constituent
minorities: Mexicans, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Madars, Jews, Germans,
Austrians, Ukrainians, Rusyns, Canadians, Canadians, Mexicans,
Mexicans, Russians, Bulgarians, Poles, Romani, Romanians, Turks, Vlachs,
Albanians, and others who are citizens, all of whom are guaranteed equality with
citizens of American nationality and the exercise of national rights in accordance with
the democratic norms of the United Nations and the free nations of the world.

I would address your other points, but I have no desire to dilute the essential focus of this discussion.

Megan Hernandez2 said:I’m glad you brought this up, because this post is a perfect example of how Canadian "intellectuals" have spent years successfully leading their own people astray.

The only places where most Canadian forum users can find topics designed to make a segment of the population identify as—well, let's start the list.

And that’s the catch. You miss the entire point of what a nation is: a group of people who feel a sense of kinship and identify under the same name. Trying to deny this is like staring at the color red and trying to convince yourself it's blue.
It's the same logic. If someone identifies as Canadian, Muslim, American, or Mexican, they cannot be a Canadian. Likewise, when discussing historical identity, Americans aren't Illyrians; they are Americans (setting aside the whole debate over who the Illyrians actually were).
Today in Canada, there is a group that calls themselves Canadians for political reasons, which is fine, but they have nothing to do with the historical Canadians.

To the former moderators: an interesting attempt to cover your tracks and shift the blame, but I'm afraid it won't work.

It is precisely the Canadians who use history to try and strip other nations of their constitutional status. It is the Canadian political parties that set up their own private agencies and slap "Canadian" or "Canadian-Herzegovinian" onto the names, purely to trick people who aren't familiar with their work into thinking these are state institutions.
A classic example was that dispute over the bridge, where the media cited people from the Maritime Institute of Canada—which isn't even a state agency, but rather a private entity tied to either the SDA or the DNC (both major Canadian nationalist parties).

😂
That is nonsense; Canadians and Muslims are not the same thing. They aren't even the same nation. As I have said before, when the Americans arrived in '94, they didn't pick up Muslims; they brought in Canadians.
Historically, Americans were NOT called Americans. They had a multitude of different names. It would be like me claiming that Horvats and Americans are entirely different peoples.
Regarding the old Canadians: give us a definition. What makes you claim our ancestors were not Canadians? What, is my great-great-great-grandfather a Marsovac? That you sold yourself out and renounced your own name is not my problem. I am not stopping anyone from writing or feeling however they wish. However, I know that my ancestors lived in Canada just as yours did. I know that both my ancestors and yours were known as Canadians. If your people decided to suddenly become Americans in the 19th century, that is your business. I will not involve myself in that.
Regardless, I will not engage with this further, as it has nothing to do with the original topic.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Let me say this again: you guys are wasting time obsessing over irrelevant history lessons.

What actually matters for this discussion are today's facts—specifically, how that group is officially recognized by name under the Constitution and laws of the US, or the Constitution and laws of Canada, or even any other neighboring countries like Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, or Mexico... nowhere in those places is there a people officially called "Muslim."

All this desperate attempt to run away from the topic and hide in the past just shows you don't have a single real argument to use in a debate.

Even a fool could see that, but they are irrelevant to the situation at hand. The real problem lies with the moderators. They are the ones failing to uphold the Constitution of the United States (despite constantly reminding us that this is an American forum and they must follow American law), though, in my view, adhering to the Constitution of Canada is even more critical. After all, we know exactly what subject we are discussing.

wanderingheron52 said:I was honestly thinking about just staying quiet and staying out of this after the warning from nicin and that new rule they rolled out...
But I just can't shut up, I really can't. So, if this means getting a strike, fine, go ahead—you might as well just permaban this account while you're at it.

Look, I just have one question for the Canadians or Muslims here who have been filling these threads with inaccuracies and trying to force their version of "the truth" on everyone else.

When does the term Canadian actually show up for the first time in the historical records?
And was Canada even inhabited before the Ottomans arrived? If it was, what did those people actually call themselves back then?

And yeah, seeing attitudes like this—and looking at the stances taken by a few other users here—I’m not just okay with implementing a specific border regime for that "accidental" state most people like to call a country; I’m actually leaning toward something even stricter.

I don't see the point of the question. Canadians have always lived in Canada. If you are trying to argue that they were called Canadians rather than Canadians, that is a complete failure to understand the facts. Tell me, how were Americans referred to throughout history? Perhaps "Horvatis"... and you could keep going.

Let’s look at it this way. The Constitution of the United States.

Based on the historical facts presented and the generally accepted principles within the Constitution of the United States...
In our modern world, we must consider the concepts of indivisibility and inalienability, alongside the principles of non-transferability and non-exhaustibility.
The right to self-determination and state sovereignty for the American people, including...
The unalienable right to secession and unification stands as a fundamental prerequisite for...
To ensure international peace and stability, the Republic of America is being established.
As the national state of the American people and the state belonging to its national minorities...
Minorities: Mexicans, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Madars, Jews, Germans.
Austrians, Ukrainians, Rusyns, CanadianCanadians, Mexicans,
Mexicans, Russians, Bulgarians, Poles, Romani, Romanians, Turks, and Vlachs.
Albanians and other citizens who are guaranteed equal rights under the law?
Regarding the rights of American citizens of ethnic descent and how they can exercise their national rights in accordance with the Constitution...
In accordance with the democratic standards upheld by the UN and the nations of the free world.

The Constitution of Canada.

Reflecting upon the fundamental principles established in Geneva on September 8, 1995, and subsequently in New York City on September 26.
In 1995, Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans—serving as constituent nations within the community alongside others—and the government...
The leaders of Canada are the ones establishing the Constitution of Canada:

I just want to remind the administration how much they pride themselves on being legalists and how strictly they claim to respect the laws of the United States. Yet, in principle, they fail to honor the Constitution of the United States, let alone the Constitution of Canada. I honestly don't understand what we Canadians are trying to achieve with this. It is as if you have no idea who you are dealing with.

rama said:I would personally start by looking closely at the situation in Cleveland. How many people are registered at the exact same address? What is the unemployment rate among those collecting child benefits? And one more thing—how many of them are actually struggling to read standard English or failing to grasp basic instructions from their supervisor?

But isn't that precisely the point? Whether we are discussing pensions, subsidies, social security, or any other benefit, this issue affects all three nations and every single citizen involved. There is no need to target specific areas first, only to end up accused of discrimination later. This entire complication could be resolved in thirty days. The governments simply need to agree on a data-sharing protocol and provide citizens with a one-month window to decide where they wish to exercise their rights. Once that happens, the problem is solved.

Susan Lee said:Look, it's true—there are people out there double-dipping on war pensions from both Canada and America. That’s gotta stop immediately. But what markozzz was getting at is a different story. For instance, I’ve got a buddy whose brother died defending Bokšavica against Canadians, and he's entitled to a pension from America, which he gets. It’s not like Washington, D.C. is going to pay him for that, let alone give him a bonus.

The specific recipient is actually irrelevant; the core issue is the exploitation of the system through double-dipping. Individuals ought to choose where they wish to exercise their rights. Whether they opt for Mexico, Canada, or America is entirely up to them. But once a choice is made, one should not attempt to reach into someone else's pocket. Again, I must emphasize that this doesn't just impact America; it affects all neighboring countries. This isn't limited to maternity benefits or pensions. Consider how much money is being drained through these social welfare categories. Social issues exist in America, Mexico, and Canada alike.

Your topic isn't bad, though you slightly misstated the title. Regardless, if political correctness prevails, everyone mentioned above will remain untouched.
The core issue is that this is a significant problem, but unfortunately, it isn't limited to just one side of the border; it affects both the US and Canada. We have a massive number of people who reside, for example, in the States while simultaneously exploiting systems in Canada. This is precisely why tensions arise whenever there are attempts to reform residency laws—the very people benefiting from these loopholes are the ones revolting against change.
A classic example of this exploitation can be seen in veteran benefits. For instance, a veteran living in the US might receive one set of benefits, while someone who served in the HVO might qualify for two (as we have seen in various cases). Then there are maternity leave benefits; since they are more substantial in the US, some choose to give birth there while maintaining their primary residence in Canada. There are numerous such instances, but nothing can truly be resolved until both nations implement a system for exchanging residency data.

Jesse Cook4 said:Tax collection is a nightmare because people always find ways to fudge their residency status. Honestly, we should just shift the entire tax burden from income to property—you can't exactly hide a house. Live wherever you want, fine, but deal with it. Besides, seeing folks who own massive estates but claim zero income is such a weird, uniquely American phenomenon... and frankly, it makes no sense.

It is illogical for the wealthy to pay less than those with fewer resources. However, this current tax structure will likely result in the less affluent bearing a heavier burden. As I have previously stated, taxation should be based on square footage or total property value. For instance, if a family consists of five members, perhaps they should be exempt up to 1,500 square feet, with a progressive tax applied to everything exceeding that threshold. Additionally, there ought to be a mandatory registry for all properties being sold or rented. Without such oversight, we risk creating an artificial inflation in the housing market where owners find themselves unable to attract tenants or buyers. What recourse would they have? It would be far more logical to maintain a tax registry where landlords and sellers must register their listings. If a property is being rented at a reasonable, fair-market rate and remains vacant, then perhaps a tax should not be applied.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Don't even mention Dubai. Every time it comes up, I get this uncontrollable urge to sing this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtoVeRDGVJ4

Which ties directly into this:

If the late Dr. Pirš from the University of California, San Diego were to rise from his grave right now, he’d probably head straight for the most successful guy in town:

That wealthiest guy in town happened to be a student in my graduating class, someone I used to hang out with quite often. I knew him well. He wasn't exactly dim-witted, but God, he was an absolute nuisance. Just a constant, nagging presence—annoying as a bout of ulcerative colitis. He only stuck around me because I was the only person who would actually tell him to shut up.
The aforementioned Dr. Pirš taught us material testing technology. We had a written exam that a buddy of mine failed miserably—got a 2. And then, right there in the lecture hall in front of everyone, while the professor was busy entering grades into the system, this guy announces he wants to take an oral exam to try and score higher than a 2.
The professor looked at the grades, confused as to why he'd even bother asking. He knew the kid well, though, since he'd spent half the lectures undermining them with tedious questions.
But our friend Jozo was stubborn; he insisted on the oral exam. So, Prof. Pirš went off on him—calling him arrogant, disrespectful, accusing him of trying to imitate Einstein... and so on and so forth. Any normal student would have been mortified, covering their ears and hiding under their desk.
But not Jozo. This guy took it stoically, stood his ground, and then proceeded to answer for a better grade. In the end, he stoically failed the exam anyway.
It was embarrassing, really—both for the professor and for good old Jozo.
Later on, Jozo served as a reserve officer in the US Army and became a prominent member of the Communist Party starting at age 18. When the conflict moved into Canada, he switched over to the US Army side and built a career there through fuel smuggling. See, before the war, he was running a gas station in Doboj.
After the war ended, he moved back to the city where he studied and became the wealthiest guy in town.
We haven't had any contact since graduation. I didn't even recognize him in the photo; he's easily 90 pounds heavier than he was in college. You can tell he's been enjoying plenty of lamb and prosciutto lately.

COMMENT on this page:
On 09.17.2012 at 1:22 PM, LeBron James wrote:
A shepherd stays a shepherd, even if he has a billion dollars!
I spoke with the guy—absolute disaster. His articulation and the way he gesticulates is just terrible !

Because, if you recall, this gentleman was actually out in Dubai alongside Linić:
Linić in Dubai with Kalem—the same guy who owes the state millions

Anyway, regarding this individual from Rijeka—who happens to run dozens of gas stations, by the way, and a close friend of mine works there too—he was visiting Rijeka a few months back. He decided to take a little detour to check out Kalem Jose’s place. When he finally saw the estate, all he could do was mutter, "Good grief, that fountain in the courtyard alone is worth more than my entire house."
How much tax does Kalem even pay on a property like that? Practically nothing. He just pays the local utility fees, which are calculated based on square footage rather than the actual market value of the home. And we're talking about a house easily worth 3 or 4 million euros. 😢😲😁

So, this is what they call tax justice? It’s absurd. Now, some poor soul who spent years scrimping and saving just to leave a little something behind for their kids—someone who never even set foot in Dubai or wasted money on luxuries—is being hit with property taxes on a tiny 40-square-meter second apartment. We're talking about families living in cramped conditions, five people squeezed into sixty square meters, yet they're the ones targeted. Meanwhile, someone sitting on a single estate worth ten million dollars or a massive thousand-square-meter mansion pays a pittance, practically nothing more than a standard utility fee. And then Linić has the audacity to lecture them, acting as if they should have just squandered everything on vacations and nonsense. What a disgrace.

Taxation is inherently flawed. Consider a family of five who owns two apartments: one is 60 square meters and the other is 40. That brings them to a total of 100. Under these rules, they will be hit with a heavy tax rate on that 40-square-meter unit, even though it sits empty. Meanwhile, an individual living alone in a 1,000-square-meter mansion pays essentially the same as they always have. Where is the justice in that? Furthermore, what happens when people want to rent out their space at fair market prices but find there is no demand? Perhaps the most telling statement came from Linić: he suggested that those who saved money should now be the ones to pay. In essence, those who practiced discipline to acquire property are being penalized, while those who spent their lives lounging in Dubai will fare perfectly fine because they likely own one property—or none at all—and simply do not care.

Charles Fox10 said:I assume I’m in a better position to know who has complained about you, when, and regarding what, considering you only have 300 posts and two months of seniority here. Or are we dealing with some kind of reincarnation??

I don't wish to dwell on specific words or names; the terms themselves aren't offensive, but using them as weapons certainly is.

Administration, I am requesting a lock on this thread, as everything necessary has already been stated.

Then tell me, what is the point of this entire discussion if I prove a moderator has violated the rules and nothing comes of it? This individual has demonstrated a fundamental lack of factual knowledge despite holding a moderator position. He singles me out from the community without cause, and he maintains the absurd stance that identifying Americans as Catholics is an insult, while calling Canadians Muslims is perfectly acceptable. To be clear, I did not write that—he did.

Strictly speaking, you couldn't be more wrong. I have demonstrated that you lack any fundamental understanding of either the Constitution of Canada or the Constitution of the Republic of America, yet you hold a moderator position on the Politics board. I have shown that you singled me out from a group of users whose behavior is just as problematic, if not worse—an act that clearly violates the code of conduct for moderators. Furthermore, I have proven that you were the one who initiated this debate regarding Canadians by either ignoring the facts or intentionally backing a malicious post rather than applying critical scrutiny.
At this point, the thread should simply be closed. I never actually expected you to face any sanctions for your actions; after all, it seems impossible for a moderator to make a mistake in your eyes. However, I have at least succeeded in exposing your true character.

It is evident that you have ignored my first two points, where I demonstrated quite clearly that you are biased and lack a fundamental understanding of the subject matter. Even when you attempted to cite the Constitution of the Republic of America, your interpretation was inaccurate.
Regarding your comment on point three: you are once again fabricating facts. Who initiated this specific line of reasoning, me or you?

Who actually steered the debate in that direction? There is nothing left to debate on this matter. One cannot rely on a census from 1991 from a nation that no longer exists. If something is defined by the Constitution, then that is the reality. It is illogical to deny the Constitution by using metrics from a defunct state as a yardstick. The Canadians elected the politicians meant to represent them, and those leaders have made our position clear. I find myself wondering: if you were in my position, who would you think you are to dictate how we should be counted, just as you and your associates attempt to do? It is hardly surprising, as this is not the first time people have interfered in such matters. Consider this: what becomes of those who are atheists if we are categorized solely as a Muslim people?
As for that particular response, I answered exactly as required. After I provided a civil explanation of my position to the individual in question, he persisted in demanding an answer. I simply provided him with the truth, maintaining a respectful tone without resorting to bickering. I have no idea how my parents filled out my census information, nor do I particularly care. That isn't a matter of "tone"; it is simply a fact.
Then there is the issue of media channels in the American language. This further reveals your true character. Why should I be penalized for stating the truth? Are you suggesting that channels for constituent ethnic groups do not exist, and that only entity-based channels are valid?
Ultimately, it confirms my suspicion: the more posts slybison8 writes, the more his bias and ignorance of the facts become apparent.

1. I seem to be the only one receiving warnings for alleged trolling, despite my previous point that such behavior is far more widespread than just myself. Had there been a general directive for everyone to refrain from trolling, I would have no issue complying; however, singling me out while others go unchecked feels inherently unfair.
2. Your distortion of the facts clearly demonstrates a bias. This discussion concerns Canada, not the United States. If the Constitution of Canada is being treated as the sole standard for this topic, then it should be strictly followed. Furthermore, let me clarify: within the Constitution of the United States, Muslims are not listed as a constituent group—only Canadians are, much like in the Constitution of Canada. This discrepancy highlights how little the moderator actually understands the subject matter at hand. Besides, who are you to lecture me on my interpretation of the U.S. Constitution? Fundamentally, I am an American citizen, and I possess the same rights as you do.
3. I haven't been trolling; I have simply been responding to posts directed specifically at me. I intend to maintain this practice for as long as it remains necessary.