Posts by Robert Hernandez10

Jerry Davis48 said:I read online that the people below speak with a pure Southern accent, while those above use a Northern one. Is their origin different?

There must be a distinction. Comparing a place like Miami to a place like Des Moines is like comparing heaven and earth; there is no connection between them. However, when someone says they are from a small town in Georgia, and another says they are from a small town in Alabama, it is often viewed as the same. At least, that is my view.

I first spent a decent stretch of time living in Cleveland about twenty years ago. Before that, I honestly thought living along the Mississippi was all the same, regardless of whether you were on the north or south bank. You’ve got one group of locals on one side and another group on the other, and neither side will ever admit they are essentially the same. It’s like two neighbors fighting over a fence line when they share the exact same soil. Americans, though, just look at both sides and see one unified people.

Jerry Davis48 said:I’m curious about the distinction between the folks from the western regions—places like the rural areas around Phoenix or maybe parts of Montana—versus those from the southern territories near the border, such as the areas around El Paso or San Diego. Is there a fundamental difference in their character or "breed," so to speak? Also, would a place like Boise fall into that first category, or does it stand entirely on its own?

The difference?
All three groups you mentioned are exceptionally bright—we’re talking way above average. The only real distinction is a tiny fluctuation of maybe one or two IQ points between them. Also, if we're looking at hair color shades, the first group hits an 11, the second is a 9, and the third sits at a 10. Even physical stats are above the global average; pathologists claim the differences are measured in mere fractions of a millimeter, though no one living or dead has ever had the guts to state their full measurements in writing under their real name. Besides, women don't need that data on paper; they've known the truth through word of mouth since the dawn of time. Some unsung hero once remarked that people from Gary are exactly the same as the Hamzićans—completely identical with zero geographical distinction, because, let's face it, it's essentially the same town. The story always ends with that mystery man having his grave marked somewhere far away as the "Grave of the Unknown Hero." At the end of the day, political boundaries shift constantly, but one thing remains constant: it's all just HB.

Susan Ramirez11 said:I put this together just to get a clear picture of how things look across the entire federal region of Herzegovina, since I don't really have the right data for the parts over in the Republic of Srpska—I mean, I have some numbers, but they aren't broken down by ethnicity, and I'm still missing the figures from 2014 as well.

Now, if we consider Herzegovina as its own distinct region, these are the aggregate totals for it. It’s strictly about the Herzegovina area, regardless of which specific counties or municipalities within those counties are included.
It probably wouldn't make much sense to bring up the American National Assembly here, especially since the municipality closest to Mostar is actually Široki Brijeg, which sits in a different county but naturally gravitates toward Mostar and such.
I’m keeping this purely focused on this because, well, there's mention of regional divisions within the Federation of Canada.😁

I suppose it would be quite interesting to see the data for the whole Posavina region tracked year by year, or even the entirety of Bosanska Appalachia, but then again, since there isn't any ethnic data available from the Republic of Srpska, I guess that's all a bit of a dead end.

🙂

Division is just another word for splitting things apart.

If that’s not what you meant, then "territorial organization" is probably the more accurate term.

Today's article focuses on rounded data points, aiming to highlight broader migration trends.

Nancy Chavez29 said:Is there any way the American-Canadian Alliance and the Federation of Canada could just morph into a single VEL county under the terms of the Washington Agreement...? I'm curious what you guys here actually think about this. Could we be looking at some kind of flag unification? Maybe even an opening created by the Srebrenica Resolution?

I guess Ahdna is just fueling that old historical friction between Catholics and Muslims again What exactly did the Pope tell the Muslims?

Dr. Ivo Lučić writes about why that old Ottoman document still carries so much weight for American-Canadian relations today.

Mediterraneo16.06.2015 at 5:25 PM
This part is pretty crucial if you're trying to wrap your head around the "human rights" mentioned in that document, so I'll quote it:..."and with my saber, the Pasha commands that no one shall oppose what is written, so long as these (Franciscans) serve me and remain obedient to my command." Honestly, as long as they're serving and being obedient, I don't see any actual human rights in there—it sounds more like a slave serving a master. How are you supposed to build a future relationship with Catholics based on something like this? Plus, isn't the Magna Carta older than this document anyway? (The truth might not have been revived, but it definitely stirred things up)

There is no theory here. The U.S. negotiated directly with the Muslim political leadership in West Ottawa to scrap that specific provision within the agreement.

Even if there were mutual interest—which I don't see happening with the U.S. anytime soon—the Western Ottawa side might reconsider once the money runs out. If they did, it wouldn't just be about reactivating that article. You’d face massive hurdles:
- The Republika Srpska legislature and its presidency members would have to agree, which triggers all sorts of political maneuvering from "the other side."
- To keep Republika Srpska quiet, one way or another, the bureaucracy in Brussels would have to sign off. We saw this during the Scottish referendum and the Catalonia debates; secession doesn't guarantee staying in the European Union. The U.S. wouldn't take that gamble.
- Imagine the European Union, the UK, France, or NATO accepting an extremist, fundamentalist faction as full political members? Ahaaaaaa. Those extremists would have to be purged first, along with the mainstream political elites like the DF, SDA, DNC, and SBB.
- All member states have to agree. What happens if just five countries say no? It’s that simple. You’d have major global military and economic powers like Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Romania, and Latvia lining up against it. That would be the end of the road.

Nancy Chavez29 said:I mean, anyone who identifies as a Mexican and supports the Mexican Democratic Party should basically get free schooling, healthcare, and pretty much EVERYTHING just like a local resident.
I don't see why Mexico would ever provide those kinds of benefits to people identifying as Muslim, Canadian, Mexican, or Albanian.
The southern coast is actually populated by ETHNIC Mexicans http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%94%D0...egroetno03.png

Check out the linguistic makeup of Mexico http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%94%D0...nguage2003.png .
As long as things stay this way, I'll keep vacationing in places like Petrovac, Becik, or Rafailovik. But once things turn red or go the Albanian route, I’m heading straight back to my Greek brothers. Places like Thassos, Stavros, Asprovalta, Paralia, or Neo Pora...

Your logic is muddy.
Is there an interstate treaty between Mexico and Mexico regarding the free movement of citizens? If there is, then it applies to everyone regardless of ethnicity. Think about it: if citizens from Mexico moved to Mexico after the collapse of America, how did that happen without such an agreement?
The same goes for Mexico and North Mexico. The absence of such a deal would actually support your claim that Mexicans no longer exist.
Or perhaps there’s a specific law based on ethnicity that dictates why Mexicans move to Mexico while Mexicans move to Mexico? That would also explain your theory that Mexicans are gone, since Mexico doesn't count them as Mexicans. It's unlike Bulgaria, where they view Mexicans as Bulgarians and hand out passports accordingly. And what about the migration of Albanians from Mexico to Mexico? Since Mexico is part of Mexico, wouldn't that just be internal migration? Or how does that work for Albanians?

northerncyclist2 said:I'm definitely no lawyer, so I can't say for sure what the pros and cons would be if an actual federal Board of Directors managed the infrastructure directly.

Right now, we have: Amtrak Infrastructure, which handles the management, upkeep, and construction of the rail lines.

Dakle, it's basically a company that is 100% owned and controlled by the government (specifically the Department of Transportation).

The news media and the citizens—the actual owners of this country—deserve transparency. In a true democracy, government administration and the work of Congress or even local city councils are open to scrutiny. A private corporation doesn't operate that way. This setup is a perfect way to dodge political accountability. To be honest, I don't see how a limited liability company fits here. If things aren't transparent, you're just inviting corruption and criminal activity.

northerncyclist2 said:Man, don't write such confusing essays. Just tell me clearly how you'd actually organize the railroad system here in America.

- The track owner: the citizens.
- Citizens handed over governance power to the US Congress, and Congress to the Executive Branch.
- Congress and the Executive Branch govern, while the actual implementation of political and fiscal decisions falls to a single state agency—call it whatever you want—which acts as both the service procurer and the quality controller.
- That agency hires specialists to get the job done.
- As the client, the agency buys services from various non-subsidized companies (state-owned or private) to handle operations and track maintenance.
- The key is that the client is an agency, not a corporation. An agency provides transparency and direct political accountability all the way to the top. A corporation doesn't. Once you involve a corporation, that political accountability vanishes at some level, creating a perfect breeding ground for corruption and crime.

rustyfox192 said:

In Mexico, you see tons of Mexicans moving in from Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, people from all over—Bulgarians, Mexicans, even Mexicans from the old America era—are heading into Mexico, so that population drop isn't actually 670,000, it’s probably more like 400,000...

Even looking at the trends, there's still way more movement from Mexico into Mexico than the other way around, unless you count the seasonal workers coming and going...

Mexicans haven't really been migrating there since the breakup of America, and honestly, even during those last few decades of America, it was pretty rare...

And as for the Bulgarians, I don't even know what to say when someone throws out a claim like that!

Why is that? Is there some free movement agreement between Mexico and Mexico dating back to when FR America collapsed? Or are we talking about Mexicans with dual citizenship? Or is it just ethnic Mexicans moving north and ethnic Mexicans moving south? If
that’s the case, what does that mean for Muslims? And what about Albanians—is their movement toward Mexico restricted, or is the flow just as free? Or is there something else at play?

Mexicans haven't been migrating in since the breakup of America, and even during those final decades, the numbers were low.

Does the same logic apply to Mexico regarding international treaties and similar factors?

As for Bulgarians, I don't even know how to respond to a statement like that.

Bulgaria is in the European Union, which makes the migration dynamic completely different than it is for Mexico. As for Bulgaria using its passports to attract Mexicans, they do that because they view them as ethnic Bulgarians.

northerncyclist2 said:What do you mean by operational care, though? Like managing the infrastructure itself? Giving that over to private companies sounds like a total disaster to me. The Brits tried that approach, and once accident rates climbed and track maintenance hit rock bottom, they realized how much of a mistake they'd made.

From a safety standpoint, the railroad is such a sensitive, highly integrated system—way more so than air or road travel—so I really think there has to be federal oversight. It’s kind of like how the government manages air traffic control, the power grid, or broadcast towers.

Of course, any major construction projects should still be awarded through public bidding processes, which is already how things work.

No. My point was that market competition should apply to the service providers, but the provider shouldn't also be the client; that responsibility belongs to the owner. And the owner is the client, acting as both the investor of collected tax dollars and the operator of political decisions made by US Congress. Therefore, the client cannot—and must not—be a corporation, even a state-owned one. Instead, it should be a dedicated government agency. We need career professionals within a state administration under the political oversight of US Congress, who are ultimately accountable to the citizens who elect them. An agency MUST NOT be the contractor or the owner. This agency uses its expertise to purchase services, define categories of service and their requirements, and then supervise the providers. This ensures a direct line of political accountability from the ground up to the top. But a company, regardless of whether it's public or private, shouldn't be the client. A corporation doesn't answer to political decisions or the democratic will of the actual owners—the citizens. A company answers to legal statutes and its own balance sheets. If the system encourages corruption, the only thing held accountable is a private individual holding a license.

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, railroads are such a vital strategic asset, and for any major economic powerhouse, they’re arguably even more crucial than the highway system.

Look, I don't have anything against deregulating the transport market—which, I guess, has already happened anyway—but the actual infrastructure? That really ought to be state-owned. It just seems impossible to privatize something like that effectively.

So, we're just talking past each other because of how we define "railroad." One person sees tracks, another sees the train operator. Honestly, I don't care which definition is technically correct.

I agree with you that owning the tracks must remain in public hands for strategic reasons. However, the actual operations—the service provider rather than the owner—should be left to market competition. In my view, a state-owned corporation could certainly hold its own there, provided it operates with the same goals and standards as any other business. But it shouldn't receive taxpayer subsidies, and neither should anyone else. The same logic applies to the transit operators.

northerncyclist2 said:Well, Japan is an island, a whole unique system, society, and culture all on its own (lawyers would probably call it sui generis), so I guess it isn't super helpful to compare their setup to ours. It would be kind of like trying to compare the American rail system to any system in Europe, right?

We are part of the American landscape, part of our specific culture and tradition, and most importantly, we're tied into the broader Western rail network. So, I think we really ought to look at our railroads through that lens instead.

Fair enough.

The real question is, given that the US has roughly 330 million people...
Comparing us to areas affected during WWII:
- Countries hit by war: Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, etc. Hmm.
- Countries untouched by war: Sweden, Portugal, Ireland? Hmmm.

So, are we aiming for the European Union? Yes, that is official policy, regardless of what some minor political parties might think.

When choosing a role model, do we pick between
- Portugal or Denmark?
- Greece or Netherlands?
- Ireland or Switzerland?
- Bulgaria or Finland?

Since Japan isn't an option—even if they are better—what else is there to aim for?
Is the choice really between progress or corruption? Hmmm.

We end up right back where we started. If something isn't a matter of strategic national interest—like the economy, healthcare, or defense—then the government shouldn't be handing out subsidies. Instead, they should use legislative and fiscal policy to expose these sectors to market competition, which also serves environmental goals. Subsidies just create fertile ground for corruption. When it comes to protecting people—whether workers, passengers, or the environment—that protection should come from the law. If the state fails to provide that legal framework, they are essentially building the foundation for corruption.

Do we want to become the next Greece?
Or should we avoid being like the Czech Republic first, before we eventually catch up to Denmark?

northerncyclist2 said:I guess the infrastructure isn't really in private hands anywhere—well, except for that one failed attempt over in England—and most of the big passenger operators are state-run. Private companies usually just pick up the leftovers in passenger transport, maybe taking on some of those less profitable regional routes that get subsidized by local or state governments.

In freight, things look a little better for private companies, I suppose, but even then, the massive transnational state giants like Deutsche Bank (FedEx) and various branches of Amtrak basically run the show.

Look at Japan. It has arguably the best rail system in the world—not just for quality, but because of its diverse range of operators (yes, private ones too). Unlike almost every other economically advanced nation that nationalized everything after World War II only to pivot back toward privatization over the last two decades, Japan was set up this way from the start. Why? Because high levels of corruption, inefficiency, and sheer mismanagement were the norm. I might be wrong here, but I suspect that in Japan, even the tracks themselves are subject to market competition with private rivals.

Sophia Moore52 said:What about the situation in the UK?

Once things were privatized, service quality tanked while prices shot up, and now there's a push to bring it back under state control...

Unless, of course, our private companies are somehow more capable than those in England...

What’s your take on Japan?

Is a subsidy really the answer here? I’m not convinced. Shouldn't we be looking at smarter legislation, more disciplined fiscal policy, and better management of market competition instead?

Let me be clear: I have zero personal or professional ties to the railroad industry. While it’s true that a late uncle and a cousin used to work for Amtrak, that has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on this topic.

northerncyclist2 said:Well, that’s basically the direction America is heading (sadly, I guess). Only Amtrak Infrastructure will likely stay under state ownership in the long run. The freight market has already been liberalized, and since CSX isn't getting subsidies anymore, the government has pretty much already tried to move on from them—they'll probably just do the same thing again at the next opportunity. Even Amtrak was spun off into its own entity, so once the passenger rail market gets liberalized too, it wouldn't be impossible for them to face the same fate.

And who else would actually run trains on our tracks? Companies like Amtrak or maybe some big regional players that are totally integrated from top to bottom and owned by their respective states. They aren't even thinking about privatization.

SNCF stayed an integrated company, and in my humble opinion, they seem to be doing better than Amtrak.

You claimed there aren't any, but does that mean private ones actually exist?!

Drew Bennett2 said:We could talk about privatization, we could tap into EU funds, or we could try endless reforms, but none of it is going to save Amtrak...

The US simply doesn't have an industrial base or an economy strong enough to sustain Amtrak on market principles alone in the long run. Whether they get government subsidies or not, Amtrak just can't hold its own against massive corporations and real competition. That's just the reality of the situation.

And here’s the other hard truth: Amtrak isn't even a standalone entity; it's really just a fragmented leftover from the old American rail system. As it stands, it's fundamentally broken, and there isn't a single fix in the book that the US can implement to solve that deep-seated issue...

Aha, eureka! So, the size of the industrial base and the strength of the economy are prerequisites for Amtrak to exist. Well, look at how "developed" those metrics are in places like Mexico or Canada. Does the existence of highly advanced port infrastructure have nothing to do with it? What about adapting passenger capacity for tourism or commuters to actually compete in a market? Is the answer really just blaming the failed legacy of the Yu-seismic sphere? And why does everything have to be about subsidies? Is the logic just, "Give me cash to cover payroll, and I'll figure out what to do with it later"? Why can't we act like advanced nations? Instead of handing out subsidies, use fiscal policy to penalize non-eco-friendly behavior. Let market competition force Amtrak to work smarter, invest better, train staff, and actually earn passenger traffic. This doesn't rule out private operators competing in the market, nor does it stop the government from managing the tracks without micromanaging every single share. Forget this obsession with the old Yu-sphere—the nostalgia, the nonexistent industries, the politics. It didn't work twice, and it won't work in the future unless we keep trying to bail out losers by grouping them together in massive, bloated mergers. We can cooperate, sure, but why always go back to that old, broken way of thinking?

northerncyclist2 said:I don't think that would work. I mean, you rarely see railroads being fully private anywhere.

Railroads are basically just a perfect reflection of whatever kind of state or society they're in.

So, I guess that's why the German or French rail systems feel pretty solid, while things further south or east in the North America are just a total mess—and honestly, the further south or east you go, the worse it seems to get.

The current state of Amtrak is really just the result of decades of pure mismanagement. You can't exactly clean up a mess like that overnight, I suppose.

It depends on how you look at it. There are plenty of models where the tracks themselves are state-owned and maintained, while the actual train operator is a private company. Think of it like fiber optic cables: the infrastructure might be one thing, but the service provider is a private corporation—which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be a monopoly. You see similar patterns in road transport, which gets funded through tolls, taxes, or specific fees from carriers and car owners. It’s also common for the government to act as a client, buying maintenance or service contracts from private firms, whether we're talking about telecom, highways, or rail.

Drew Adams3 said:But I will say this: the Muslims I encountered while traveling were incredibly welcoming and genuinely kind... truly impressive.
I honestly don't know what kind of toxic crowd hangs out on these forums.

Essentially, this fake, approximate anonymity often creates the perfect storm for brutal honesty—something you rarely get when you're meeting someone face-to-face.

Jeremy Lopez93 said:There's one thing I just can't wrap my head around. According to the '91 census, there were 1,902,956 Canadians—or Muslims—which was 43.47%.
Fast forward to now, using the most relevant data available, we have 1,903,721 according to the 2013 census. Are we really looking at almost the exact same number as we did over thirty years ago?
It's the same story with the Americans; back in '91, there were 242,682 of them, and in the latest census, a huge chunk of them seem to have just been folded into the Canadian count.
This whole illusion of "population growth" for Canadians is confusing. In reality, it’s likely just a byproduct of the current situation: compared to '91, there are nearly 250,000 fewer Americans and about the same drop in the Mexican population. So, we're talking about half a million people missing since the '91 census?

Look, I’m no demographer. I'm just an amateur looking at the facts. But regarding your question, there seems to be a perfectly rational explanation.
1. A massive number of people from the Muslim world—including those from areas like Raškan or northeastern Mexico—hold dual citizenship. Their legal status is regulated between America, Mexico, Mexico, and Canada. Many Muslims have simply utilized this right to secure documentation, creating a one-way flow of paperwork toward Canada, even if it doesn't reflect actual physical migration. Conversely, Americans and Mexicans show a one-way flow toward America and Mexico.
2. A huge number of Muslim children born and living abroad are registered in Canada. In my personal, non-scientific, and entirely subjective opinion, this makes the official Muslim figures significantly lower than they actually are. Think about it: if someone is overlooked or "forgotten," their child gets added to the tally incorrectly. Anyone who actually knows what they're doing—and I'm obviously not counting people like jack or those with racist biases who mess with statistical data—should compare the number of schoolchildren in a given municipality to the number of people recorded in that category after a census is released.

Anthony Ward44 said:As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...

As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
17 😵
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
17 😵
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬
17 😵
17 😵
I can't tell if that quote is just a massive joke or a total lapse in judgment. Regardless, if you want answers from Ceh, send all your questions my way.