Posts by Gregory Hall66

gentlemoose57 As I have previously observed:

If they find themselves with nowhere left to stand on this soil, they will simply forge ahead. They will trample over every obstacle, swim across the Mississippi, cross the Danube, trek through the heart of the Appalachians, and conquer both the Rockies and the highest peaks in between. Is there truly any boundary that can hold them back?

This situation demands a much more vigorous and comprehensive denial than what we have seen thus far. Is it not enough to simply ignore such baseless assertions? One would think that a formal, decisive rebuttal would be the only logical course of action to prevent further misinformation from taking root.
The rugged peaks of the Appalachian Mountains will be of little consequence to them if they intend to proceed in such a manner. They lack the constitution for mountain trekking, and they certainly possess no skill for swimming. How can one expect to hold back a force that lacks even the most basic survival instincts?
Should they fail to secure transportation through one of the various states they transit—assuming, of course, that no such jurisdiction has already seen fit to provide it—they simply rent a vehicle and proceed directly to the border. Is it not a remarkably straightforward, if somewhat wearying, solution to their predicament?

David Baker2 said:

Page As I was saying:
It simply isn't working. That is the crux of the entire issue, really.
My initial take on this was actually quite positive: we need to pivot and move things along as swiftly and systematically as possible. Honestly, if we don't get organized and push this forward immediately, we’re just spinning our wheels, and frankly, I don't have the patience for inefficiency.
But while they were busy preoccupied with all that, they really ought to have been initiating preparations for the possibility of shutting down and tightening control over the borders.

Instead of actually doing his job, Ostojic is out there wading through the mud with kids in his arms, while Milanovic just drones on endlessly about trivial nonsense like fence types and colors, all while picking unnecessary fights with Orban and the rest of the gang.
Honestly, it seems like the general public is just plain foolish—they practically beg for fences to be built around them—and yet, here he is, acting as if he’s been handed some divine mission to explain the inherent evil of it all to us.

The situation we’re facing right now is becoming increasingly untenable; there is a palpable shift in the atmosphere where migrants are growing more agitated and outright disrespectful by the day. It isn't just a matter of their temperament shifting, though that is certainly happening, but rather the sheer scale of it—there are simply more of them arriving, and they are staying much longer than anyone anticipated. I find myself reflecting on how quickly the local dynamics change when the influx becomes this constant and the patience of the community wears thin.
The situation in Canada is quite simple, really—they don't have migrants.
Bulgaria—not a single migrant in sight.

Not a single one stays put for longer than twenty-four hours, though if you ask me, they usually move along within twelve—it’s almost as if they can't stand the sight of themselves sitting still for even a moment!

Look, let’s cut through all this nonsense and actually have a serious conversation for once, rather than just playing around with this endless, exhausting pre-election campaigning.

Look, I really think we should keep this discussion strictly above the political fray. Does everyone here actually agree on that, or am I just shouting into the void?

Forget the campaign rhetoric; I was actually among the first to applaud the administration for their approach to the migrant crisis. It seemed quite clever and efficient at first glance—just pack them onto a bus and ship them out.

But nothing followed that initial action.
Standing in the rain for six hours is one thing, but when the snow starts falling soon, those waits will feel much longer than the twelve-hour stretches we endured just a month ago.
And the reality remains that we have no way to control who enters our borders. So, while people are being harmed or beaten elsewhere, what exactly are we doing here?

David Baker2 said:That is exactly what the current administration is doing, and honestly, given how things are playing out, I think they’ve done a stellar job so far minimizing the fallout.

Plus, we've already established enough contingencies regarding where we can pivot if we run into a total blockade at the border with someone like Missouri or wherever.

Like I mentioned before—send the women and children toward one state and the men without kids toward another—just move them all instantly.

There isn't even a need to try and stop anyone, because let's be real, nobody is actually looking to settle down here anyway.

Frankly, it feels redundant to keep repeating the exact same arguments I laid out way back when I started posting on Vail vol. 1.

And so far, I haven't been proven wrong once.

The real issue—the thing that makes me fear we are going to be caught completely off guard—is something I shouldn't even bring up, otherwise people will start accusing me of fearmongering again.

But I'm not. I simply prefer to think two steps ahead of everyone else.

That is precisely where they fail. That is the crux of the issue.
Initially, the response was quite sound: move them along as quickly and systematically as possible.
However, while they were busy executing that phase, they should have simultaneously begun preparing for potential border closures and stricter controls.

Instead, what do we see? Ostojić is stumbling through the mud while clutching children in his arms, while Zoran Milanović prattles on about the aesthetics and types of fencing, all while bickering with Viktor Orbán and others.
Does he truly believe citizens are simpletons who harbor a fascination with fences, and that his divine mission is to lecture us on the evils of such barriers?

We find ourselves in a reality where migrants are becoming increasingly agitated and brazen; their numbers are swelling, and they are staying longer than ever before.
Meanwhile, Canada has managed to reach a point where—quite simply—there are no migrants.
Bulgaria is in the same position—no migrants.

David Baker2 said:To put what that guy was saying into my own words... 2016 is a lifetime ago now.

Precisely. We need to focus on looking out for ourselves until 2016 arrives. Only then can we worry about anything else.

Our immediate concerns lie with the migrant crisis and the tensions at our borders, rather than with Soros or his ilk.
When those issues finally come knocking at our door, we will deal with them then.

coastalridge64 said:Nobody seems to be addressing the fact that we’re really just seeing the first wave of economic migrants here. Once the leaders of these families—usually the men—give the word, the rest of the relatives will start following suit to reunite. People are being incredibly naive if they think this whole situation is going to magically resolve itself by spring. 🤦

But then again, silence is the prevailing theme here, isn't it?
For instance, does anyone contemplate how an average American feels when a migrant is settled into a brand-new apartment with everything provided, while he himself is forced to grind away at his job until he's 67 just to earn a retirement?
Or what about the sheer hardship of a pregnant woman trudging through this kind of weather, wading through the mud? She is putting both her own life and the life of her unborn child at risk.

David Baker2 said:Whoever ends up in power—and we really ought to ensure it isn't us—is going to be making a killing.

When Christiana Amanpour and her cohort finally corner him, and George Soros dismantles his economy, he won't have a thousand-year empire left to rule...

History has consistently shown us that nations are preserved by those who recognize their own strength and act upon it, rather than those who live in a perpetual state of trembling fear before every passing shadow.

What are you talking about regarding George Soros? That man is likely six feet under by now. Even if he isn't, he’ll have far more pressing matters to attend to—like basic biological functions—than worrying about some migrants out there.

If we follow that flawed logic, Mexico would never have emerged from its isolation over the next nine centuries, nor would Americans have felt the need to sanction Russia over Ukraine for the next seven hundred years or so.

A border wall? Of course, it will help. But let’s be realistic: a wall alone, stripped of genuine political will, is incapable of stopping anyone.
However, as a starting point, such a barrier serves as an exceptionally potent tool.

Alex Miller3 said:Look, I didn't say that's how it *has* to be... I just meant they’ll probably try to pull something like that if all the other borders to our West and North get shut down.
I don't have the answers here. Honestly? I'm scared nobody does...

Of course there is a solution.
However, at this particular moment, it seems far more important for everyone to play the role of a humanitarian aid worker than to act as representatives for their own citizens.

Morgan Cook10 said:There's no solution because you guys respond to the blatant disrespect and criminal behavior of asylum seekers with nothing more than a shrug, just like what you see in this link.
http://edition.cnn.com/world/news/example-link-here

If I tried setting fire to some trailer park, I'd be looking at ten years in federal prison for arson before anyone even mentioned "restraint."

The fact that you and our government can't find an answer isn't proof that there isn't one—it's just a reflection of how incompetent you both are at handling this crisis.

It isn't solely a matter of our administration; they have simply emerged as the most naive players in this entire drama. The reality is that no one wishes to shoulder the responsibility—or the "guilt"—should something occur that displeases the self-proclaimed "humanitarians."

If America were to erect a border fence similar to the one in Canada, the newspapers would undoubtedly be flooded with images of weeping "mothers" supposedly throwing their children against those very barriers.

Is it not curious that not a single journalist thinks to ask the pregnant women where their sense was when they embarked on this sort of pilgrimage, or ask the women with small children where their husbands are, or the disillusioned migrants where their wives might be?

A little prize question for the room: Will unnamed ever receive any form of satisfaction from our leading journalistic figures? 😁

Unnamed: ‘What could unnamed, unnamed, and unnamed possibly have to say to me today?’

A brief summary:

We stated quite clearly what we expect the American President to demand from the European Commission and NATO during this refugee crisis. (

On behalf of her family, and despite the hostile media environment she has grown accustomed to over the last two years, she immediately called upon the President on September 7th to request three specific measures from the European Commission and NATO:
1. That refugee centers be established in border countries outside of the European Union—specifically along the eastern borders of the US.
2. That refugees truly in need of protection and life-saving assistance be distributed fairly among EU member states, ensuring they are clearly distinguished from economic migrants.
3. That the wealthy nations surrounding Syria begin to accept their share of refugees.

And then, the onslaught began. For three consecutive days—September 8th, 9th, and 10th—the primary voices of the Democratic Party, tasked with promoting Zoran Milanović, published commentaries that seemed to compete for who could insult her most viciously or distort her letter to Zoran Milanović beyond recognition.

First, on September 8th, unnamed:

Then, on September 9th, unnamed: How could unnamed even think she represents Christianity?

And finally, on September 10th, the "bravest" of them all—unnamed:

Today, now that the three demands presented by the family to Zoran Milanović five weeks ago have been adopted by the majority of EU nations—now that Germany is returning nearly every other migrant to their country of origin, when Canada has shuttered its borders, and when the pressing question is when Canada will follow suit—I find myself wondering: what exactly do unnamed, unnamed, and unnamed have left to say to me and the family? Perhaps... an apology?

restlesscrane152 said:If we can't even agree on the facts, then there's really nothing left to talk about.

Let's look at the actual facts:

Over the past year, barely a dozen members of the LGBTQ+ community reported any kind of violence, and those reports came primarily through advocacy groups.
(so let us return to those hysterical cries for help found in the links I shared earlier in this thread)

And these figures tell a very clear story: we are witnessing nothing more than pure manipulation and outright falsehoods.

That is precisely why they are so desperately targeting cities like Miami.
It will likely be followed by places like Imotski, Sinj, and other towns throughout the Zagora region.
It seems as though if anyone were to simply glance at them the wrong way—anything at all—they would immediately claim to be under threat, just so they can play the victim.

However, these statistics actually demonstrate the high level of civility and tolerance within American society. They reveal that these self-proclaimed "defenders and warriors for LGBTQ+ rights" are, in reality, nothing but manipulators poisoning the public discourse.
We live in a society that accepts differences, yet one that still holds firmly to its own core values.

restlesscrane152 said:Awesome. Love that skepticism toward the media. But I gotta wonder—do you hold conservative groups to that same standard? Take "In the Name of the Family," for example. Just a bunch of liars, right?

And I maintain a healthy reserve regarding them as well.
But they possess one thing that the LGBTQ+ community currently lacks: 750,000 signatures.
I want to see these associations present actual, concrete data. Let them state that exactly this many people have experienced violence... and leave it at that.
Only then can we proceed to a meaningful analysis. When did it happen, how, why, and where?
Until that point, we are left with nothing but pure propaganda.

restlesscrane152 said:So, what's your point? You saying the media is lying? Or those people are lying?

Yes, the media lies. It goes without saying that there are people who have been targeted; I am not denying that. The real question, however, is how many are we actually talking about?
Until someone presents hard, cold numbers, this entire conversation is little more than aimless chatter.

Given the sheer volume of coverage regarding the supposed "threats and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals," one would assume such data would be readily available in countless places. My question remains: why is it nowhere to be found?
The solution is quite simple:
Washington, D.C.: Year 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. ——— Attack Count
Rijeka: Year ——— Attack Count
Miami: Year ——— Attack Count
... and so on...

restlesscrane152 said:I don't know, you tell me—when was the last time a bunch of hyped-up lesbians beat a priest to death?

What exactly is being forced on you? Someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Some guy ordering you to join a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

No. You missed the point. If this is happening to everyone (meaning no specific group is being singled out), then it’s going to happen to Catholics too. So, where are all these beaten-up Catholics?

So, where are those allegedly beaten LGBTQ+ individuals?
Look at this:

And where is the data? It is nothing but hollow slogans and endless blather.
Why is it that no one ever bothers to publish the exact figures? I wonder why that is.

restlesscrane152 said:Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Hold on just a second—whose "position" are we actually discussing here?
Is it the stance of an LGBTQ+ organization, or perhaps something else entirely?😁

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked:
If a company undergoes a rebranding, it remains the exact same entity; I fail to see what the grievance is supposed to be. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent a necessary rebranding phase, and is now expanding—just like any other successful corporation in this country. They are distributing paychecks and hiring new talent. They aren't sitting around complaining, unlike certain other people.

Shall we all simply pretend to be oblivious now, acting as though we have no idea what we are actually discussing? 😁
But then again, couldn't we simply take a moment to investigate exactly who established this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methods they employed? There really is no need to go through the tedious process of logging into the SEC database to find those answers. Among the founding members, one finds... The "successful" entrepreneur who now maintains absolutely no connection to them..
One could then proceed to draw a direct comparison between the branding of these modern, thriving corporations and that of the aging relic we once knew. Wouldn't the glaringly obvious disparities between the two become immediately apparent? I find myself wondering if we have truly reached a point where any news can be considered credible, or if we are simply drifting through an endless cycle of manufactured updates? Is there any substance left to be found in these recent developments, or are we merely witnessing the same old patterns repeating themselves under different names? One must ask oneself: what is the actual weight of this information, and how much of it is designed solely to distract us from the underlying reality? i Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than the relentless cycle of stagnation we find ourselves trapped in? One begins to wonder if progress is merely an illusion we conjure to stave off the crushing weight of inertia. Does anyone else feel this pervasive sense of being stuck, watching the clock tick while the world remains stubbornly, infuriatingly unchanged? The corporate landscape continues to shift, does it not? I find myself genuinely struck by the recent rebranding efforts taking place within these companies. One has to wonder, is it merely a superficial coat of paint, or is there a deeper strategic evolution at play? Regardless, the transformation is certainly impressive. 🙂
If we could only uncover who exactly sabotaged the negotiations between USPS and UPS, and what their true motivations were for driving away that highly successful investment fund, one wonders where we would stand today. Where might we have arrived if those interests hadn't intervened?
I find myself once again pondering the sheer absurdity of our current trajectory. Is it not fascinating how we consistently stumble into the same pitfalls, convinced that this time, the outcome will somehow differ? One has to wonder if we are truly capable of learning from the past, or if we are simply doomed to repeat these cycles of mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Does anyone else feel this profound sense of exhaustion when observing the endless loop of bureaucratic inefficiency? It seems we are perpetually waiting for a turning point that never arrives, trapped in a cycle that feels increasingly predictable yet remains stubbornly unavoidable.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked: Why don't you reach out to Zack and suggest he appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS? Once you have that seat, you could finally demand some accountability from the executive management. If they aren't performing their duties or if they've lost sight of their responsibilities, why shouldn't you just remove them? It really shouldn't be an issue at all. In general, do you truly possess such unwavering faith in our politicians, believing they actually give a damn about the quality of the public services under their control? Do you honestly believe someone like Kosor is capable of appointing the right people to the right positions? Does Kalmeta even spare a single thought for the postal service? When it comes down to appointing a board, do they really prioritize professional expertise, or is political loyalty always the first thing on the agenda?

I cannot help but wonder if Zack might have benefited from a seasoned team of high-priced attorneys prior to this moment, specifically tasked with scrubbing away all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS.
It is truly a tragedy to witness such a vital public service being systematically dismantled to satisfy the petty, short-sighted whims of private interests. Is it not a profound failure of governance when an institution that possesses the inherent capacity to be both self-sustaining and a cornerstone of local community support is instead bled dry for the sake of a few small-minded profiteers? One cannot help but wonder how much more could be achieved if this entity were allowed to flourish, serving the very people it was designed to protect rather than acting as a mere feeding trough for the elite.

goldengull3 As if anyone could truly predict the trajectory of such an entity? One must wonder if we are merely witnessing the inevitable slow decay of institutional competence, or if this is something more calculated. Is it possible that what we perceive as chaos is actually a very deliberate, albeit misguided, strategy? I find myself questioning whether any meaningful reform is even on the horizon, or if we are simply rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
If you find yourself dissatisfied with the fact that Walmart is dragging its feet on payments, there is always the option to initiate a foreclosure process; at least the retail sector actually maintains a liquid balance sheet. They receive various subsidies simply because they operate as an agricultural producer, just like any other entity in the industry. As for their cigarette business, they have already been reprimanded by the FTC. While they are certainly under scrutiny, one must consider whether Walmart is truly massive enough to be classified as a monopoly.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me; I have zero desire to do business with them. However, it seems quite evident that their "experts" have engineered a system designed to squeeze small business owners—both manufacturers and retailers alike. It is worth noting that they remain one of the largest corporations in America, maintaining a monopoly not just in retail, but across several other sectors as well. While their "specialists" might not explicitly claim such things, as I have noted before, paper trails can be manipulated to say whatever is necessary.
I don't have the energy to go digging through the records, but I find myself questioning whether the government truly owes them those subsidies dating back to 2009. And really, isn't their little scheme involving grain transport just a clever way to line their own pockets?

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.