mistytinker26 said:Hmm. 🙂 I’d love to see Linić's face when Kotromanović walks in and demands double the current budget for the US Armed Forces.
NATO didn't just pull those numbers out of thin air. They know what a functional country looks like—they understand that if you have a defense strategy, you need a specific number of soldiers to actually ensure they're properly equipped and paid.
Plus, when we joined NATO, we signed some kind of agreement. It lays out guidelines, instructions, and recommendations. If anyone actually thinks NATO is going to swoop in and defend us from everyone, they've got air between their ears. And honestly, most of our politicians seem to be exactly that type.
Anthony Perez9 said:That’s about as much wine as Jesus Christ turned into top-shelf stuff at a wedding where the guests were already wasted.
Man, those were the days. Nowadays, bishops just "launder" our hard-earned cash to fund their own little parties. 🙂
Call it a cultural tax, for sure.
Sure, I’m all for a local accordion club in Lower Poljina, just as long as it isn't being funded by some overpriced clergy.
There’s no such thing as a peace deal with Vatican City on this one. It's all just posturing... they're basically just waiting to pull the trigger while keeping their hands clean.
They sent over the contract via fax, then parked three Vatican aircraft carriers right off our coast in the Atlantic and gave us a 24-hour deadline to sign it.... OR 🙄
mistytinker26 said:The point was that "Anyway, nobody on the public forum is bringing up meeting NATO standards. When it comes to international military pilgrimages, the Department of Defense participates just like they would in a mission in Afghanistan."
So I asked my question (and Christian Torres3 repeated it), and all I got were answers implying people have lost their minds. It made me realize I'm not the only one who doesn't see the link between funding these pilgrimages, the Military chaplaincy, and NATO standards.
Funding a pilgrimage has absolutely nothing to do with NATO standards. What matters for NATO is hitting those budget targets of 2-2.5% when we're sitting at 1.3%. What matters is interoperability between our units and NATO forces.
Technically, the Department of Defense shouldn't even be involved in things like firefighting or civilian medevac, yet that's where most of the Air Force budget goes. But hey, nobody asks about that...
Christian Torres3 said:That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer my question.
And by the way, Argentina used a presidential decree to scrap their concordat with Vatican City. Yeah, sure, that's a violation of an international treaty—everyone knows it is—but what happened? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Look, why don't you just reach out to the President while he's heading over to Vatican City and have him lobby the Government to do something about that contract? Since our guy doesn't really have that kind of authority, anyway.
Then there's Linić, claiming we'll be sending more money to the EU next year than we're getting back. Honestly, we might as well just pull out of the EU for a year, at least while we're feeling the pinch.
Serious countries actually stick to what they sign. But since we aren't exactly a "serious" nation and we've already tossed aside our signed agreements (like that whole judicial chapter stuff with the EU), I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just screw... well, the Vatican deal too, and join the club of African and South American nations.
Argentina nationalized some oil companies, so I don't see why we couldn't just screw... ExxonMobil and ini, too. 🤷
Christian Torres3 said:And what on earth does any of that have to do with NATO standards?
It’s about basic culture and being a state governed by law. If you sign a Contract, you stick to it. Period. If you want to change the terms, someone at the head of The Government needs to sit down and negotiate those changes with the other party. You don't just unilaterally decide to flip the script; that’s just breaking the deal.
It's like if you sell me a condo for $100,000, we sign everything, and then suddenly I decide $10,000 was actually plenty and the rest is probably overkill. As a citizen, you can go out, gather the required number of legal signatures, submit them, and then just wait around during some legally questionable timeframe for Parliament calling a referendum. 😉
John Clark6 said:Well, I mean—if you don't actually have proof that the bill was settled, and you're openly admitting you haven't paid it yet, then I’m just not sure what there is left for us to discuss here... 🙂 The fact that they might not have even sent you the invoice in the first place is really a completely different issue altogether!
I’ve got a feeling some kind of scandal is about to blow up in the news. I was digging through my junk drawer today and noticed that five or six of my neighbors have bills tucked away from the New York City Department of Sanitation.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Here in NYC, the utility bill—trash, water, landscaping, all of it—is usually bundled into one single statement. 🤷
My gut tells me someone is just trying to rake in as much cash as possible before the next election cycle hits.
So, I just got a demand letter in the mail from Berkshire Hathaway regarding some old utility fees from back in December 2012, with a deadline of mid-January 2013. I’m usually pretty obsessive about my bills—I even pay stuff ahead of schedule sometimes. I figured, fine, maybe I missed it, so I just paid it. But then I was grabbing coffee today and started venting about it. Turns out, a friend of mine got a demand letter too, and apparently her next-door neighbor did as well?!?! It feels like someone in Washington, D.C. is just aggressively fundraising for a campaign or something. I am 100% certain I never received the actual bill. Look, I'll settle up with the city, but these late interest charges are really grating on me, even if the amount itself is tiny. If 10,000 people in Washington, D.C. got a notice like this, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest alone.
Is this actually standard practice? Is it even legal for them to operate like this?
After my recent meltdown and failing to find any solid way to bet on the NBA, I finally stumbled upon a method that’s working flawlessly so far. Every time I tried posting my old analyses, I ended up losing, so please forgive me if I'm being a little superstitious lately. 🙂
Personally, I think American sports are perfect for betting. It’s all pure stats and math. You can find incredibly detailed breakdowns on various sites online. It allows you to strip away all those useless variables and just focus on the best opportunities to actually win—or rather, to get our payout.
Betting on individual players involves way too many moving parts. A coach might sit them out, they might have a nagging injury, or maybe they just get hurt. Or sometimes the game is basically decided by halftime. In my opinion, betting on the final outcome offers such low odds that it’s barely worth it unless you’re playing the spread or the over/under. The issue with the spread is that a team doesn't really care if they beat someone by 10 points or just 2; they tend to coast once they have the lead. With the over/under, you have the average scoring for the teams. You can look at their defensive stats, how they perform on the road versus at home, their trends over the last few games, and stuff like that. Basically, if a score hits some extreme outlier, it’s usually just because a team went absolutely rogue that day.
I realized a long time ago that betting on just one parlay is the only sustainable way to do this long-term. Because, no matter how much people hate to admit it, gambling can be a pretty dangerous addiction. And let's be real: if we were all actually making money, the sportsbooks wouldn't exist. I stick to a maximum of 3% of my bankroll per bet, and that's how I "play."
New York City (6-4) @ Memphis Grizzlies (3-6) (-4.5) UND 194 OVER
The Grizzlies are averaging about 104 points at home. They’re facing New York City tonight, who just came off a game against the Philadelphia 76ers. Their bench is pretty much non-existent—just three guys ready to go—so I'm expecting fatigue to kick in and snap their four-game winning streak. Their starters averaged about 36 minutes yesterday, while the bench barely saw 18 minutes of action, all while Memphis had the luxury of a rest day. Looking back at the last six games played in Memphis, they've all gone Over. Here's how their recent matchups have looked:
Sam Diaz2 said:Philly (-9.5) - Sacramento 1 UNDER 197.5 Philly’s on a five-game heater right now, and they’ve managed to cover the spread in all five. At home, they hold opponents to about 73.7 points, while Sacramento is averaging 108 scored and 86 allowed on the road. I’m betting SAC stays under 86 today. The total in the sportsbook is sitting at 93.5, which feels way too high to me. Only Indiana kept them low (1) against Miami, and they ended up hitting 86 in Philly yesterday.
The Philly boys got a little carried away yesterday. Luckily, we cleared it by half a bucket. Good thing I placed my bets before Miami hit the board, otherwise I probably would've chased it and gone bust.
Philadelphia vs Kings, Over/Under 197.5. Philly is on a tear right now, riding a five-game win streak where they’ve managed to cover the spread every single time. They’re a defensive beast at home, holding opponents to an average of just 73.7 points. Meanwhile, when the Kings hit the road, they tend to put up about 108 while giving up 86. My gut says Sacramento isn't breaking 86 tonight. The Over is sitting at 93.5, which feels way too high to me. Honestly, the only team to hold them to low numbers lately was the Pacers, and even then, they finished yesterday at 86 in Philadelphia.
Edward Young3 said:First off, it’s obvious to everyone that it isn't just about the word itself, but how you actually use it... take the word "patient," for example.
If I say Sam Diaz2 was a patient at such-and-such hospital, I haven't done anything wrong by using that word. On the flip side, if I say Sam Diaz2 is a patient because of the way he thinks, then yeah, I've lost my mind.
So, when you call someone a "Mexican," it might or might not be a literal headcount of their blood cells. Context is everything. And honestly, I think the context in that controversial post is pretty damn clear.
P.S. Is "soccer" American and "football" Mexican? I have this nagging feeling that neither term really belongs to one specific group—they’re both just derivatives from German or English...
I'm with you on that. It just doesn't make sense to me why, regardless of where the word comes from, given the mess the country is in and all the issues in sports, the Secretary gets hung up on this one thing (if it really is trivial) and suddenly has the will, the time, and the budget to obsess over such a "minor" detail.
Edward Young3 said:Of course I’m going to roll my eyes at people counting blood cells in the 21st century. Even if the biggest complaint about the new administration is that it has too many "Mexicans"—claiming it's just some "American government" pushing a "Serbianization" agenda or some pro-American policy right as we join the EU—that says way more about the individuals and the specific brand of politics they use to communicate than it does about the actual people in office.
I mean, look, even if some minister happens to be a local, you can probably dig up a "Mexican" somewhere in their family tree, and then people will just keep harping on that same old tune, obsessing over foreign and domestic enemies until someone eventually gets canceled for it. Whether it's voters at the polls or mods on a forum... and of course, when that happens, the inevitable response is some nonsense about how "we're just a forum.yu" or whatever garbage.
And honestly, you should probably worry more when you're getting lectured on this by some "kid" when you're an adult.😍
I don't get why everyone is acting so outraged just because someone in politics is identified as a Mexican. Especially regarding the topic above, where the guy actually proved that a member of the US Government is ethnically Mexican, having scrapped a certain Americanized term for a Mexican one. So, I think that fact is pretty relevant to the debate.
On the other hand, Article 3 of the Constitution states: Freedom, equality, national equality and gender equality... are the highest values of the constitutional order of the United States and the foundation for interpreting the Constitution.
Article 15. In the United States, equality is guaranteed to members of all national minorities.
So, I don't see why it would be an issue for someone to identify as a Mexican or why there would be any negativity surrounding it. I didn't see our colleague expressing himself in that way, either. If our Constitution only emphasized Americans or US citizens, then I might understand why people would protest being called a Mexican, but since we promote a "multi-cultural" approach here, I don't see why it's harmful for someone to say they are a Mexican.
Okay, but is spamming actually allowed on those threads? Because honestly, there’s no other way to describe what sunshinestar is doing—just copying and pasting the exact same posts and links across all three threads without them having anything to do with the actual conversation at hand. I actually hit the report button on his posts yesterday and provided links showing how often he repeats himself, but from what I can tell, the moderators are just letting it slide.
Today, he went ahead and dropped those same links into all three threads again. I’m genuinely curious: how long is this going to be tolerated? If this keeps up for another few days, I might just start jumping from thread to thread myself and copying posts too.
Joshua Gonzalez33 said:Philadelphia-Indiana over 184.5 @1.85 Already seeing a decent analysis for the Philly over up there, but honestly, I think Indiana can put up a serious fight too. Expecting both sides to go over and hit somewhere around 200 total points.
Toronto-Minnesota 2 @2.25 To me, this looks like way too much value given the odds. This year, Minnesota has K-LOVE, who is easily one of the best players in the NBA right now, plus Rubio playing as the new playmaker, which is actually working quite well. Toronto is just being inconsistent.
New Jersey-Atlanta (-5.5) 2 @1.85 New Jersey is playing catastrophically without Lopez, whereas Atlanta is doing fine despite having those two... I don't know how to describe them... "WTF" games lately. They have shooters ready to go, and I don't think this handicap is too steep. If Deron doesn't step up with something special, they should cover.
New York-Charlotte over 203.5 @1.85 New York is slowly finding their rhythm. Once we see Baron back on the court, they’ll be a real problem. Charlotte caught them off guard a few days ago, so I’m expecting some revenge here—probably a total run & gun situation.
C. Anthony over 26.5 @1.85 Carmelo is really carrying this squad. He’s been hitting the over almost every game; he even dropped over 30 when they lost to Charlotte. Plenty of reasons to take this one.
Odds from Premier.
Aren't you a little worried about the Philly-Indiana over? Philly has only allowed an average of 67 points at home through two games so far. Plus, with five questionable players for Indiana, if they end up relying on the bench with only three rotation guys available, they might struggle to even hit 75 or 80 points. Their top scorer Granger and their best shooter Hibbert are both listed as questionable.
Charlotte +10.5. Honestly, this is a team that can definitely pull an upset if they feel like it. They played New York last time, and let's be real, New York has been all over the place lately. They barely scraped by Washington, a team that Minnesota absolutely tore apart while dealing with a massive injury list and a super thin bench. I’m calling this one over 202.5 points. New York is giving up about 104 on average at home, and Charlotte is actually putting up 113 when they travel.
I was leaning toward Chicago at -3.5 earlier today, but while I was digging into the numbers, that line jumped up to -6, so I’m passing on that. Honestly, I'm feeling more of an Over 177 vibe.
Looking at the other matchup, San Antonio -4. Denver is playing their fifth game in just seven days, which is a lot. My gut says the defenses are going to step up tonight, so I put my money on the under 199.
Milwaukee is struggling with injuries right now and have dropped three straight. Meanwhile, the LA Clippers are on a roll. I’ll take the Clippers -10.5 and the Over 193.5.
