Carol Torres4 said:And why are you coming after me again? It was supposedly because of you that I got that red card in the first place; I asked the moderator why he flagged me, and he told me it was because you complained, claiming you saw yourself in that post. Look, if you managed to take my words personally, that's your psychological baggage to deal with, not mine, considering I wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather this guy here.
Since you’re the one who decided to start talking trash, I felt compelled to answer, especially since I've seen you defending types who back Veselin Šljivančanin and those specific verdicts, or posting about the victims in El Paso, only to have that same moderator scrub the posts. Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether it's MC Ozy, MC Auclife, MC Fuck, or some other variation—are you all just different aliases for the same person or a group of people? It doesn't matter. The core issue remains unchanged; everything stated there is 100% accurate, as painful as the truth may be. The difference is that people like you will never face reality because you're too blinded by the fanaticism used to defend your party's crimes, while simultaneously blowing every incident from the other side out of proportion. No political party is paying me to hang around this forum twenty-four hours a day like you lot; I don't need this place, nor am I dependent on it. I remember telling you once that I was leaving this forum, and suddenly everyone started acting like children—calling me a coward, saying I was running away (of course, they only said that after I had already walked out, and naturally, without any official sanction).
Honestly, you should probably see a doctor and seek some help, because you seem genuinely unwell. I have no interest in wrestling with the mentally ill. Beyond that, you're irrelevant to me; I don't read your stuff, and you can ask the moderators themselves how long I've actually kept you on my ignore list just so I don't have to endure your senseless nonsense that lacks even a hint of common sense.
Just another pile of lies without a single shred of evidence...
And seriously, the best part is claiming I defend Ivo Sanders... that's such a ridiculous stretch I can't even wrap my head around it...
Anyone following politics knows exactly where I stand regarding that guy and his crooked, now defunct, organization...
Unlike certain people, I never defended him... nor did I swear allegiance to the party bosses like you do...
Last time I checked my bank statements, I'm essentially paying myself through the various jobs I've done involving business in Switzerland, Germany, and France...
And finally...
It's hilarious watching people talk about mental health when they can't post a single thing without throwing out heavy insults... it really says a lot about your state of mind...
Listen, buddy, I think it's high time you take your amateur diagnoses and insults to a legitimate institution—or better yet, say them to my face...
Because I don't bother reading the vitriol and insults you leave behind, and as long as you keep doing it constantly without facing any consequences, hiding behind a screen name, anyone is entitled to call you a coward and a quitter...
Oh, and who are you kidding? I have you on ignore, yet somehow, miraculously, you still manage to reply to my posts...🤣
Carol Torres4 said:I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.
He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself. He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying. He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins. He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either. Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance. Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me. And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁 Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?
To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him. There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina. The plan is "We won't let our generals fall." So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides. Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that. I bet you can't.
This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it. He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate." Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth. He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.
-quoting you-
CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant: 1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities, 2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and 3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields. I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.
This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:
Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science. After that, I wrote: And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308. I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment. It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:
I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.
It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate." If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol. Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card. So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.
With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.
It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm. You really ought to look in a mirror.
Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.
So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves. Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.
It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:
Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.
That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us. Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.
More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.
The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up. And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:
In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted. Why was that post removed? So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too. And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?
Do you even have a shred of decency?
Go ahead, show me where you've ever left a post of, say, 100 words where 90% of it consisted of heavy-duty insults without being provoked...
Stuff like calling people Royalists, scumbags, sons of bitches, and so on...
And now you have the audacity to hide behind your screen and call me out for being insulting?
I’d say it's a disgrace, if shame were something this place could actually recognize...
vividmaker9 said:Look, regarding your little crusade to pin everything on me—I can push back against every single one of your accusations with actual facts if I feel like it. If you’re honestly convinced I’ve done something wrong or broken the site rules, go ahead and start a dedicated thread. I’ll be happy to lay it all out there and prove exactly how you’ve been spreading slander and lying through your teeth. Like that whole nonsense about people demanding Cyrillic or that bit about the FBI director being part of some conspiracy... just more fabrications. I didn't call you a pathetic loser, though that's just another one of your lies waiting to be debunked. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing this here, so just open a new topic where I can systematically dismantle your attempts at manipulation and trolling.
Focus, man. I never even said you called me a loser...
And honestly, why bother proving anything to you? There are actual courts in this country designed to handle slander cases; we don't need a forum debate for it...
As for the lies about the Udbina Mexican chief, there’s a massive difference between misinterpreting data from a text and straight-up fabrication... just like that article in the Morning regarding the requests for Cyrillic...
But sure, let's just call it what it is: another calculated troll move to hide the fact that you can't back up your own fabrications and setups...
I can't believe I'm even typing this out—it’s just one of those things that gets under your skin, you know? It’s like when you see someone arguing about whether a hot dog is a sandwich; it’s fundamentally silly, yet people will go to war over it. Anyway, back to the point. There's a certain level of absurdity in how people approach these topics lately—just a total lack of nuance—but I suppose that's just how things are going now. It's all very predictable, really. Not that I'm complaining, per se, but it does make for a tiring conversation if you're looking for anything resembling actual depth. Just my two cents. kaže: Look, that’s a perfect example of how you can write an entire manifesto—just a massive, sprawling wall of text—and still fail to actually deny the one key fact that matters. It’s funny, really—not a single person on this entire forum, not even Adam Collins4 himself, can actually pull up a single post from 2009 where he was running around complaining about that so-called "traitorous" statute. We don't have a shred of evidence, let alone an actual eyewitness, to prove he ever even wrote those posts in the first place. Look, there’s one thing you just can't argue with—and honestly, that’s the whole point right there. So, here’s the deal regarding that claim—the one suggesting you didn't actually write those posts, or that you weren't out there on the forum making a fuss about passing that so-called "traitorous" statute. It's nonsense. Purely nonsense. I know exactly what was written, and I know exactly where the stance was taken. Everything said was said by me, plain and simple.
Here’s the thing—Adam Collins4 doesn't actually have to prove a damn thing because he never made any claims to begin with. You're the one out here making all the assertions...
I just can't wrap my head around the basics... honestly.🤣
Look, I’ve already pointed out plenty—for instance, how you constantly insult people and pivot to ad hominem attacks instead of actually sticking to the topic. But here you are, playing the victim and pretending you're ready to have a reasoned, logical debate.
Look, let me break this down for you—what actually constitutes an argument versus just calling someone a liar or obsessing over their character for two or three topics on a platform like Politics? It’s a fine line, really. An actual argument involves staying on the topic at hand—you know, facts, logic, maybe some decent evidence—instead of just circling the drain by attacking the person making the point. If you spend all your energy labeling your opponent a slanderer or just fixating on their supposed motives instead of the actual issue, you aren't arguing anymore. You're just performing. It becomes this weird, repetitive loop where the original point gets lost in the noise of personal grievances. It's basically just white noise dressed up as debate.
vividmaker9 said:Look, I didn't start this thread just to go after some random guy on a message board. My goal here is actually to dig into what’s going wrong with the political landscape. If I'm the one causing the friction, then just hit me with a permanent ban and let's call it a day. But if I'm not the issue, then we really need to step up, identify the actual problem, and deal with it. There are plenty of people out there—myself included, I guess—who just want to have an actual debate based on logic, without all the constant bickering, ego trips, and petty power plays.
So why is it that you—along with everyone else who claims they aren't like this—never actually produces evidence for your own claims, yet you're always demanding proof from everyone else to back up your nonsense?
And why is it that people who love to brag about how much they rely on "purely logical arguments" across a dozen different topics end up making everything so incredibly personal when dealing with other users?
Why is it that you and your crowd feel the need to label anyone who disagrees with you as pathetic, slanderous, or just plain liars?
And now, suddenly, you're all putting on this big act about wanting a civilized debate...
vividmaker9 said:Let’s stick to the facts here. The reality is, nobody on this board—not even mcaucliff himself—has produced a single screenshot or link showing him complaining about that so-called treasonous statute back in 2009. We don't have one eyewitness, one shred of evidence, proving he ever actually wrote those posts. That is an undisputed fact. And if that's the case, there's really only one logical conclusion: those posts don't exist. mcaucliff didn't write them. That fact serves as a solid argument for the idea that mcaucliffe never wrote those things and was completely silent regarding the statute in 2009. This whole thing is just blatant trolling—throwing out random claims without providing a single piece of proof that they ever happened. It’s also pretty ridiculous seeing these wild comparisons to the legal system and courtrooms. In an American courtroom, you have the presumption of innocence, but on an internet forum? There is no such rule regarding credibility. Not to mention the sheer irony of people claiming someone is "defending themselves through silence," when the guy is actually pumping out mile-long essays all day and only uses silence when he's being asked to produce the very posts everyone is looking for. If that isn't trolling, then I must be losing my mind, and honestly, just give me a permanent ban. But if it is trolling, it’s high time the moderators actually started doing their jobs.
Here we go again. Once more, you’re taking your own baseless assertions and rebranding them as "facts" and "arguments"... all in a few lines of text.
Do you realize that just because you label something a fact doesn't magically make it one?
You made a claim. Do you have proof for it, or not? ☕
So, since you can't provide any proof, you pivot to spinning tales and perfidious trolling. You demand that others prove things just so you can deny them, even though it's completely unnecessary because you haven't provided an actual ARGUMENT that requires refutation... does that click?
And I am not "defending myself with silence." I'm simply refusing to play along with these games where I'm expected to argue against something you aren't even capable of proving. What, am I supposed to prove a negative?
Shall we move on to another lesson in failed logic?
Furthermore, you keep crying about trolling and provocation, but one thing is crystal clear:
a) On several different threads, you've targeted me personally, attacking my integrity... which is a textbook ad hominem, trolling, and flame war tactic.
b) You've called me a liar multiple times, despite being the one who can't back up a single thing you say.
c) You've labeled me a slanderer, which—for the record—is actually actionable under US law.
And now you’re playing the victim.
We can continue once you grasp the basics: the person making a claim has the burden of proof to demonstrate it. The other person just needs to sit back and watch as the first person slowly sinks into their own web of spin. 😉
vividmaker9 said:Maybe we could actually fix things if the mods gave a damn. I only started this thread because the situation in the PDF files got so out of hand that the moderators just stepped in to shut down entire topics and ban everyone in sight. Instead of actually addressing the issue, they just showed up to prove my point: their solution to any conflict is to just wipe out regardless of who actually started the trolling. This way of doing things has backfired big time—now you've got these trolls acting like they own the place, trying to lecture the mods like they’re the ones in the wrong! It's ridiculous. I'll say it again: if I'm the one causing the trouble, go ahead and hit me with a permanent ban but at least tell me what I did wrong first. If I'm not the problem, then punish the actual agitator. I laid it all out—how these issues start and who's pulling the strings.
Problems arise when a group tries to pass off baseless claims as fact, and then, in a complete reversal of logic, demands that anyone challenging them provide some sort of proof...
Furthermore, trouble starts when they do this repeatedly, resorting to calling their interlocutors names like "slanderer," "pitiful," or "liar." It's pretty obvious they can't defend their own stances, so they settle for attacking someone's character instead...
Look, man, what part of this isn't clicking for you?
Let’s try a little game where you FINALLY grasp the concept that if someone makes a claim, they actually have to back it up with some damn evidence... you get that, right? Is the basic foundation of an actual debate too much to wrap your head around?
I already told you—in an American courtroom, the defendant doesn't even have to open their mouth. It’s on the prosecution to prove everything they’re claiming...
If we followed your twisted logic, it would go something like this:
"Sir, you're guilty, now please prove that you aren't."
And don't even get me started on the whining and the constant trolling to avoid being called out. You've called me a slanderer more than a few times—which, by the way, means you're straight-up breaking US laws, yet you still have the nerve to point fingers at me...🤮
And why on earth would anyone bother trying to prove anything on this forum when you can't even back up your own claims with a single shred of logic or actual evidence?
It’s funny, really—you’ve been asked more than a few times to actually substantiate what you’re saying... but, lo and behold, you just deflect. You try to pass the buck to someone else who didn't even make the claim in the first place, demanding they provide indirect proof for *your* points—which, suddenly, have become "arguments" simply because you decided they were.
I’m with you there; it’s nothing but textbook trolling. The clearest sign of it is when certain people realize they can't defend their own positions, so they just pivot to calling everyone else liars or slanderers (which, by the way, is something the Department of Justice takes very seriously) before having the nerve to lecture us about who's actually trolling whom.
I honestly want to know how much longer the moderators are going to let this specific group get away with it. They spend their time calling people pathetic, accusing them of lying—despite never proving a single one of their own fabrications—and jumping from topic to topic just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees with them. It seems like they're allowed to do it simply because they're part of the "in-crowd." So, I'll ask: how long is this actually going to last?
Look, I’m telling you again—there isn't even a monument there, so please stop making things up... and once someone actually corrects you, try not to start planting false narratives...
Someone lit some candles, left them there, and that was the whole story...
Now, whether you think that's a provocation or not is entirely up to you—honestly, I couldn't care less. They went in looking for "liberation" and ended up with exactly what they deserved... it's a closed chapter at this point...
The only person worth mentioning is Mick Jagger, whom the state "institutions" have been harassing and tearing down since back in '92.
There isn’t even a monument there anymore—somebody just showed up and lit thirteen lanterns on the bridge, and then went ahead and draped flowers all over the railing...
The guy literally admitted it in the corner of the mod chat—he actually asked to be permabanned for his own clone—and yet, here we are, he’s still posting...
And then this absolute legend has the nerve to act all surprised about who his clone is. Seriously? That is some bottom-of-the-barrel behavior right there...
Oh, sure, because apparently a user who’s been permabanned still gets to post on the New York Post like nothing ever happened?☕
So much for having actual convictions... you went out on a limb, and now you're backtracking—as if someone just magically becomes a different person overnight. The mods know exactly who he is since he practically shouted it from the rooftops himself, yet here he is, still pushing buttons and looking for trouble...
I’m bringing this up because it’s pretty much common knowledge at this point—if you can even call it that—that banned users keep popping up via clones to post in specific subreddits where they originally earned their permaban...
And then you have the admins swooping in with explanations like this one. Sure, it’s technically about a different issue, but since it isn't taken out of context, the logic still applies here...
"The user is banned. A permaban, specifically—meaning they received the harshest penalty possible.
I’m sorry if you’re totally confused by that, but I have no intention of debating it further."
So, the question is actually pretty straightforward:
What is the actual point of a permaban if these clones are still allowed to roam the subreddits, often behaving in the exact same way that got them chewed out in the first place?
I’m especially asking regarding the politics section, where this seems to be most rampant—at least from what I can see—and where the insults get the nastiest (of that, I am certain 😬)...
So, back when I called this guy a liar—because he blatantly twisted my words—I ended up getting a ban for "insulting" him. When I asked for an explanation, basically asking why that was a big deal, the response was that the issue wasn't even calling him a liar; it was that I called him illiterate...
And hey, that’s fine, I guess—except HE wasn't the one who started the whole "illiteracy" thing in the first place... and surprise, surprise, he didn't get punished for it...
But check this out, man...😉
...so, apparently, it's perfectly fine to call people ridiculous?
...or label them as "eminent liars" and "ignorant"?
...calling them trolls is okay too?
...telling them they're lying? Yet I got banned for doing that exact same thing...☕
...yet here we see "liar" and "ignorant" again.
...and "notorious liar and ignoramus"...
Are you telling me NONE of these posts deserved a ban? The absolute peak of this moderation team's capability is just fluttering around and claiming they'll "look into it," then having zero backbone to actually follow up after a few days when the same issue is raised again... though, of course, they always have plenty of time to go in and fix someone else's typos...
It's a joke, honestly. A complete disaster. Not to mention how he's allowed to call anyone who disagrees with him a "loser"—where does he get off acting like that? What gives him the right?
And don't even get me started on those pseudo-intellectual essays of his where he tries to set the ground rules for how a debate should work, all because he can't handle simple questions he doesn't know how to dodge or spin...
Daniel Ward87 said:Why should we have to give everyone an update on what Tim and I are up to? Don't sweat it—everyone on the admin team handles their own business just like we agreed.
If that's the case, then why is everyone dodging the direct questions about the insults and rule-breaking coming from your own moderators? It's been going on for ten days now, at least...😉>
Jonathan Fisher78 said:Linić: 'We’re tracking every citizen through their SSN! If a husband and wife pretend to live apart, they'll face massive fines!'
Is this the right link?.... I think what's actually happening here is that a married couple can only claim one primary residence, otherwise they get hit with luxury taxes or even penalties just because a property isn't technically "in use." (But what does "in use" even mean?? Not everyone who owns two houses is looking to run an Airbnb or rent out rooms to tenants.) If I happen to have a vacation home near Washington, D.C., which is actually a three-story house, and I'm already paying taxes $333, what am I supposed to do—rent it out to someone just because I live in an apartment in Washington, D.C.?? Up until now, that’s exactly what’s been going on—to avoid taxes (around $333 annually), one spouse would register at the vacation home address, essentially claiming it as their primary residence for tax purposes. Because, from what I understand, you can't just claim you live in a seasonal cottage, so local municipalities view that as a bit shady. How many people have done this, or how much money was pocketed (since the law practically allowed it), hasn't been released, but I'd bet my life it's a pretty significant number, maybe several thousand.
How did you manage to interpret it your own way when the headline literally uses the phrase "pretending to live separately"...
PRETENDING... so, cheating the government on taxes and surcharges...
Benjamin Taylor6 said:Husbands won't be able to register at the main house while the wife stays at the vacation home: Robert Rubin stated today in Indianapolis that utility fees are essentially a relic of the old socialist era—which, let's face it, we've moved past—and therefore they should be replaced by a property tax. His goal? To make the American tax system actually transparent so that any entrepreneur out there has a clear, predictable roadmap of what they're dealing with.
Rubin believes this new legislation will effectively shut down fraud attempts. "We can't have situations where a husband is registered at the primary residence while his wife is listed at a seasonal getaway," he noted. Apparently, since we started using Social Security numbers to track everyone, the computer systems have become incredibly pedantic—they flag every single inconsistency. Now, the government knows exactly how much water you use, your electricity consumption, your salary, and where you’re officially living... If a couple wants to live apart, fine, that's their business, but if it's just a paper sham to dodge taxes, they'll be hit with massive fines. According to The New York Times, Rubin insists this isn't a tax hike, just a structural swap.
He expressed confidence that The Cabinet will have the final draft of the property tax bill ready by March, with the congressional debates expected to kick off in April.
On paper, sure, this looks great for the treasury because the state gets to collect more revenue. But honestly? I know several couples who REALLY do live separately despite being married. For instance, my neighbor—his husband inherited a cottage on the coast and makes his living fishing, while his wife inherited an apartment in the city and works as a nurse. They aren't playing games; they just live different lives.
That's fine, provided you can actually prove it... like in your example...
But the whole point is catching the people living under one roof who pretend to be registered somewhere else just to pay lower rates...
Like that situation with Mravko—back when he was living in Washington, D.C., but was officially registered in Stalingrad...
It’s pretty funny watching this guy play the expert—he can talk about Šol all day long, but suddenly he develops total amnesia when it comes to Loserotve and what Matoševićev actually brought to the table during those championship runs... especially Matoševićev's part.
Look, I like Šol, I really do—but let’s be real, the guy was basically a circus act in the net... yet everyone acts like he was some legendary figure just because of his "personality," you know, that ridiculous hair, and a couple of flashy saves here and there...
Meanwhile, the actual backbone of the team—guys like Matoševićev—barely get a mention, even though their contribution to our success was way more significant than anything Šol ever did...
mistyjackal14 said:http://www.nytimes.com/article/housing-crisis-suburbs-news People are actually having their homes broken into while they sleep, yet here you are, exhausting yourself arguing over who swiped the electrical outlets from some abandoned Hilton Hotels property that’s been sitting empty for two decades🤦
Since you seem to have completely glossed over the reality of the military skirmishes and shelling back then🤦, maybe we should shift the focus toward the veterans instead, because I heard a story about one guy who was literally smashing through a stockroom while holding his defensive position on the front lines.
What kind of topics are we even discussing here?
If you heard about the cabinet, you might want to ask him if the carpets are still there too... or maybe a table or two...
I know a few guys who basically have old hotel carpets stashed up in their attics...
Or chandeliers, and stuff like that...
But honestly, it doesn't matter. There have always been small-time scavengers around.