Posts by Adam Collins4

dustypuma5 said:@lonehawk172

If I may jump in here—though I’ll probably just end up quoting you to make my point...

Active Infraction ( points: 30)
Rule violation (sub-forum)
Expires
14:01 28.12.2010.
Left By
Daniel Ward87
14:01 28.11.2010.

So apparently that breaks the rules, but Ryan Vaughn7's post is perfectly fine...

That is some textbook double standards right there. Just pure nonsense.

And you all can spin the situation however you want...

Wait, so twisting the names of public officials is totally allowed then?

Look, we're getting into an argument again simply because nobody actually knows what they're talking about—not that it stops people from acting like they have all the answers...

It would be nice if, every once in a while, someone actually offered an apology when their "expert" opinion turns out to be worth absolutely nothing.

dustypuma5 said:Then what exactly is this supposed to be?

Just a personal opinion backed up by facts...

An opinion you don't necessarily have to agree with—but hey, it's still just an opinion...

On the other hand, I’m dying to hear the logic here—I mean, what specific set of facts allows someone to claim that Pusićka was basically tearing apart everything American...

dustypuma5 said:Can I call you mellowraven22?

Active Infraction ( points: 35)
Just trolling
Expires
18:15 28.12.2010.
Left By
Ryan Vaughn7
18:15 28.11.2010.

So, apparently, we all have our sacred cows after all. 🙂

And just like that—the moment this user typed it out—the claim that someone would just kill people simply because we're Americans magically transformed into an objective fact?

No evidence required, right?

It’s that classic ego trip—where whatever a person scribbles down, regardless of whether they actually have any proof, suddenly becomes the "absolute truth."

The example you provided isn't just trolling; it's straight-up hate speech...

What's really funny, though—it reeks of those old Communist-era tactics that you all seem to be so terrified of...

dustypuma5 said:Don't go pulling my sentence—or half a sentence, really—out of context. It was a conditional statement. Of course anyone can say whatever they want about anyone. 😉

Alright, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that it meets your standards for being crystal clear.
But you all need to admit that calling Gotovina a war criminal and a sleazebag is incredibly tacky—and when it comes from a moderator, it’s even tackier.
A moderator should probably have a bit more "forum etiquette" than your average user.

Posts like this don't exactly bring any honor to the site, and frankly, they're an insult to the people who actually served under Gotovina. It’s honestly a little gross.

Look, you’re having a bit of trouble grasping what was actually written—which seems to be the case for most people in the Politics section, especially when you dare to disagree with them...

Now, I won't dwell on whether that's due to a lack of education or just limited logical reasoning... and no, I'm not trying to be insulting here...

"Yes, it refers to the wartime hero and the cowardly fugitive in peacetime Ante Gotovina. Pre-war sleazebag, lowlife, and criminal. Just so there's absolutely no confusion."

See, what I'm doing here is reading three distinct categories across three different time periods, completely independent of one another...

Now, whether that's how edge intended it, I haven't a clue...

But I know my posts often follow that kind of logic, and most people on this forum just don't get it... whether they aren't capable of it or simply refuse to try, that's not my problem...

The thing is, there's a massive difference between different stages of a person's life; just because something was true for someone in the past doesn't mean it holds true for the future...

For instance, my opinion on General Korade as a wartime hero is the polar opposite of my opinion on him as a husband and father—a post-war abuser and killer...

And lo and behold, holding both those opinions at once doesn't make them mutually exclusive...

Scott Cruz4 said:we aren't talking about some Eastern symbol or their culture here.
The cross has one specific meaning for Christians, and there is absolutely no way to link it to violence or evil.

Christians were crucified at the very beginning—so yeah, you missed the mark on that one again...

And honestly, I know how much Christians love to look the other way whenever someone brings up the darker historical symbolism of the cross that doesn't fit their narrative...

Scott Cruz4 said:Are you seriously comparing the Nazi swastika—which was literally a symbol of pure evil and mass suffering—to a crisis involving something that represents faith, peace, and love among people?
That’s just gross. 👎

And what exactly are these "atheist feelings" or symbols that we supposedly shouldn't be offending??
What does that even say about you guys as atheists?

Look, the swastika actually has a totally different meaning in Indian culture...

Just like how the cross used to have its own distinct meaning and role throughout history...

The real difference here is just the sheer "volume" of history that's piled up between those ancient roots and where we are today...

Anthony Garcia19 said:The government—and society at large—isn't just some faceless machine. It's made up of real, living people.

The moral rules we live by as individuals should apply to society too (or at least they ought to).

Would you personally do business with someone who did something terrible to you in the past? Probably not (unless you don't actually view what they did as wrong).

Don't you realize you'd be making money off that person? You're basically taking their cash and getting rich off them...

Because they can't produce it themselves...

And the only interaction you'd ever need to have is when the money moves from one bank account to another...

You still haven't actually explained to me how taking someone's money counts as selling your soul to the devil.

Anthony Garcia19 said:So, we're right back where we started in this debate: you said, "the focus is on selling military gear," and I countered with, "well, then we might as well sell our souls."

We aren't getting anywhere until someone can prove this is truly the "deal of the century"—the kind of move that saves the entire American economy or at least keeps a major corporation afloat—and that it couldn't have been signed with any other partner.

Look, business is business. Since when did a transaction involve selling your soul to the devil?

Anthony Garcia19 said:If HS Product (and companies like them) could just export anywhere, we wouldn't need these kinds of agreements. You even admitted this isn't just about trading favors.

It’s obvious that politics serves the defense industry by using these deals to open up foreign markets. If they had found a different strategic partner, nobody would be losing their jobs—maybe they’d even be getting raises.

I’m sure you didn't mean to imply that Mexico is the only country on Earth we could ever build a military-economic partnership with.

Of course not, but here's the thing: we have the product—which carries a hefty price tag—and they actually want to buy it...

If they don't get it from us, they'll just find someone else to provide it.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Obviously, you need a signed deal if you want to trade with someone. My point was actually the opposite: that we should be able to break into third-party markets (instead of just focusing on Mexico).

Capital might not care about borders, but politics definitely should. I don't believe for a second that we couldn't achieve the same economic gains by working with a more politically acceptable partner.

PS. Can someone who actually knows their stuff regarding defense manufacturing and trade give me some solid arguments to help clear my head?

Politics should recognize borders? Really?

HS is a private company; they can export wherever they damn well please...

By all means, feel free to bring those little moral dilemmas of yours down to the factory floor one day and explain to a worker that their paycheck is gone because "politics recognized its boundaries."

Karen Williams53 said:Exactly. Honestly, they're probably getting more out of the deal than we are.

Yeah, you've got a point there... we're basically just supplying them with rifles and handguns—and trust me, when you look at the price per unit on that hardware, it adds up—and they're the ones reaping the actual benefits...

Selling off pistols for a few hundred bucks or rifles for several thousand isn't exactly going to save our economy...🤣

I'll be sure to have a quick word with Mark Twain next time I run into him about shutting down all exports to the USA, since apparently, they're getting a much better deal out of it than we are...

What a joke. Our export numbers are practically in a coma, yet here you are, acting like we're hitting the jackpot...

Look, just try to grasp the reality that the defense industry is one of the most profitable, fastest-growing sectors on the planet...

Anthony Garcia19 said:I guess that means we have to sell our souls too...

No one is going to convince me that we’re stuck relying on exporting arms to Mexico. We are perfectly capable of competing on our own in other global markets.

Well, you have to sign those cooperation agreements—it’s not quite the same thing as just selling weapons versus, say, selling grain...

In this game, we're talking rifles, handguns, helmets, and body armor...

And who's to say we're dependent on anyone? For the thousandth time, capital doesn't have a nationality. If something "boosts" our exports, it's a win for us—even if we're shipping it over to Mexico...

That's where the money comes in, and that's how our workers get paid... so, yeah, it's a net positive for us.

swiftcyclist42 said:Well, looks like the "US Army" is officially gone.
It’s been rebranded as part of a joint force with the "Mexican Army."
Supposedly, they're going to defend the "region" together.
I guess that means our own country is disappearing too? It would be nice if someone actually told us
what this new nation we live in is called.
As for the borders, I assume they run from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to Mexico.
And I bet Washington, D.C. will be the capital again, right?
We can probably expect the dollar to be replaced soon, too.
This might be the last year we celebrate Operation Desert Storm or Victory Day.

Do you think I'm joking??
No way, no way... it's all right here:

Alright, jokes aside for a second.
Is what's happening over these last few days and weeks actually normal?
Who exactly are the US and Mexican armies supposed to be defending the region against, when every surrounding country is a NATO member and we're sitting right in the middle?
If there's any threat to us or this "region," it's only coming from Mexico.
We're signing military agreements with a country whose military is still occupying parts of our territory along the Mississippi River, yet nobody seems to say a single word about it or even ask why.

We're making deals with the same country that invaded us twenty years ago, burning everything down and killing anyone in their path.
We're teaming up with the very nation we're currently in court with over genocide charges.

I don't know, maybe this is just how things work now. Maybe I'm just losing my mind.

If you ask me, this is more about military-economic cooperation than any kind of joint combat strategy...

Sure, you might see officers participating in training exercises, but that's where it ends—there won't be any massive joint maneuvers or anything like that.

The real focus here is more on selling military hardware, if you want to call it that...

Here’s a link that might give you some context, at least partially...

Though I highly doubt every single American has heard of Sijekovac—you were a bit presumptive claiming otherwise... honestly, I hadn't even heard of Sijekovac until now, and frankly, I still don't know what it is... nor do I particularly care...

Anonymous said:Don't start trolling just because you've run out of things to say...

The guy is literally laying out evidence regarding your little backroom deals and your chats with those cloned accounts—and your response is to tell him not to troll? Seriously?🤣

And then you have the nerve to come to me asking for the exact same evidence that steeleagle70 is providing right now...

Look, sorry, but you're the only one trolling here...

steeleagle70, if you've actually got the links, please, just drop them so we can all see what's going on...

Anonymous said:But do you actually have proof that's what happened?

A few moderators are reading this thread right now, so why don't you just lay out exactly which handles you're talking about...
Based on the forum rules, there will be consequences...
Don't you think so?

The mods can verify that themselves...

And you said it yourself—a few people took Clinton's names and jumped over to Politics... I'm just wondering where exactly you're getting your intel from...☕

I’m honestly starting to worry that once they get banned over there, they'll just migrate right back here to the Soccer forum...

If you're posting while one of your accounts is banned, it doesn't matter which sub-forum you're in; you're still violating the rule against using an alternative account while one is under suspension.

Anonymous said:I wouldn't say that... because you seem to take any post comparing things to the local stadium—basically pointing out similarities—as a personal insult to you and everyone else on this board. It's like some drunk guy at a tavern decided he was going to mess with you all...

Let's be real here and compare the timing of that "tavern agreement" to the unnecessary banning of users....
The "agreement," as you guys call it, happened on a public thread; anyone could have seen it. So what actually came of it? A couple of people just grabbed a bunch of Clinton supporters and had some fun?.. A conspiracy?.. Where?
How many of us were posting under our own handles? Maybe a few more than just those two or three....

Honestly, I couldn't care less about politics or your opinions... but out of pure solidarity, I jumped in and left a few comments on that thread too....

People using nicknames who are paranoid enough to see "conspiracies" and "unrest" being stirred up by fans from some PDF file seriously need to go see a doctor.... even the ones who think they "prevented" a conspiracy or unrest.... because none of that was ever actually happening....

And again, it's action equals reaction.... everything that went down happened because of biased moderation... and the way threads were twisted when they could have just easily closed them if they actually violated any of the forum rules....

Anyway, for those who used Clinton quotes, got banned, and then just kept posting under their original handles—do they actually deserve a permanent ban?

Matthew Anderson4 said:Sure, that's fine. But you can't tell me a mod has the right to pull a total 180 on a thread, making the original post completely irrelevant to the actual discussion (which is exactly what happened here)

Look, if you want to excuse it, maybe, but two or three people kept aggressively trying to pivot everything toward fan behavior and those events from May 1st, 2010—doing it so effectively that most of the regulars on the politics board just started dodging the thread altogether...

And the best part? Over on the soccer forum, in the thread about fans, there’s clearly a little group of users coordinating to derail the whole discussion about Warsaw...

One guy even actually said—and I quote—“Whatever, the thread's ruined, I'm going to bed"...

So much for wanting an actual debate or contributing something meaningful... you guys went out of your way to plant landmines, and then you're surprised when they go off...

Now you're all crying about it...

Man, every time I recall those comments you made about my mother and autism, I can’t help but let out a little smirk at these sudden demands and this newfound sense of moral righteousness...

But hey, as they say, if someone clearly lacks even a basic foundation of manners—and they go out of their way to prove it—you point it out. It isn't an insult, provided you aren't being a jerk about it... which is something some people seem to struggle with...

I mean, if we’re going by that logic, everything becomes an insult depending on how you frame it... even mentioning someone's upbringing...

Anyway, I have a question for the esteemed moderators over on the Politics subreddit... and honestly, even for the Forum President...

How much longer are you going to let clones of banned users run wild? They aren't even posting anything meaningful; they just swoop into the Politics section and start insulting everyone the second they log on...

Because from where I’m sitting, it looks like certain rules—especially the ones that actually *should* be followed—are being treated more like suggestions...

So now they’re digging into whether he might have known about a specific case and just didn't report it to the cops right away—and you know what? When I look at myself, I have to wonder if I’d actually call the authorities on every single acquaintance who did something wrong, or if I’d just try to nudge them toward changing their ways,' Kustić said.

Here’s a little glimpse into how priests view the whole "problem" of pedophilia...

He’d try to influence him... as if his little intervention matters when you've got a priest, an authorized therapist, a psychiatrist, and a doctor all in the mix?

What a total idiot...

And then these people have the nerve to drone on about morality...