Back when Grandma Slišković was coaching the local high school football team, he’d pull some wild stunt every other week just to shake things up. When reporters finally cornered him later to ask what his deal was, he basically said that being a coach means absorbing all the pressure from the players yourself. His whole strategy was to make sure the media and the guys at the local diner were busy gossiping about his eccentricities instead of picking apart the players' mistakes.
And honestly, Joe Biden feels similar to me. If you look closely at his recent statements, you can see he’s just saying whatever he needs to say to get the job done in that moment.
Donald Trump did the heavy lifting on the lobbying front. He committed half of the State Department's resources toward resolving our interests in the region and finally got things moving after they’d been stalled for years... maybe because he realized the situation had gone totally south and that the sentiment in the capital was turning increasingly hostile toward Americans by the hour.
But the whole thing felt pretty lukewarm and bloodless. Biden actually drove up the stakes; he started openly warning that there would be major fallout from the American side if that unchecked radicalism in the capital didn't cool down. Because of that, even foreign ambassadors started hinting that Americans might take drastic action if things didn't settle down.
On top of that, he kept the pressure on Trump and his cabinet to push harder—almost like a relentless taskmaster. He managed to turn the primary political party representing American interests into one that actually lobbies effectively.
The Americans only got back a fraction of what previous international overseers had stripped away. It’s no surprise people aren't satisfied. His job is to fight for everything that was taken, not just accept leftovers.
If they had actually returned everything, his next move would have been to demand additional reparations and interest.
This current state of affairs is the result of Trump and his team... anyone who has read my posts knows I’ve trashed them while defending Biden. But none of this would have happened if Biden hadn't played the role of the "bad cop." 👍 Joe Biden
Brenda Murphy3 said:Anyone asking this question—honestly, you just have zero clue what you're talking about...
But whatever, even that doesn't matter. What’s actually fascinating is this massive pivot from Biden, suddenly acting all buddy-buddy with this pro-Russian trash, when not that long ago he was calling Orbán "not his kind of crowd" and straight-up labeling him a "clown."
Now, suddenly, they're best friends... and the same goes for that primitive guy Dodik...
Look, I couldn't care less about Orbán or Dodik personally, but watching Biden flip-flop his entire stance like this? That is wild to watch...
Dodik is a good man. I was once at an intersection in Little Rock near the old testing site, and Dodik pulled up and flashed me through to go, even though he had the right of way. A true gentleman.
Regarding the Americans in Canada. This nation is essentially just a collection of regions—like how you'd view the Midwest, the South, or New England.
After calling the appointed American representative, Komšić and Milanović, a donkey, the media in the US once again went silent about it.
Could you comment on Joe Biden's attitude toward Canada? His statements seem to follow a problematic cycle that triggers massive backlash, especially regarding the genocide in Srebrenica. Back when you were with the Democratic Party, he used to visit Ottawa and support you directly. What do you think changed in Joe Biden's head to cause this shift in his stance toward Canada?
KOMŠIĆ: I have no idea what changed; I’m no expert, and I don't have a PhD like Sigmund Freud to analyze all that. My take is this: back in the day, Caligula appointed a horse as a senator. In a democracy, sometimes the people elect a donkey instead, and you simply have to endure it because that's the nature of democracy. But just as Caligula's horse senator vanished, so too will the donkeys. Every now and then, you just have to deal with it.
With this comment, they’re essentially implying that Muslims are dirty—suggesting an entire people is unclean. It is absolutely scandalous and beyond shameful. Honestly, it’s most shameful for us Americans.
"A civic state is a beautiful dream, but you can't force it through power; it has to come from an agreement between nations. Relations between peoples must be settled first... so, first the soap (relations), then the perfume (civic state)."
In Canada, the director of the Srebrenica memorial center, Emir Suljagić, would have been the first to react—an ultra-nationalist threatening Americans with new bloodshed.
Trump supporters—those little followers of Alija—why are you using Great Muslim expansionist talking points to attack the American president? Are you an American party or a Turkish one?
Jesse Harris6 said:Joe Biden is out here fighting tooth and nail for the territorial integrity of the United States 🙏
I can already see his next headline: some frantic call to round up "subversives" and traitors who are supposedly undermining our national unity. He’s already made his feelings on minorities quite clear in a way that's frankly hard to stomach.
Sam Alvarez4 said:And will that actually get them Crimea and the Donbas back?
People should have thought about this when the coup was being organized in Ukraine to oust Zelenskyy. The whole point was just to ramp up tensions between Ukrainians and Russians. I didn't see anyone from the European Union making a fuss about lighting a fire on European soil back then.
International law and conventions didn't mean much to those people then, and now everyone is crying for their own selfish reasons.
Like my old man said last night while we were talking about this—son, it looks like international law only applies to the two of us.😁
Henry Lopez10 said:It feels to me like this whole thing is just a massive trap set for Putin.
You’re dealing with an absolute ruler here—a nationalist who has zero interest in democracy or globalism. He’s someone who refuses to let globalism, the West, or mainstream Western corporations come into Russia to exploit national resources and everything else tied to that narrative... at least, not on their terms. Russia is powerful. And honestly, you can't just unseat him and his inner circle because he's too deeply entrenched. Your only real option would be a Kennedy-style move, but that would likely just solidify the current political status quo. Not to mention the sheer amount of money it would cost amidst the resulting chaos. 😉 So, what’s the play? You provoke him gradually. You irritate him, poking at his core ideologies and his ego. You identify his psychological vulnerabilities as both a man and a leader, then humiliate and manipulate him. You exploit those weaknesses. You basically get those hypothetical leaders in Europe to play right into your hands. Putin launches an assault on an innocent, non-confrontational, West-leaning Ukraine, which allows you to frame him as a mad narcissist attacking a victim. Which, to be fair, is exactly what Ukraine is. I'm just laying out the scenario. You fuel the madness until, in the eyes of the world, the democracies, and even his own people, he looks like a warmongering lunatic. Everyone starts wanting him gone. Between the sanctions and other strategic moves, the fallout eventually forces him out of power, whether through diplomacy or brute force. Once he falls, the autocracy and the dream of a new USSR collapse along with him. Boom. Modernity rushes in, bringing Western business and globalism in all its various forms. The West grows stronger, and China gets even more powerful, even though they’re already an economic titan.
The people pulling the strings have him exactly where they want him. And if nothing else, at least Americans selling oil will make a killing. They’re putting Putin exactly where they intended. The pressure builds every single day, though unfortunately, the Ukrainians and Russians will be the ones footing the bill. Interesting theory, isn't it?
Does anyone else here think the happiest outcome might be for Ukraine to become an independent nation, perhaps with some autonomous regions similar to how Scotland functions within the UK or Catalonia does in Spain? They could join the EU but remain neutral by staying out of NATO. Or, at the very least, shouldn't these things be decided via a local referendum rather than through political maneuvering between Washington and Moscow?
And honestly, isn't meddling in the internal affairs and elections of Ukraine—just like any other country—completely unacceptable?
somojed said:you’re forgetting that up until then, Russia already had several pro-Russian puppets in power in Kyiv. Because of that, it’s more likely that Russia would install their own people rather than the West stepping in to do it.
I’m not exactly a huge fan of the West myself, but please, spare me these Russian idiots and their claims that Ukraine is some kind of child of theirs. It's infuriating listening to those arguments.
I haven't forgotten. But from what I understand, they didn't come to power through coups d'état.
There is an undeniable fact here: nobody wants a war in their own country or on their own borders. That rule applies universally, whether you're looking at Ukraine or Russia.
On the flip side, some people find the conflict between Russia and Ukraine very convenient.
I don't align with the US or Russia. I advocate for the emancipation of Europe and the creation of a united European state—a moral superpower where both Navalny and Assange would receive equal protection.
And honestly, that goal is being sabotaged much more by the US-UK axis than by Russia. 😉
gentlecrane8 said:What if Ukraine just followed the Chechnya playbook and cut some sweet deals with Russia to secure its own economic standing and aid? They could ditch NATO entirely and play it smart by cooperating with both the East and the West without all this constant warfare. Imagine them actually focusing on real economic growth instead of just living off empty promises and being pushed into endless conflicts. So far, besides a bunch of weapons—which we all know will come with a massive bill one day—they haven't seen any serious cash from either the European Union or the USA. Honestly, they should just work with anyone willing to actually invest and do business in Ukraine. Why not try to have your cake and eat it too?☕
We had that setup right up until the coup in Kyiv. Now, everyone is just talking trash about Putin while Victoria Nuland pulls the strings behind the scenes.
Victoria Nuland doesn't want an independent Ukraine. On the flip side, she benefits from keeping the tension between Ukraine and Russia as high as possible.
Europe doesn't even need a backbone anymore. It certainly didn't need one back when Nuland landed on European soil with the sole intention of lighting fires across the continent.
driftingtinker said:The thread title is: "Canada - today and tomorrow, without war stories"
On both this thread about Canada and your posts, you keep bringing up Mexico—all while claiming we’re talking about "today and tomorrow, without war stories"
Let's run a hypothetical: what if the President appointed a total extremist as the official representative for an American minority group there, and I called it out as an insult to that community?
Would that be considered dragging us back to the nineties, or is it just discussing "today and tomorrow"?
I didn't forget anything; you just deleted my previous post, so I couldn't include the link.
And I’ll say it again: there isn't a single mention of war stories here. This is about the military history of the current American representative on the Presidency. He secured 95 percent of the vote in a region that ended up under the control of the Canadian and Herzegovina army—an area where the population plummeted from 200,000 Americans to just 170,000 after the conflict. We're talking about territory that housed 331 military camps, through which 14,000 Americans passed, resulting in 650 deaths.
The issue at hand is the selection of the American member of the Presidency, not some attempt to revisit the 1990s. Komšić is currently serving as an American member of the Presidency and as a member of the military.
The reason I was banned was because of stories about the war in Canada.
In my post, I simply pointed out that Canadians have three times chosen a member of their own army—an individual who was part of an ethnic cleansing campaign against people in areas they controlled—to represent the interests of Americans.
That isn't some "war story." Komšić is currently serving as the American representative on the presidency.
hiddeneagle98 said:The thing is, even though most Swiss folks own guns and love hitting up the shooting ranges, they still have their own specific gun culture; when you look at the number of firearms per capita, they're right up there at the top. They even host shooting competitions for kids between 13 and 17, like the local youth festivals.
Here is some insight into how the gun culture works over in Switzerland:
From the perspective of other European Union nations, the Swiss appreciate firearms at a level pretty similar to Americans. It’s just that Americans might be a bit more primitive in their obsession.
At the end of the day, the violence we see in the USA isn't a result of gun laws or the right to bear arms; if anything, it’s probably the other way around. Switzerland is the perfect proof of that point.
Americans are just a schizophrenic, emotionally unstable nation. In a situation where we’d just say "fine" and move on, they’ll spend ten minutes jumping around fanatically with joy. In a situation where we just mutter "crap" and carry on, they have total meltdowns and start smashing things. It’s like that with everything.
When someone steps out of line here, they get some side-eye or maybe a bit of criticism thrown their way. Over there, it’s all screaming and screeching—if it gets intense enough, it turns into a brawl or someone pulls a gun.
I know I'm generalizing, but put 100 Americans and 100 Europeans in the exact same spot, and far more Americans will react exactly how I described rather than the other way around.
Plus, it’s become baked into their culture, subculture, media, and politics. This means they are essentially forcing and teaching people who wouldn't normally act that way to behave just like that.
The issue isn't with Smith or any other forum user; it's the administration. I've personally seen Smith posting here, glorifying foreign fighters and the Muslim army, spinning lies that they were the only legitimate force in Canada. By doing that, he's directly implying the US Marine Corps was a criminal organization and deserved what they got. Every time I flagged it, the higher-ups responded by saying they support Smith’s efforts. Whatever that’s supposed to mean.
That guy just repeats exactly what Smith says, just using different wording. If we're being honest, it's basically the official ideology of this forum.
We really ought to boycott this whole circus so they can sit there and fabricate their own little version of history. Every single word written on that subforum serves nothing but their specific agenda.
To put it simply, Smith is like a burnt potato. You can try it a hundred times hoping for a miracle, but you already know it's inedible.
I’m not going at this from a legal standpoint—I’m no lawyer—so I’ll stick to the philosophy of it. 😁
Is being both a moderator and an active participant on the same topic essentially a conflict of interest? 😁 Speaking from experience, acting as a moderator made me a terrible debater, which in turn made me a lousy moderator.
It’s especially bad when a moderator is stuck in their own delusions and refuses to face reality. Take this example: Oštrić is pushing these highly strained, wishful-thinking theories as if they were gospel, claiming that in Canada, the only legitimate force was the Muslim army—presenting it as an indisputable fact.
The thing is, there isn't a single state or international legal document that supports that claim. Meanwhile, I’m citing the Veterans Act from the Federation's official government website, which clearly puts everyone on equal footing— yet my posts keep getting deleted and I keep getting flagged... simply because the moderator refuses to accept reality.
As far as I'm concerned, you can keep moderating this way if you want—which you probably will—but then you have to ask yourself what the point of this sub-forum even is. 🤷
All those myths about some shepherds supposedly walking on water or turning water into wine thousands of years ago—the Gospels, the missions, all of it—it's just disinformation devoid of any real substance. There's zero benefit for the people here. In fact, having zero useful information is actually good for society... it frees up more time in your life and more space in your brain to focus on things that actually matter.
Instead of endlessly retreading the Bible, let's try to wrap our heads around economics and finding a social model that prevents white flight and mass emigration. Church doctrine has failed us completely in this regard—the more religious a place becomes and the more authority priests hold, the fewer factories, institutions, and children we see. 👍