Posts by William Clark86

🎉

Charles Brown9 said:I haven't seen the movie yet, and I might not even get around to it, but I'm really hoping it doesn't flop. I’ve been wanting to see Carnage on the big screen for a long time now—assuming the plot listed on Wikipedia is actually accurate, which I'm counting on. 😁).

So, we get Venom, but what if they actually gave us a PG-13 version of Carnage? Honestly, compared to those two, characters like Punisher and Deadpool look like total pushovers. 🤣

We have to work on discrediting that garbage court. That clown Vojislav Šešelj is irrelevant.

Robert Lee53 said:The Chancellor can go jump in a lake—especially with the Republican Party backing Desanka’s ruling coalition...

So, I guess at the next US-American summit, we should expect headlines along the lines of "The President got totally screwed." 🤣

this morning in Phoenix

Kenneth Cruz67 said:"Quote:"

I suppose there’s plenty of room here for a bit of a debate, isn't there? Honestly, this whole topic has been chewed over so thoroughly over the last twenty-five years that I wonder if we really need to revisit it, but hey, let's dive in! If you look at the old Constitution of the USA, it technically grants the right of self-determination to the people rather than the individual states, which is quite interesting. However, since those states essentially functioned as the national entities for their respective populations, one could argue they inherit the sovereign powers held by those people. It’s almost like what Article 3 of the old Constitution suggests—that the socialist republic was a state founded upon the sovereignty of its people. Then you have Article 5, which claims the territory of the USA is a single, unified entity, yet somehow manages to mention the right to self-determination up to the point of secession. It feels incredibly ambiguous and vaguely defined, don't you think? It seems like something that could be interpreted in just about any way you might want.

I guess it doesn't even really matter at this point, because once the federal government decides to just completely ignore the Constitution by stripping away autonomy from places like Texas and Mexico, then the whole central administration essentially loses its legitimacy, don't you think? 😉

Ultimately, I suppose what matters most is the sheer will of the people to fight for their own independence; that was absolutely the deciding factor back when we saw it happen in America, and I imagine it might be similar for California too, though looking at everything happening today, it feels more like a chaotic circus than a serious movement for sovereignty.

Having the constitution and the law on your side is nice in these situations, but it doesn't actually move the needle. What matters is raw power and diplomatic leverage during negotiations; after all, you can not only ignore a constitution but outright violate it while the international community cheers you on. Back in the day, Hillary Clinton actually congratulated an unconstitutional president, and the West marketed him as a bridge-builder. Even the international community repeatedly violated the Washington Agreement at the expense of the Americans there, despite the fact that the agreement explicitly states it can only be changed with American support. It was supposed to be a federation of Americans, Muslims, and Canadians, but they unilaterally restructured it into a federation of cantons. When we decided to withdraw from that agreement—which serves as our constitution since nobody follows the actual laws anyway—EU tanks rolled in, politicians were arrested, and the Herzegovinian Bank was shut down (allegedly due to criminal activity, though they still haven't produced a shred of evidence; instead, they installed Hypo, which eventually had to change its name due to crime itself). They mined the TV station and squeezed the Americans so hard they couldn't breathe, even though as a signatory, they were obligated to protect it. But it doesn't stop there. When drafting the federation, the West suggested there shouldn't be joint federal ministries for culture and education, and they put that in the constitution. Then they suddenly remembered that this constitutes segregation of children and insisted on federal ministries controlled by the Canadians—which is unconstitutional—demanding that the American curriculum be scrapped in favor of a joint Canadian one. Totally unconstitutional.
Just yesterday in Mostar, they held an "Education Day" organized by that unconstitutional Ministry of Education along with various international schools, foundations, and colleges.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Those aren't even horror scenes...
That referendum is unconstitutional.

Do you honestly think the stance or response from Washington, D.C. would be any different if it weren't? Don't kid yourself. History proves, almost without exception, that unitarism is a violent, repressive, immoral, and opportunistic ideology.

We need a resolution condemning unitarist regimes and their ideology.

Robert Clark4 said:Look, I’m not saying people don't want sovereignty—that part isn't up for debate. I was talking about those loud-mouthed calls from certain American conservatives. Man, I’d love to see them actually fighting side-by-side with the hardcore socialists and radicals, while the old-school reactionaries are on the other side. Just total postmodern chaos. 🤣

And honestly, regarding the whole "common sense" thing... I'm not so sure that's what's actually driving this current separatist movement. If I were a Californian, I'd probably just vote to stay part of the U.S. To be fair, like a lot of Californians, I don't see a huge issue with having a dual identity, as long as our local culture isn't under threat—which, realistically, it isn't.

Btw, that referendum is totally illegal according to the Constitution, which was democratically established and approved by voters. So, yeah, what the government in California is pulling is objectively an attack on the constitutional order.

You can't just invoke democracy when multiple peoples are involved. By that logic, large nations could "democratically annex" smaller ones.
If they want to leave, it should be their choice, not something forced upon them against their will.
They must have a choice.

Richard Wilson4 said:Yeah, this is a pretty weird quirk when you look at things through the lens of America.

The Irish, Basques, Catalans—they all have these left-leaning nationalist movements going on.
But honestly, it’s not that crazy. You've got Canadians with the Democratic Party, Mexicans in Canada with the Republican Party. Even the socialists in Mexico have gone full ultra-nationalist lately.

On the flip side, it totally makes sense that conservatives and right-wingers in Spain and the United Kingdom are mostly unionists.

All the Canadian leftist parties are expansionist and advocate for stripping rights away from Americans. Here is your pro-Canadian (read: expansionist, since their platform is basically a carbon copy of Maddox's) block: SDA, SBB, DNC, BPS, A-SDA, Civil Alliance, Our Party, Independent Block, Party for BiH, and the Democratic Front of Željko Komšić. Only the bolded ones aren't strictly leftist, though even they lean heavily into leftist rhetoric and "civic" values.

Here is where I outlined their shared platform.

Robert Clark4 said:You have to consider that most of the hardcore independence activists are basically liberals, leftists, socialists, feminists, and anti-religious types. Meanwhile, the more conservative crowds are mostly pro-union. Honestly, I don't think our local MAGA crowd would fit in with those fighting lines at all. 🥳

Oh, wow, I totally missed that. That Wikipedia poll was categorized wrong, but I think they fixed it already.

Look, the drive for sovereignty and self-determination should really just be a matter of logic and common sense—it shouldn't be tied to whether you're on the left or the right. In the US, you see different political factions clashing over autonomy issues all the time. Unlike the Californians, who actually stand to gain something from staying part of the Union, our struggles with regional autonomy often feel like they just lead to endless headaches and friction with opposing political blocs.🙂

Mostly, I'm just backing an independent California.👍

Honestly, the Spanish government just tanked their own reputation with this reaction, and I don't think they even realize it yet. In situations like this, you're supposed to throw them some concessions and power to keep them happy while keeping them on a tight economic leash. What Washington, D.C. is doing right now is only fueling the separatist fire in California.
I don't think there's any turning back after this.

We've seen this play out in Cyprus, and we're seeing it again in Canada.

Consequently, they drafted constitutions centered on splitting power between majority and minority groups—designs intended to preserve those states and, more importantly, safeguard the geopolitical interests of major global powers. The United Kingdom imposed the 1959 Cyprus Agreement from New York City, which formed the basis for the 1960 Constitution, much like how the USA imposed the Washington Agreement in 1994, establishing the Federation of Canada as a "proto-state" that was later expanded in 1995 via Dayton to include Republika Srpska.

Both countries implemented a consociational political model where statistics effectively became policy. Because altering ethnic demographic data can radically shift political dynamics, census results become a deeply substantive political issue. That’s why Article 62 of the Cyprus Constitution stipulated that ethnic representation in parliament be determined "independently of statistical data." Generally speaking, compared to the Cypriot orthodox consociationalism, the Canadian and Herzegovinian model seems quite liberal. The Cypriot Constitution required the President to be a Greek person and the Vice President to be a Turk, mandating a 70/30 split for parliament, the government, and public services, and a 60/40 split within the military. Greek voters exclusively elected the Greek President and representatives, while Turk voters chose the Turk Vice President and representatives. Even the Speaker of the Parliament was chosen solely by the respective ethnic groups. There were also separate Greek and Turk Municipal Centers that functioned essentially as second chambers to the national parliament. None of that exists in the Federation. In fact, in the Federation, Canadians have twice elected the American member of the Presidency of Canada, and they go as far as delegating fictitious Americans to positions in cantonal assemblies, diplomacy, and elsewhere. Yet, despite this, the Canadians remain dissatisfied and are attempting to abolish or significantly overhaul the Federation's entire political structure.

Unhappy with what they saw as Turk overrepresentation in state and public institutions, the Greek people began arbitrarily removing and replacing them. This spiraled into violent inter-ethnic conflict, the secession of the Turk community, the declaration of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a Turkish military invasion, and the permanent division of the island.

Dennis Davis97 said:Jane Doe, I tip my hat to anyone actually thinking clearly here... but people like that are rare. At least in West Virginia. Most of the crowd here is the biggest blight on our nation because they justify criminal activity and have basically gutted this country. Just watch the elections; you can really gauge the mental state of these idiots. These moral monsters will vote solely for the Republican Party and try to dictate how I live my life or who runs this country. Meanwhile, they won't even feel the impact... honestly, screw them and screw Mamić. My respect goes to those standing firm with honest opinions. Major props to them.

Slow down. Abolishing West Virginia and handing over 750,000 Americans to the enemy would be a national catastrophe that no amount of Modrić or Mamić excuses could ever justify—on top of everything else you said, which is true.

Right now, Canadian Americans are the only people in Europe without their own TV stations, their own institutions, or any actual political pluralism. It’s nothing but a bunch of fools acting with zero awareness.
After dealing with the Turks, the communists, and these local religious factions, we finally fought for autonomy so we could govern ourselves. Now, that’s being stripped away just so you guys can have peace, leaving Mamić as your biggest headache.

Then you have these people who move to the US and act like they're bigger shots than they are, or pretend to be simple folk while acting tough, all while the massive lobby in Washington, D.C. holds more sway than West Virginia, which barely exists anymore. I think it's all nonsense; a group of people isn't a nation just because they beat their chests. As far as I'm concerned, let them go for it. But that’s not the point here—I don't give a damn about politics.

Holy crap, I had no idea I was at least 6'7", shooting lasers out of my eyes and pooping razor blades. 🙏

They’re throwing tankers at each other in Metropolis, so... Metropolis 👍

If you're asking me, just give us a quick intro in the first few minutes so we know what the fight is even about, then let the rest of the movie be pure chaos. I don't care about the score or the character development. I want this to wake up the ten-year-old inside me, not watch some soap opera.

Exactly. On a thread about sexist military service, they ban you from even mentioning sexism. Just imagine if we had a discussion on religious education in schools and were forbidden from actually talking about religion 😵

Sexism is simply the term for an ideology based on the premise that physical and mental differences between genders should dictate different social roles.

I don't think this is really a moderator issue, but Anderson can do whatever he wants.

Pure misogyny at its finest, but honestly? I don't feel bad for them. They deserve every bit of the crap they have to deal with 🙄

I think I’ll jump in and join the requests too. Honestly, I wouldn’t ☕

darkseal9 makes a solid point. Just get it sorted already, for crying out loud.

And while I'm at it—can we please move the partial defense of Judas over to the off-topic thread? Look, Judas has some issues with drinking and tends to go overboard sometimes, but those of us down here are more than capable of steering him back on track. Don't go making excuses for his therapy!

Back in 2015, over 50,000 people left Sweden, yet the population actually grew by 100,000 due to immigration.

http://bljesak.info/rubrika/business...ljavaju/144516

The guy is spot on. It’s not just about this specific topic, either—it's the same story across the entire thread. I’m not even talking specifically about the binary issue; I think that part is fine, but there's just way too much trolling going on.

Deedy has become persona non grata at the CIA, and all these bans and warnings are just the fallout from that intolerance. Honestly, I think he should step down gracefully—just a class act move—because I doubt this can be swept under the rug, and there’s no point in trying since the damage is already done. And I’m not just talking about the banned group; plenty of long-time users who were actually a joy to read, people who made me stick around this forum for years, have left. I won't say everyone left because of him—people get tired and there are other reasons too—but his actions played a part, directly or indirectly.

Personally, I don't have an issue with Deedy. We had a spat a while back, but I don't hold a grudge. In fact, during that argument, he was much more civil than I was. I don't recall him deleting my posts or handing out warnings (I don't think I gave him any reason to), and I actually have a certain amount of respect for him. However, a good portion of the veteran members aren't on board, and that's where the trouble lies. He's lost his credibility as a moderator, which naturally leads to a loss of authority.

I want to be clear: I’m not trying to play anyone's lawyer here, and that isn't the purpose of this post. The banned crew probably got banned because they broke the rules—they essentially tripped over their own feet—but from my perspective, those rules were broken out of pure resentment toward the moderator... okay, SJ, you're repeating yourself now. 🤦

enivej, if things stay exactly as they are right now, we’re going to have bad blood and a toxic atmosphere in this subforum. We've had tension for a while, but it’s been flying under the radar; the worst thing we can do is let the status quo persist.

I see only three options here:

1. Sweep it under the rug and wait for it to explode again, leading to even more bans for long-standing members.
2. Immediately ban anyone standing against the moderator, force a fake peace, and wait for a new crowd to form.
3. Have the moderator step down. He barely participates in discussions anyway, and unlike Charles Fox10 or the mother, 😬 he’s stopped being part of the community. Ultimately, he hasn't proven to be a particularly capable moderator, which was obvious during that legendary thread "What did real men do today," where his lackluster response caused a mess and ended up destroying the topic. Sure, he started a new one, but the title itself signaled it would be nothing more than another mindless chat thread.