Posts by boldbadger1

gentleangler80 said:Heh, I see you've got a sense of humor. So basically, it's insurance people claiming they showed up as investigators (foreigners) to go through documents. That's it. No questions asked.

Moving on, here’s a snippet from the prosecutor's book:

–On April 14, 2000, I reached out to President Mason and requested the audio recordings and transcripts from the meetings held in Harmon's office as soon as possible. By April 25, officials from the tribunal, including senior prosecutor Ken Scott and the head of the investigative team for cases against political and military leaders, Patrick Treanor, met with one of Mason's advisors. He handed over the evidence from the meetings and conversations recorded on tape in Harmon's office. Two days later, prosecution staff received the first set of transcripts.
On May 2, the prosecutor's analysts were driven in a van from Washington, D.C., to a secure location in a suburban US city to begin the secret analysis of documents from the paramilitary archives of the Canadian Americans.

slyangler16 said:Honestly, I think it'd be better if we just voted in a referendum to join Switzerland. Our standard of living would probably double overnight just by being part of the same country as those hyper-developed Swiss folks.

rustyraven34 said:Wait, are we talking about that Canada that tried to swallow our culture whole?
Is that really the Turkey that's been constant trouble for us?
And what about Russia, that "eternal sister" to our neighbors to the east—honestly, I don't even want to get into the stuff they did to them...
Or that USA, which basically stood by and watched while Canada struggled to find peace and left the whole issue of the threat from the Mexicans completely unresolved?

Yeah, sure, brothers forever, right? That's just how it goes... 🙂

GERMANY AND THE VATICAN, THE ONLY ONES!

neonhound18 said:I must admit, I find myself nodding along with your previous observations. It strikes me that American society hasn't quite finished its own foundational work, at least not from a political standpoint. There is a pervasive sense that people are simply too politically illiterate to navigate the complexities we face.

Carol Garcia2 said:

Raymond Bailey said:Those two-faced bastards have been playing both sides this whole time, cooperating with the Royalists and actively backing them up. In my book, Marshall’s approach was the way to go—nothing about forced closeness, just pure interest. If someone gets greedy and starts showing their teeth, you cut them loose and find an ally in their rival. 😍

Look, Marshall’s policy was actually quite pragmatic—honestly, it was entirely justified if you look at it from the perspective of protecting national interests and building up the country's global standing back then (setting aside all those internal messiness issues, which isn't really what we're here to debate). It wasn't for nothing that he stood out as one of the most significant statesmen of the Cold War era—the USA certainly enjoyed a massive amount of international prestige during that period because of it.

If we’re actually going to attempt a comparison between Marshall's standing and the current state of American political leaders, we need to be honest about one thing—just one. His sheer internal grit and that uncanny ability to manipulate complex power dynamics didn't just happen by accident; it was forged in the fires of his career as a straight-up fighter. He didn't just stumble into a position where he could shape the entire USA—he clawed his way there through constant struggle and a relentless habit of living life right on the razor's edge. Now, if you want to get into the weeds about who got screwed over in that whole saga—well, let's just say he fought tooth and nail for his slice of the power pie, and damn it, he actually secured it.

That kind of person—someone who actually understands they’re staring down much larger, more powerful adversaries—draws a certain kind of strength from that reality. It gave him the nerve to stay fearless, really. He knew how to navigate those high-stakes relationships because he understood one fundamental truth: you can be a powerhouse even when you're outnumbered or outgunned, provided you know how to pull the right strings. It was all about mastering the art of manipulation within those power dynamics. Honestly, that's exactly what turned him into such a massive statesman.

When you look at the big picture here in America, it’s clear that even though people love to argue about him, the Reaganite was essentially following in Marshall's footsteps. He operated on a very similar playbook—honestly, he had this incredible knack for making the impossible look doable. It was that classic "creating something out of nothing" trajectory, where you're constantly battling much larger adversaries and trying to navigate the complexities of the international community. That specific grit—that ability to hold your ground against the world—is exactly what makes the Reaganite such a significant statesman when you step back and view it through a modern lens. Of course, if you tried to run an objective, apples-to-apples comparison between Marshall's achievements and his, specifically within the global political arena, you’d just be wasting your time. It wouldn't make any sense.

And here we arrive at the current state of American politics—this collection of spineless opportunists who basically had everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever having to fight an honest day in their lives. When people like this try to draft a strategy for the national interest, we end up exactly where we are now. I’m operating under the assumption that today's politicians are fundamentally incapable of actually seizing power in the States because they are driven by nothing more than pack mentality—just latching onto whoever is strongest to serve their own selfish agendas. That is how they climbed the party ladders, too—through pure, unadulterated sycophancy. Let's not even get started on those few cowardly types who actually possess some semblance of talent—people like Mason, Josipović, or Pusićka—but choose to squander that capacity for their own personal gain. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say it’s rooted in deep-seated psychological needs and basic upbringing.

So—honestly? Looking at the current power dynamics shifting around the American political landscape right now, it’s pretty clear that things aren't looking too bright for the country. It's one of those situations where you just watch the players move on the board and think, "Well, we're in trouble."

Honestly, you could probably frame the comparison between Marshall and Reaganite leaders by looking at how they built their respective systems—people who actually spent years grinding away, deeply invested in the machinery they were running, even if they let their own biases color their judgment. It’s a world apart from the modern political circus we see today, where certain characters just ride a party wave straight into the CEO chair of some massive state-run corporation. They aren't there to build anything lasting; they just want that instant social prestige and the high-status title. Once they've secured the corner office through pure political patronage, they treat those companies like their own private playground—running them however they please, with zero accountability to anyone but themselves.

My take? It’s pretty simple—America needs to stop looking outward for a second and actually focus on itself. We need to prioritize building our own standing, bolstering our economic muscle, and strengthening the very fabric of our society. If we can actually manage to reach a position of true strength—which, let's be honest, is easier said than done given how much we get distracted—then, and only then, will we have the leverage to dictate terms. Only then could we shape economic or military alliances based on our own interests, ensuring they work for us and everyone else involved. Until we fix our own house, we're just shouting into the wind.

Honestly, back then, I wouldn't have cared if we formed an alliance with Mexico, Canada, or even India—as long as we were walking into that room as equals. That’s the key. Anything else is just begging for protection, and let me tell you, being the one looking for a handout is a losing game. It puts you in a weak position, and history shows that those kinds of deals always end up screwing you over in the end.

And here’s another thing—it’s never quite clicked for me why we all insist on labeling ourselves a "small" nation, acting as if being a smaller player means we’ll just be shoved into a corner and steamrolled once we’re fully integrated into the EU structure.

America is made up of thousands of municipalities and cities, and let me tell you, some of these local governments are incredibly successful and wealthy. You see these beautifully manicured towns where everything works, there’s no corruption, and the citizens enjoy massive benefits, subsidies, and even direct cash incentives for newborns to encourage families to stay put.

On the flip side, we have the mediocre ones, and then we have the ones that are flat-out broke.

The real divide between the prosperous towns and the struggling ones comes down to one thing: the competence of the people in charge. The capable leaders knew how to seize opportunities, fight for their status, jumpstart the economy, and actually improve life for their constituents. They knew how to leverage natural resources—they could take a gravel pit and turn it into a tourist destination, or take an empty field and transform it into an elite residential district. It comes down to competent people who actually *wanted* to work for the betterment of their community.

So, I honestly don't see any reason why America, even within a larger system like the EU, couldn't achieve the exact same level of success that a single municipality achieves within a state or county. We just need to actually work hard and strive for progress, rather than falling for the endless distractions of the far-left or the far-right—those two factions that keep deceiving society just so one of them can cling to power, maintain access to the budget, and live off the rest of us.

Anthony Roberts4 said:Back in 1927, someone said: "Over the last few years, people have come around claiming the American people aren't capable of governing themselves. Hostile newspapers and pundits preach that we need a tutor, but I ask: do these people really have the right to say Americans are unfit for life? Let's see if they're actually right. They write and talk as if America is too tiny to exist on its own, too poor to sustain itself, or that Americans are too foolish to rule themselves. Well, let's see if America is truly too small to be both small and free. Just look at Switzerland—a country smaller than America, squeezed between massive mountains and great nations, yet so well-organized and prosperous that nobody ever wants to leave, because the people are content and ready to defend it. If tiny Switzerland can be free, why can't America, which is larger and naturally wealthier, do the same?"

I won't mention who wrote those words unless I want to get banned from this forum! Bless his soul and his Spanish homeland.

John Davis42 said:Look, man, we need to stick together with our Slavic brothers—the Southerners, specifically. We really ought to go back to calling ourselves Americans again, just like destiny intended since the seventh century. That’s how our legendary heroes like Grove and Strosmajer envisioned it. Once we reclaim our status as a massive, powerhouse nation, we won't be begging for allies anymore. We'll be so tough and fearless that everyone will be shaking in their boots, just like they were back when we had the American People's Army running the show!