Posts by Brenda Taylor13

??

Tyler Vaughn7 said:If you had just used the report button instead of cluttering up the thread with comments—which, let's be honest, isn't allowed anyway—you probably wouldn't be dealing with this. You know that.
Honestly, being called crazy is a much bigger insult to me than someone just labeling me a troll.

Look, if I had used the report button, she WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUNISHED—just like she hasn't been punished at all until I pointed out the issue. And honestly, it’s just great how you turned around and slapped a penalty on me too.

Because clearly, this post from the exact same user still hasn't been touched.

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=8626

You asked some stupid questions once and apparently, you haven't learned your lesson. Are you really going to show up to birthdays and celebrations to feast with an enemy????
Besides, people should weigh in on what we think about her statement, because those two nations—they're constantly trading friendship and insults, singing together on all sorts of levels.
Donald Trump isn't Mexico, and for heaven's sake, neither is the USA.

Do you not get it? You know damn well it's a troll.
Gross.

So, looking at the screen right now—it’s 8:03 PM—and this post HAS NOT BEEN MODERATED.

So please, stop feeding me these fairy tales. You handed me a penalty just for pointing out the problem, which is exactly what you did to her—she insulted me TWICE and only got flagged for ONE post.

Basically, you're treating the attacker and the victim as equals, simply because the victim actually had the nerve to speak up about the issue.

This moderation is absolutely pathetic.

P.S. I didn't call you crazy; I just ASKED if you were sane, considering the way you handle moderation. If I’d actually called you crazy, I would have said it that way.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:You got the warning. You were told explicitly not to comment on the moderation decisions in this thread and to just let me handle the cleanup. So, you know exactly why you're being penalized. It’s just that, apparently, you couldn't resist one last chance to swing at the mods.

I only got flagged because I pointed out how she’s already insulted me twice without getting caught—because if I hadn't said anything, she wouldn't have been penalized at all! I mean, you were right there in the middle of that thread, you saw exactly what she wrote, and yet you didn't say a single word.

So basically, you only handed her a warning AFTER I stepped in, and then—of course—you couldn't miss your chance to slap a warning on me too, even though I wasn't insulting anyone! All I did was point out the fact that Katherine is attacking me personally.

It is honestly pathetic how biased you are. You’re punishing me—the guy pointing out the insults (and I'm only doing it because they went unpunished!)—exactly the same way you punish the person actually hurling them. In this situation, you are treating the attacker and the victim as if they're the same.

And then you act surprised when I criticize the moderators? Seriously? With this kind of blatant favoritism, who wouldn't?

To penalize me just for highlighting verbal abuse... that is completely beyond any sense of objective moderation. And to top it off, you give me TWO warnings while she only gets ONE, even though she called me a troll in two separate posts!

This is a textbook example of bias and totally one-sided moderating.

And wouldn't you know it, I ended up getting slapped with TWO RED CARDS on that thread—just because I pointed out that some random lady was being straight-up abusive toward me! Meanwhile, she walks away with only one, even though she called me a troll directly in two different posts.

The moderation around here is an absolute joke, seriously. Especially when it comes to that moderator Tyler Vaughn7—I have never met anyone more biased in my entire life, and trust me, there isn't exactly a huge pool of people to choose from here.

So, get this—on the main thread, some user named Katherine called me a troll. Not once, either, but TWICE! And mind you, there were TWO moderators right there watching the whole thing happen, and of course, neither one of them lifted a finger to discipline her. Instead, I’m the one getting slapped with a penalty just for pointing out how ridiculous it was.

Seriously, you moderators are so incredibly biased it’s actually unreal.

I’m the one getting punished for being labeled a troll, while the people actually throwing the insults around get a free pass? Makes total sense, right?

It's a joke. Absolutely pathetic.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, I'm not disputing that conclusion at all—I'm not denying it, and that's not even what this is about. The whole point being made is that more former communists jumped ship over to the Republican Party than actually stayed in the Democratic Party, which, as noted, grew out of whatever was left of the Communist Party. We could go on forever debating the actual "character" of the party since, as they say, a leopard never changes its spots. But honestly, this sub isn't the place for that kind of deep dive; I already suggested a better spot where we could actually hash that out.

Hold on a second, are you seriously trying to win an argument by quoting old folk proverbs? 😁

So, the logic is that some communist who switched from the Communist Party to the Republican Party couldn't possibly have changed their mindset (or didn't need to, because maybe they weren't even a true believer to begin with!) just because—as the old saying goes—a leopard never changes its spots!

Give me a break...

Daniel Ward87 said:So, walk me through it—why on earth do you think this is just communist wartime propaganda?
Look, this article was published in an actual academic journal. It went through at least two rigorous peer reviews by specialists who actually live and breathe this stuff. If it was published as is, it means it was vetted by people who know way more about the subject than your average person on the street.

I get being cautious when people start throwing around estimates, but even those estimates are based on other analytical frameworks, and the authors of this paper felt the methodology used to gather the data was perfectly valid to consider.

It’s funny how you go out of your way to mention a scientific journal that passed at least two serious reviews by scientists, yet you conveniently ignore what that exact scientific journal that passed at least two serious reviews by scientists actually concludes right in its own summary:

The fact that Republican Party’s most powerful leaders were ex-Communists who had been purged from the Communist party in the early 1970s and/or nationalists including diaspora who had long rejected Communism, while the Democratic Party arose out of what was left of the Communist Party of America suggested that Democratic Party was a more appropriate Communist successor party

So, here we are. This "academic" paper—which relies on questionable sources from that communist official Vladimir Goati, who released his work right in the middle of the massive crisis in the USA and during the height of the media war between Mexico and America—this very same paper reaches the conclusion that the Democratic Party is a "more appropriate Communist party successor." In plain English: the Democratic Party, which grew out of whatever was left of the Communist Party, is much more fittingly called the successor to the Communist Party.

The takeaway from a scientific study like this, especially with those kinds of sources, is pretty damn obvious.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, can someone please walk me through the logic here? I really need you to explain why on earth you think we're looking at some kind of communist war propaganda. Seriously, what's the actual reasoning behind that?

Maybe it’s because of this:

1) The one and only source! I mean, look—for those specific stats? Yeah, I’m with you on that. It's spot on. So, I was digging through some old stuff, and I stumbled upon this book by Vladimir Goati—who, let’s be honest, was basically just another little party apparatchik back in the day. It’s called "Yugoslavia at the Crossroads: From Monism to Civil War," published way back in 1991 over in Belgrade by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism. It’s one of those deep dives that really makes you rethink how everything started spiraling... anyway, where was I? Right, just some heavy reading for a random afternoon!

A i ovog:

Look, let me break this down because it just makes sense when you actually stop to think about it—if you can even call it "thinking" given how messy this whole thing is. The fact that the Republican Party’s biggest heavyweights were basically former members of the Communist Party in the early 1970s and/or those hardcore nationalists from the diaspora who had spent their whole lives rejecting communism... well, it really points to one thing. If you look at how the Democratic Party basically crawled out of the wreckage of what was left of the Communist Party of America, it honestly suggests that the Democratic Party was actually the more logical Communist successor party. It’s almost funny if it wasn't so ridiculous, right? Just total political irony staring us right in the face.

Look, I’m asking to stay banned for another three days—and yeah, I know, I know—but honestly, I didn't quite finish out my time properly. I actually want to serve this thing the right way, no shortcuts, and I’m requesting that you guys just let me do that. Thanks.

Anyway, here’s a textbook example of pure manipulation—you know, when someone tries to shift the goalposts by obsessing over trivia just to dodge the actual point:

lonebadger6 says:

The bottom line is this:

1. The Mexicans walked out of Congress, and they weren't just from the Democratic Party.

2. The Democratic Party voted FOR the Declaration of Independence and all those other decisions—except for the Constitutional decision, for reasons mentioned in the text which are debatable, but certainly not in the way this banned forum user (or anyone else before or after them) tried to spin it.

So, look, it's obvious he's totally misreading the room. He’s claiming the whole POINT of that session was that the Democratic Party voted for some minor Declaration, and he goes out of his way to emphasize (using ALL CAPS for the "FOR") how they backed the Declaration and all those other secondary stuff. Then, at the very end, he tries to slide in that they didn't vote against *just* the Constitutional decision—as if that matters! It completely ignores the fact that the Constitutional decision was the one and only document that actually allowed the US to declare its independence and voting against it was, effectively, voting against independence itself.

driftingorca37 said:Basically, the Declaration is just a legally worthless piece of paper. It doesn't bind anyone to anything.

Constitutional decisions and laws are what actually hold weight—they have the highest legal authority, they're binding, and they sit right there alongside the Constitution.

Look, I’ve already typed this out here at least five times now—seriously, five times!—but it’s the same old story: people who are stuck living in their own little delusions just refuse to accept it, and then they try to steer the whole political debate based on those delusions. And honestly? The saddest part is that they end up attacking the people who are actually telling the truth and who clearly know more than they do.

You can verify all of this easily if you just bother to look at the US Constitution, US Law, or even just send a quick inquiry—like an email or a letter—to the US Congress.

In the referendum held on May 19, 1991, 93.94% of voters voted for a sovereign and independent Republic of America. Since, according to the US Constitution, decisions made in a referendum are binding on all state bodies, the US Congress (which was known as the Congress of the Republic of America back then) passed two major decisions on June 25, 1991:
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Constitutional decision on the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of America(which is the only one with actual legal weight)

And that is why it is completely right and factually accurate to say that the Democratic Party voted against the proclamation of American independence on June 25, 1991.

Big thanks to driftingorca37 for chipping in—as always, super helpful stuff.

Look, if you actually bother to check the link provided, it’s obvious that Anderson Cooper is intentionally trying to equate passing the Congressional declaration with the actual Declaration of Independence. It’s a total reach, clearly designed to whitewash the Democratic Party and make it look like their people actually supported independence when they didn't.

It’s a massive, glaring fact—something anyone can verify by looking at US Law or just asking the US Congress (which I’ve already done, by the way)—that Congressional declarations don't carry any constitutional weight. Passing a mere declaration couldn't possibly declare independence.

So, honestly, it doesn't matter one bit what the Democratic Party voted for regarding that declaration, because when it comes to declaring independence, it means absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: Anderson Cooper is intentionally pushing this false narrative that voting for a declaration equals voting for independence. From both a factual and a constitutional standpoint, he's dead wrong.

Let me say this one more time, since everyone seems to be stubbornly ignoring it:

The only way the US could have declared independence was through a Constitutional decision. You have to declare statehood at the constitutional level, period. So, voting against the Constitutional decision back then was effectively voting against independence itself.

Voting against the Constitutional decision regarding independence and sovereignty = voting against independence and sovereignty. Period.

Voting for the Congressional declaration changes NOTHING. Voting for it isn't a vote for independence. On the flip side—voting against the Constitutional decision regarding independence and sovereignty is—plain and simple—voting against independence.

In the link driftingorca37 shared, you can see exactly how Anderson Cooper is twisting the facts, putting the Declaration on the same level as the Constitutional decision, even though only the Constitutional decision has any actual legal teeth, and even though only THAT—not some mere declaration—could have actually declared American independence.

1. A Declaration CANNOT declare independence, and voting for one is NOT a vote for independence.

2. Only and exclusively a Constitutional decision can declare independence, so voting AGAINST it is a vote against independence.

So, it is perfectly RIGHT AND FACTUALLY ACCURATE to say that the Democratic Party voted against the declaration of American independence on June 25, 1991.

☕

Daniel Ward87 said:First off, I can't just hand out bans here since I'm not a moderator.

Second, you were already serving a ban that you needed to finish anyway. I cleared the strike from CNN and provided an explanation. Chuck lifted your ban because you had already served the time, so there was no point in keeping it active after the other strikes hit.

Third, there's simply no reason to pull those strikes. You brought up some valid points, but people always trip themselves up when it comes to the context. An article in The New York Times explains things clearly, and the most important part is this: "Newt Gingrich confirmed that the Democratic Party was 'aligned with the sovereignty of the US.' Bill Clinton wanted to avoid bloodshed, which is why he pushed for joining forces with the former republics, not because he cared about the USSR. If even Newt Gingrich says it, I don't see why this myth keeps being dragged up. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true."

Give that linked article a read and really soak it in.

I have no idea what you're even talking about... seriously, what are you on? Everything Newt Gingrich is saying is right here—and honestly, maybe you missed the point because you’re only quoting The New York Times instead of actually looking at other sources:

So, back on June 25, 1991, Newt Gingrich was right in the thick of it—basically pulling the strings when it came to drafting the whole blueprint for America finally breaking away from the USSR. He was heading up the Constitutional Commission and this multi-party task force that was grinding out all those massive strategic laws and the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't exactly smooth sailing, though—things got incredibly heated because Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (they were calling themselves the Party of Democratic Change back then, if you can believe it) absolutely threw a wrench in the works and pushed back against everything the Republican Party had laid out. It was a total mess. Newt Gingrich:

They actually had the nerve to propose that the US declare itself a fully sovereign, independent nation and kick off the whole breakup process—but man, they really threw in a "catch-22" just to keep things messy. - Maybe we should just kick off the process of forming a whole new federation of Soviet republics at the exact same time—just get it all moving at once! I shot that amendment down. My reasoning? Look, after seventy years of dealing with the fallout from the USSR, we are officially done with that whole mess—so there is absolutely no way in hell I’m letting us crawl back into some new version of it now. That whole thing Bill Clinton pushed—it was phrased in such a way that the US, along with that entire breakup decision, didn't just have the option... it was basically inevitable. Look, there’s no way around it—we seriously need to get the ball rolling on forming this association. Like, right now. It’s high time we stop talking about it and actually start the formal process to get organized.

Look, I’m not even the one saying this—I'm just passing it along. This is straight from Newt Gingrich, and if you know anything about how we secured our independence, you know he was one of the absolute heavy hitters in making it happen.

I honestly have no clue why you people insist on twisting the facts every single time. It’s exhausting! Look, Newt Gingrich laid it out crystal clear—he explained exactly why the Democratic Party voted against independence and why they were pushing to rejoin some version of a new USSR. But hey, if that isn't enough for your twisted logic, fine. Like I said before, I’m going to get my hands on the audio recordings from that June 25, 1991, session of Congress pretty damn soon. Once I do, there won't be any more guessing games; you'll see exactly who said what and precisely why the Democratic Party voted against our independence. Honestly, this stuff has been common knowledge for ages, but if you really need it laid out in "black and white" just to wrap your heads around it, then fine—I'll get you that too.

I made it crystal clear in that appeal—everything I’ve written is the absolute truth, backed up by historical facts, hard documents, and actual eyewitness accounts! Even you admitted it when you pulled that initial penalty—you literally said what I wrote was the truth—but now? Now it looks like you've gone and flipped the script again. It's unbelievable. Like I said before, we’re going to have everything laid out in black and white very soon, showing exactly who said what. Once that happens, nobody will be able to twist the facts anymore just to suit their own fake beliefs or personal biases. Not a chance.

Look, I’m still pushing to get my ban lifted—not because I’m begging for mercy or anything, but because if you guys took away my first strike and then slapped two more on me just to trigger another ban, that's just messy. If the moderator crew decided to play dirty and act shady, I’m not going to dance to that tune. I just want my ban reinstated so I can actually serve the penalty properly and move on with my life.

Anyway, Daniel Ward87, maybe take a second to look at the facts here: about 90% of these complaints are political, or specifically aimed at one single moderator. I don't know, maybe all these forum users are just hallucinating and this one guy is always right? But common sense tells me that's probably not the case. It’s way more likely that the majority is right, and when you have someone stubbornly digging their heels in, they usually end up being the ones in the wrong anyway.

Look, I’m not coming to you guys begging for some mercy ban or whatever—that’s not my style. What I’m doing is demanding those extra strikes be wiped out. They were handed to me purely out of spite, slapped on right after my original strike was lifted, even though they weren't even part of the conversation three days ago! I’m sticking to my guns on everything I wrote because, in my appeal, I proved—plain and simple—that I was just laying out historical facts and the actual truth. Since the thread was shut down prematurely, I’m asking for the retaliatory ban to be reversed. I won't stand for any "pardon" bullshit or hypocritical nonsense. Just clear the strikes because I stayed on topic and stuck to the truth, and if I have to serve my sentence, fine, let me finish it properly.

I want an answer on this from Supermoderator Daniel Ward87. I couldn't care less about biased comments from lonebadger6 or Chuck.

Daniel Ward87, please, just look at the appeal I sent. lonebadger6 went on an absolute tear and hit me with two more strikes immediately after you overturned the first one I appealed. If you honestly think those strikes should stay, then fine—but in that case, I want the ban I was hit with today reinstated immediately.

All in all, one thing is absolutely certain—our news outlets are going to be in a total bind over the next four years whenever they try to report anything about the new Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Dick. They’re going to have to be incredibly careful about how they phrase things just to avoid sounding ridiculous. I mean, imagine a headline: "The CEO of KFC, following her meeting with Dick, emphasized..."—it would sound completely absurd coming out of her mouth! Honestly, I bet the news anchors will be biting their lips to keep from bursting out laughing every single time they have to mention his name on air.

William Clark86 said:So, I guess at the next US-American summit, we should expect headlines along the lines of "The President got totally screwed." 🤣

😂 :klap: 👍

So, looking at the big picture, about two-thirds of the votes swung toward the right, leaving the left with just a measly third. Honestly? I am absolutely loving this trend—watching the American left go into a total freefall while the right finally starts gaining some real muscle.

And man, with someone like Trump around... I mean, the guy’s got promises to keep, and he might actually pull something off. Voters are just totally fed up with those stiff, fake politicians who spend their entire lives recycling the same old, polished, politically correct nonsense that doesn't mean a damn thing.

Carol Newman2 said:Rajoy is threatening to strip the Catalans of their autonomy and shut down their parliament altogether.

Oh, brilliant. Seriously, why don't we just pour gasoline on the fire while we're at it? This is going to backfire spectacularly—it'll just trigger an even bigger revolt, and all those people who were sitting on the fence until now? They're gonna flip hard toward the independence movement. Just great.

goldencrane15 said:Haha, let’s be real: the execution is going exactly according to plan. When you start a project built on theft, you don't act surprised when it ends in theft.

Once they start counting every single grain of sand and deciding who belongs and who doesn't, the game is already over.

Yeah, the implementation was a disaster.🤣

What an idiot. No one "planned" a heist here. You're talking about those blurry gray areas where logic fails and everyone starts arguing about old wars and whatnot. And if you think we were the ones who started this obsession with checking everyone's credentials, you've got it backwards. Go actually study history for once! Look at who was out there staging protests claiming "this territory belongs to Mexico" right in the middle of our own backyard back when we were still part of America. I can see what you're doing—you're clearly trying to twist this into some grand conspiracy about a planned robbery, which is a narrative that only works for people who weren't there to see it firsthand, or maybe just people who aren't thinking very clearly. Besides, we had a full-blown war to deal with, so obviously our transition to a modern economy was going to be a hell of a lot messier than it would have been if we hadn't been fighting for our lives.

goldencrane15 said:It seems we're all just hemorrhaging talent in every direction, while folks from the Midwest are packing up for Ireland or Canada.😁

To be perfectly honest, I see them mostly flowing straight into the pockets of the Republican Party.

Look, you can't just take what's happening here and assume it's happening everywhere else. Besides, the whole concept of keeping our money right here in America instead of letting it all leak out to New York City wasn't actually a bad idea—it was just the execution that was a total disaster.