Posts by Edward Perez64

wiredfalcon2 said:you see this kind of chaos in the men's Champions League finals too.

Exactly.

If US Soccer just admitted they’re basically running things by old-school rules, the whole mess would be solved in a heartbeat.

The first rule in the US Soccer handbook probably goes like this:

1. Women are only allowed to hold a spatula or a broom on the pitch! Chasing after a soccer ball is strictly forbidden! This way, women show they have some self-respect!

So, here's your chance—go ahead and write a new rulebook for US Soccer!😁🤦

Charles Roberts33 said:Soccer is nonsense, and women’s soccer is even worse. A woman who actually takes care of herself shouldn't be chasing a ball; she should be focusing on her children.

🙏🙏

It’s just a massive waste of money, throwing funds at organizing these pointless events.

Apparently, a woman's only allowed to hold a broom or a spatula, right? That's it!😲🤦

But hey, she can definitely run after guys with thicker wallets—that seems to be the only "sport" people around here actually care about.😁

Nobody cares about the wasted money or the effort involved, as long as they catch their prize.👍

And what is this video even trying to prove?🤔

You see scenes like this in men's soccer all the time.

If we're being real, almost any sport is pretty idiotic, and the logistics behind them are a total money pit. There, we finally agree on something. Especially with all these new disciplines being added to the Olympics while the traditional ones get pushed out.

Back in ancient Greece, women weren't even allowed to attend the Olympics.

Aaron Ward6 said:Major league teams are folding their B-teams because there's just no money in it... yet you insist on dumping cash into something that lacks any economic foundation from day one. That’s where the argument ends. Let's look at the reality here. We have men's soccer, and ninety percent of the people in the stands are men. So, why aren't women watching women's soccer? Is it because they'd rather spend their time obsessing over some guy like Joško Gvardiol? It’s quite simple. Nobody cares. Senior-level professional women's soccer is playing at the same level as fifteen-year-old boys. Why? Because those fifteen-year-old kids could dismantle those top-tier American women with ease. And don't even get me started on the financials. Now you want to force some second-division club that is barely keeping its head above water to shoulder the mandatory cost of running women's teams? Given how things work in the US, if we had women's clubs, would they be forced to maintain a men's side too? What then?

Just take a look at how we stack up on the FIFA rankings and everything becomes obvious. For instance, when you compare us to a place like Papua New Guinea, we’re basically rolling in cash. Plus, there's a massive difference between dumping money into the men's national team versus actually investing in the growth of women's soccer.

Look, these 15-year-olds aren't exactly "kids" anymore. Honestly, some of them are already bigger and stronger than I am, and I’m definitely not a small guy. So yeah, maybe they don't need to be playing in a different league entirely, but anyone making it into the top tier should at least be competing there. If there's an independent women's club out there, US Soccer really ought to step up with extra support if they manage to break into the first or second division.

Look, in certain sports, you just can't compare men and women on the same level. We’re physically built differently—unless we're talking about some ancient grandpa or grandma who hasn't got a clue what they're actually looking at.

If we’re actually following your logic here, we might as well just scrap women's tennis, handball, basketball, volleyball, and track altogether. Might as well call it a day.

I mean, if we're talking about where men and women could actually—and honestly should—compete in the same category, look at something like shooting. It’s purely technical, right? Just skill and precision. We've even seen some attempts at that kind of crossover in Formula 1.

There’s this one sport at the Olympics where men and women actually compete on a totally level playing field. Can you guess why? Well, we don't exactly have that kind of representation here in the States.

Even in chess, there’s still that weird divide, even though one of the Polgar sisters basically proved she can hold her own against any guy at the board.

Look, the bottom line is that US Soccer isn't doing a damn thing to invest in the growth of the women's game. And obviously, it’s not just about throwing money at the problem and expecting instant glory—results take time. We've already got the infrastructure in place; what we actually need is to upgrade the facilities with dedicated women's locker rooms and set aside specific funding to hire specialists who actually know how to coach women's teams. It's pretty obvious that training sessions shouldn't be carbon copies of the men's, and the style of play shouldn't be either, since the physical build is fundamentally different. There's a whole lot of technical stuff the experts need to master to really tailor their tactics to female physiology.

It’s honestly depressing looking at those FIFA rankings. We just can't seem to break into that top tier, which is wild when you realize there are plenty of countries with way lower GDP than ours sitting right above us. It really highlights how much we're failing to invest in growing the game. Honestly, US Soccer needs to step up and realize they've basically been running a club for men, ignoring everything else.

I wonder how many years it’ll take before the US actually climbs up that FIFA ranking based on how much they're pouring into the sport right now. Honestly, if you look at how we've been playing against those underdog teams from developing nations lately, it’s pretty obvious where things are headed. It feels like there aren't really any "easy" matches left in men's soccer anymore. Everyone's leveled up.

Look, just to wrap this up—you've got Iceland, a country with a population smaller than most mid-sized US cities, sitting at number 16 on the FIFA rankings. Honestly, that says everything you need to know about how US Soccer handles women's soccer development. It’s pretty telling.

It’s a simple math problem, really. Honestly, if we just put even five percent of what they dump into men's soccer toward the women's game, we'd be sitting pretty in the top 20 of the FIFA rankings. It’s all about that investment. If the team starts pulling off big wins and actually qualifies for a World Cup, the interest will skyrocket naturally—we just have to fund the grind first.

Everyone’s losing their minds over women's soccer lately. Honestly, the organizers of the World Cup are probably sweating bullets trying to keep up with this hype.

I was reading this piece about the mess with the national team and honestly, it’s just typical. You see these massive egos clashing and then wonder why things fall apart on the pitch. It feels like we’ve seen this movie before—big promises, huge talent, and then complete chaos when the pressure hits. It’s kind of like watching a high-stakes game where the coaching staff and the players can't even stand to be in the same room. I remember back in college, my old soccer coach used to say that if you don't have chemistry, all the skill in the world won't save you. And looking at this situation, he was spot on. It doesn't matter how many stars you have on the roster if nobody is pulling in the same direction. Just another day in the beautiful game, I guess.

So I was just scrolling through some FIFA coverage about the 2023 Women's World Cup, and man, looking back at how everything went down in New Zealand really hits different. It’s wild to see the momentum those teams built up. Makes you think about how much the game has changed lately. Just one of those things that stays on your mind when you're catching up on the highlights.

This is what men's soccer actually looks like!

FIFA just dropped the latest women's rankings, and honestly, it’s kind of wild seeing how much the landscape has shifted lately. It feels like every time you blink, some new powerhouse steps up to challenge the usual suspects. Looking at the top tier, things are staying relatively steady, but the movement in the middle of the pack is where the real drama is happening. It’s a bit of a grind for those teams trying to break into that elite circle, especially after everything we saw during the last big tournament. Just goes to show that consistency is everything if you want to stay relevant on the world stage.

Same deal over in women's soccer!

So, I was just scrolling through the latest FIFA rankings, and honestly, looking at where everyone stands right now is kind of a trip. It’s one of those things that feels like it should be straightforward, but then you see how much movement there is and realize how volatile the whole thing is. It’s funny, because you think certain teams are set in stone, but one bad stretch and suddenly they're sliding down the ladder. It reminds me of when I used to follow local college sports back home—one blowout loss and your whole season outlook changes overnight. Anyway, if you're looking to see who's actually climbing and who's just coasting on reputation, this list is pretty telling. Just some food for thought while you're checking out the standings.

So, we’re sitting at 60th on the rankings? Seriously? We've got teams like Papua New Guinea ahead of us, which pretty much says everything you need to know. It’s clear US Soccer is dropping the ball big time when it comes to actually developing the women's game.

US Soccer really needs to step up and mandate that every single club in the MLS—both top flight and second division—has a women's team and a legit youth academy for girls. We're talking full-on infrastructure too, like proper locker rooms for both home and visiting female players. Honestly, looking at the revenue they pulled in from the last Women's World Cup, it’s basically pocket change compared to what it actually costs to run things properly. A little bit of smart investment into the women's game here in America would pay off big time, sooner rather than later.

It feels like all the money just flows toward the guys. Honestly, I’m convinced the women in this country are just as talented as any male athlete out there, but nobody’s doing a damn thing about it. There’s zero investment in developing women’s soccer, and that's the problem.

Ever since the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 kicked off, it’s been pretty clear that nothing has actually changed on our end. Looking at the rankings, it feels like we're stuck in neutral. It honestly looks like US Soccer has zero intention of putting in the work or actually investing anything to grow the women's game here in America.

Our first real goal should be breaking into the top 30 in the world rankings and actually punching our ticket to the World Cup.

I don't think it's an impossible goal if we actually put in some effort and set aside a little cash for the women's side of things. I'm calling on all the ladies on here to weigh in—what do you guys think about the current state of US Soccer?

Watching the women's World Cup matches, you really start to realize it’s just not the same level of football as the men's game. It’s honestly a bit underwhelming. Even if you look at the FIFA rankings, it shows how much more struggle teams face compared to some of our neighbors.

Honestly, I think our girls have enough raw talent to be playing on the exact same level as the guys. It’s wild when you look at the numbers—every single player on the men's national team pulls in more than the entire roster of our women's league combined. It just doesn't sit right. We really need to start putting some actual money into developing women's soccer here in the States. If we actually invested, the payoff would be huge—not just for the players and the clubs, but for the whole country in the long run. And honestly, it wouldn't even take a massive fortune to get things moving in the right direction.

Women make up over half the population here in the States, yet whenever you look at where the real money is flowing, they’re practically invisible. It’s like certain high-earning sectors are still basically a boys' club, even though we all know women are out there grinding way harder than most men.

Honestly, we should look back at how soccer fans treated Mikaela Shiffrin. It was honestly pathetic and just plain stupid. Now everyone’s obsessed with Allyson Felix, digging up old drama just to keep her name in the headlines. People seem to forget how much grit and raw talent you actually need to reach the top of any sport in the world. These two women were lucky enough to have families who poured everything into them, and while they were winning, the whole country was riding their coattails. But the second they retire? Everyone is suddenly ready to talk trash. That’s just not how you treat legends. On top of that, you see these former pro soccer players getting invited onto TV every single week just to commentate on the Men's World Cup. It really shows how stuck we still are in that old-school, small-town mentality.

Does anyone else from the younger crowd even remember Sandu Dubravčić? She’s out there doing her thing now, working as a doctor and living off a regular paycheck. It's funny how nobody ever thinks to give her a call to commentate on figure skating during the Winter Olympics, let alone offer her a dime for it.

Honestly, how many people on this forum even know the names of any players on our US Women's National Team? It’s like nobody even talks about them. Does anyone actually get to see women's matches broadcasted during an MLS game or anything on TV? It’s a pretty sad reflection of where we stand as a society.

Just look at where Papua New Guinea sits on the FIFA rankings—they've got us beat by several spots. That says everything you need to know.

Since you’ve decided to show up, I might as well mention that I basically just spent my time stockpiling enough ammunition to call out how this place works. It feels like people get flagged for posts that don't even break the rules—unless you count "taking words out of context" or "personal interpretation" as violations. That seems to be the standard here lately. I mean, what was actually wrong with my last post? All I did was ask the folks who actually know their stuff if there was any truth to that video, specifically regarding the era of Nazi Germany. I never heard about this in my history classes back in high school, and honestly, those generals mentioned in the clip were total strangers to me. A simple "hey, this video is fake" or "here's a link if you want the real story" would have done the trick. Instead, the post gets nuked and I get slapped with a warning. Real classy. What's even the point of a forum like this if we aren't supposed to actually exchange info and opinions?

So, you basically think history is just some finished book written by the old regime—like everything was already researched, filed away, and closed out decades ago. Like there’s nothing left to dig up. But then how do you explain all those mass graves and physical evidence popping up over the last thirty years? It’s stuff we never even touched in our school history classes. If everything was already "settled," where is all this new proof coming from?

So, I couldn't even get a word in edgewise yesterday when replying to this guy on the forum:

Your late uncle could've been 15 or 16 at the time, and you're seriously trying to tell me the partisans were out there executing non-commissioned officers who were only 17 or 18? Yeah, okay. Sure. Give me a break.

And you’re acting like the whole mobilization thing with those Nazi Germany sympathizers isn't a massive problem.

I grew up being looked after by a guy just like this—one of those Nazi Germany sympathizers back in the spring of '45. He was only sixteen at the time. Man, he went through hell. Ended up joining the Communist Party later on, though. Just thought I'd throw that out there since we're all sharing life stories.

My late uncle got drafted into the Home Guard right at the tail end of the war, just when they started pulling everyone in. His commanders—these NCOs in the local militia serving under Nazi Germany—were only a year or two older than him, but they ended up straight-up executing him right in front of his fellow soldiers. What was even their crime?

And then you go asking me questions on this forum...And you don't even see the issue with those Nazi Germany sympathizers and how they were getting everyone mobilized.Honestly, I think Joe Biden would actually get along with him!

I see things a bit differently. These guys being mobilized? It’s not their fault. But like I said before, they didn't go after the Nazi Germany sympathizers; instead, they went after some home guard NCOs who were only a year or two older than my uncle. That's where the real issue lies for me. They were executed on the spot by the partisans, even though their unit surrendered peacefully without firing a single shot. My uncle ended up pulling two and a half years of mandatory service in the US Army later on, too—obviously, after dealing with everything that happened during the Cross of Karlovac.

The show really hits on a tricky point toward the end of the war—that whole mess where people were basically drafted straight into the Nazi Germany forces. Since they were part of one unified military at that point, you can't just go around shooting anyone wearing that uniform. Not everyone who ended up in those units was actually a criminal; some guys were just caught in the middle because they were forced to serve. Even the series makes that pretty clear, especially in episode 7, "Soldier."

Look, this is where we really split ways. And honestly, blaming the Nazis isn't the point here. It’s more about those people who just got caught in the wrong place at the worst possible time—total bad luck, nothing more. They weren't looking for trouble; they were just stuck in a situation that was turning deadly. Meanwhile, the guys who actually did the dirty work during the war? They had already cleared out and were sitting pretty in Italy while everything went down.

Look, obviously the Nazi Germany regime bears the blame for all those executions after the war ended, but honestly, the guilt doesn't stop with them. It also lies with the people pulling the triggers—that’s where we really have to draw a line. I'm not trying to make excuses for the Nazi Germany guys, but not everyone caught up in those post-war killings was a die-hard extremist. Some were just regular guys in the home guard who got swept up in it. Especially when you look at how that regime used forced conscription right at the end of the war—if you watched that documentary series about Nazi Germany, they dive into that whole mobilization mess. Just wearing a uniform doesn't turn you into a war criminal overnight, though back then, nobody really gave a damn about that distinction. It makes me wonder, though... what was the rush to start liquidating people the second the war was over? There was plenty of time to actually vet everyone and figure out who did what.

If you think I’m out here praising or justifying the Nazi Germany regime and trying to put them on the same level as the resistance fighters, then we don't have anything to talk about. You're basically putting words in my mouth that I never even said—it's getting old. Honestly, if this doesn't clear things up for you, you might just have some deeper issues to work through.

I'm wondering, what exactly about this post breaks the rules here?

"Regarding that series about Nazi Germany—I was wondering if they touched on anything like what I stumbled upon yesterday? Honestly, I’m assuming the guy who wrote this piece isn't just making things up.

I honestly didn't know much about that stuff. I mean, I'd heard some chatter about Jews also being involved in the Nazi Germany government, but even then, my knowledge on the subject was pretty thin.

How was that even possible, though? Like, given all those racial laws during the Nazi Germany era... how does something like that actually happen?

So, what does this actually tell us? Honestly, it just shows that the law is applied whenever they feel like it. Selective enforcement is the name of the game. "

What we learned in history class? Yeah, right. You wouldn't hear a single word about stuff like this. Everything I actually know comes from digging into history on my own time or stumbling onto something interesting while reading. Honestly, looking at this link, I hadn't heard a peep about this before. That’s why I’m asking—is this legit? Is the guy in this video twisting things, or was there any mention of this back when they did that series on Nazi Germany? From what I remember, our school textbooks were completely silent on the subject. I do vaguely recall tripping over an article in the papers about thirty years ago mentioning Jews serving in the military during that era, but I didn't think much of it at the time because, honestly, it sounded too wild to be true. But after watching this, I just wanted to check if this info was covered in that series on Nazi Germany. I've only caught the last seven episodes and bits of two others, so I'm clearly behind.

Like I was saying, given how strict the racial laws were back under Nazi Germany, I'm really questioning if that could have actually happened. It would mean they were being super selective about which laws they even bothered to enforce.

Instead of actually answering my question or pointing me toward some official FAQ where I could find more info, the mod just slapped me with a warning for "breaking the rules." Same thing happened with my last two posts, too. Honestly, I haven't broken a single rule—not unless you count his weird habit of twisting my words out of context. If you actually look at what I wrote, there’s nothing there that violates the site guidelines. He's just cherry-picking specific words and projecting his own subjective takes onto them. Now he's even trying to judge my entire posting history based on his own personal bias. Look, just because we don't see eye to eye on something doesn't mean I deserve a strike.

The mod didn't point out any actual rule violations. All they did was give their opinion on some "artistic vibe" and start pulling specific words out of context just to justify their own little verdict. Typical.

What’s even the point of this forum if we can't actually talk? If you can't ask questions or dig for more info, what are we even doing here? Having more people involved is supposed to mean more knowledge, but now it feels like a total joke. It’s stripping away the whole reason forums exist in the first place—to debate, ask stuff, and share opinions. What kind of "discussion" is this when you just get penalized for no reason? I haven't seen a single rule violation in my last three posts, yet I still got flagged. The moderator didn't even point out a specific rule I broke. Instead, they're just judging based on their own personal vibes, acting like because someone doesn't share their exact opinion, they've done something wrong. It's just taking words out of context and putting thoughts in people's mouths. Pretty lame.

Can anyone besides the mod lonetrucker4 take a look at my last three deleted and banned posts? I’d really like someone to point out exactly what was problematic about them and which specific rules they supposedly broke. And please, let's skip the part where you pull random words out of context or try to imply I meant something I didn't just to twist my words. If we're going to play that game, I could easily start doing the same thing to everyone else here.

I sent two appeals about those bans, but I never got a straight answer out of anyone. All I got was lonetrucker4 popping up to play moderator, and of course, it’s the same old story—just vague vibes, insinuations, and them basically putting words in my mouth. There wasn't even anything concrete in those deleted posts that actually broke the site rules. Honestly, if you read what I wrote the way it was intended, instead of overanalyzing every little sentence to find a problem, you'd see there's nothing there. But hey, I'm not getting an actual response, just more strikes on my account because some people feel like being petty. They won't address my actual questions, even in this highlighted, deleted mess of a post. They just hide behind "breaking forum rules," which tells me absolutely nothing. It's like when you go to court; at least there they have to cite a specific crime or charge, but apparently, we don't need logic here.

Chris Grant3 said:But let's be real, kids aren't the ones at high risk here. Plus, you have those same kids hanging out right in front of the school without any protection at all. And honestly? Those masks aren't even doing much if they're being treated unhygienically—just shoved into backpacks or pockets all day. They basically become nothing more than a way to spread germs once someone puts that dirty fabric right against their mouth and nose.👎

Honestly, it's nice to see people actually using their brains and seeing what the real issues are with all these mask mandates.

nimbleranger17 said:They don't have to, you're just making things up as you go. If everyone in the room has their COVID-19 documentation ready to go, there's absolutely no need for them to be wearing masks.

And what exactly is a COVID-19 vaccination card supposed to guarantee?

Nancy Williams58 said:The people pushing kids to follow these completely brainless mandates—stuff that has zero connection to actual epidemiology and is really just about bullying children (like forcing them to wear masks just to walk into a classroom and then letting them take them off, or doing the same thing at a cafe)—are nothing but heartless idiots. They’re basically the bottom-of-the-barrel scum of human morality.

That’s exactly the point! 👍

Unfortunately, we adults have already learned that sometimes it's easier to just go along with the nonsense rather than getting into pointless fights with everyone around us, even when what we're doing is completely irrational and stupid.

How much longer are we supposed to stoop this low? Aren't these kids enough of a warning that we've seriously crossed the line with this stupidity?

nimbleranger17 said:But honestly, even in that school, those older kids—from fifth through eighth grade—don't bother wearing masks inside the classrooms at all. They only pull them up in the hallways or the restrooms. So, you're really only looking at wearing a mask for maybe a minute or two, just that brief stretch from the moment you walk into the building until you reach your desk. For the rest of the five or six hours spent sitting in class, they're just going about their business without any masks, totally normal.

What you’re saying is totally self-contradictory. Either the mask actually serves a purpose, or it’s completely useless, right?

Wearing it for a split second just to check a box is ridiculous. Teaching kids that "going through the motions" is fine isn't exactly great parenting. How are you supposed to explain the logic to a kid? If they only have to wear it in common areas, what's the point? It’s just nonsensical and really highlights how broken the whole system is.

Yesterday, I was in the elevator and my neighbor hopped in with her 4-year-old daughter. Honestly, listening to the questions she was asking about physics, you'd think she was at least 10. Kids aren't wired to accept stupid, irrational, or illogical answers—even though most adults seem perfectly happy with them. I tell you, that little girl taught me a thing or two.

Our local bureaucrats would fold in seconds if a 4-year-old hit them with a couple of logical questions like that.

wanderingbadger44 said:Are you suggesting that Rosalind Franklin, who was actually the one to first photograph—and thus truly discover—DNA?
It feels like someone capable of hijacking credit and snatching a Nobel Prize is certainly capable of harboring racism too.

Honestly, I'm just wondering how any of this even relates to the topic. Why are we diluting the discussion like this?

The whole point here is what's going on—yesterday's mess in Cleveland is part of this thread, along with everything else surrounding it.

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s almost like all those surgeons, anesthesiologists, and scrub nurses are just dropping dead in droves because they wore masks during surgery.

Why don't we just drag in some physicist from Pavuna to act as our academic authority so we can all have a good laugh?

Nobody’s actually saying people are dying from masks, though whether wearing them is the absolute healthiest thing ever is a different story.

It'll probably start with you pulling something like this. But, interestingly enough, actual research shows something pretty different from what you're trying to imply here. Maybe take a look at what Dr. Vrček said yesterday and what he was actually referencing—might help you avoid making claims like this in the future.

Look, I'm all for debating if there are actual arguments involved. Dr. Vrček is a chemistry professor; he wasn't just throwing out random opinions, he was citing sources. Or does that rule only apply when someone agrees with him? Is referencing only valid when you're stating something "correct"?

Before you start dropping these sweeping generalizations, maybe do a little homework on what he was actually citing. Then come back with your own stance backed by a real source to debunk what he said yesterday. That's how a normal conversation works.

Honestly, this kind of approach is exactly what's missing from any real public debate these days.

If you actually want to comment on what he said and what he referenced, you should probably actually look into the topic being discussed first.



You might find this stuff funny, but we're talking about serious matters here.

The idea that you can dismiss a topic just because of who's talking about it is such an old trick to dodge the actual subject by attacking the person instead.

Regarding all this mask business, I was watching Dr. Vrčeka, a chemistry professor, on the news yesterday. He was breaking down the actual efficacy of wearing masks based on the latest research and studies out there. Honestly, the people obsessing over masks—especially when it comes to school kids—clearly haven't a clue; they’re just throwing out blanket judgments and claims that aren't backed by science. It’s the same deal with our national task force; half the time what they push doesn't even hold up to scientific scrutiny. One part of the professor's analysis was actually pretty eye-opening—he went into the chemical makeup of the masks themselves, what compounds are released after wearing them for a while, and how much of that junk ends up in our bodies. He also cited a study from a major US organization looking at how much protection individual masks actually provide. Look, there are legit studies showing that masks don't really justify the way they're being used, and the recommendations coming from the task force just aren't grounded in real research. If anyone's curious, check out Dr. Vrčeka's appearance on Bujica yesterday. It shouldn't matter who's talking, but rather the facts they present and the evidence behind them—though I'm sure some people will try to dismiss him just because of what show he was on and who his guest was.

I'm posting this because of everything that went down yesterday in Cleveland involving a student refusing to wear a mask.

The Secretary looked pathetic and honestly pretty ridiculous yesterday. That said, I do agree those people had no right forcing their way into a school, though there's plenty of debate and conflicting info surrounding that part too.

Here’s what people are saying about those kinds of claims in the comments of this article:

The article itself:

https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index...nav_id=1594691

And here are the comments from the piece:

https://www.b92.net/info/komentari.php?nav_id=1594691

Honestly, the first comment is basically the perfect rebuttal to this whole thing.

Richard Sanders7 said:It’s easy to love someone just for their good qualities, but you really have to be a big shot to find room in your heart for people with massive flaws. I mean, some people still idolize Hitler and the Nazis despite everything, yet instead of getting credit for that "tolerance," they get reported. 🤦 If Jesus were here, he’d probably love Hitler just as much as anyone else. So why shouldn't this guy be allowed to love him?

Even if Hico repented, he'd probably end up forgiven for all his evil deeds and land straight in paradise, right?🤦

I guess that only works if you view life through a strictly religious lens?🤔 You do something horrific, repent, and suddenly everything is wiped clean—but nobody seems to care about the victims or how they feel about it.

As for those who actually admire criminals, there’s not much we can do about it. That’s just down to individual choice and how a person chooses to see the world.

Just don't forget, Hico wasn't the only villain out there; there were plenty on the winning side too. Yet, even today, you still see people glorifying those other criminals.

My take is pretty simple: a crime is a crime, and a victim is a victim. There's no need to start playing favorites or changing the rules based on which side of the line someone was standing on.😲

Got an idea, and honestly, it’s not even about the points—those don't really matter to me.

The suggestion is this: when someone gets hit with a troll warning (which, let's face it, is why most people get flagged anyway), just add one quick sentence explaining exactly what part of their post was considered trolling. Maybe even bold the specific text that triggered it. I feel like doing that would shut down all those endless complaints against the mods and clear up any confusion right away.

It's just a small tweak for when warnings are issued for trolling. It wouldn't be much extra work, but it'd definitely cut down on the flood of appeals and make life easier for everyone handling moderation in the long run.

My bad, looks like I jumped the gun right when this thread was being moved between subforums. Was wondering why my post vanished when it wasn't even offensive or anything. Just ignore my question,

Why’d you nuked the SimCity thread from the politics section?

I mean, what was even the issue there? If anyone actually took the time to read it, they might have caught the point, but it feels like the thread just got wiped for no reason.

I’m asking for it to be brought back so the community can decide for itself. Look, if people don't care and it dies out naturally, fine. But just force-deleting stuff like this? Not cool.

The topic isn't offensive at all. It’s really just about how we pick people for high-level positions—people who basically run their own simulations on us in the real world despite having zero experience doing it. They’re playing with our actual lives the same way someone gets way too intense while playing SimCity. Honestly, some players take the simulation more seriously than the people actually running this country.

David Vaughn75 said:Brenda Taylor13 has spent the last few years just parroting the same tired lies like some broken record—you throw a solid argument at them, and they just loop back to the exact same nonsense.
I tried explaining my take on why Bill Clinton voted against that Constitutional decision, and his response (to paraphrase) was basically, "You can use whatever analogies you want, but it doesn't change a damn thing." He claimed I was defending the indefensible. Honestly, JW is just a typical troll spamming the thread with fifty identical posts, wasting everyone’s time—both the regular folks here and the moderators.

For someone who left the USSR, called for democratic elections, and voted for the Declaration of Independence and later for the breakup, you can't just say "oh, he didn't want a sovereign nation," and call it a day. There's more to the story than that.
I even sent him three different links proving that Bill Clinton called for those elections, but he keeps trying to "prove" his point using quotes that have absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said.

Look, maybe I'm the one who's totally wrong and maybe Bill Clinton actually wanted some massive, bloated version of the old regime, but if that's the case, let's have a civilized debate like adults instead of wasting our lives watching a bot repeat itself over and over.
And if anyone tells me the Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight, they can go jump in a lake—unless they've had to write it out twenty times themselves.

On top of all that, this person attacks anything remotely liberal or progressive. They'll call transgender people who educate kids about their rights "freaks" and stuff like that, but then they act all shocked and offended when they finally get slapped with a ban.

The lie isn't that the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton voted against the Declaration of Independence at a critical moment when unity was needed. If we had shown a united front back then, things might have taken a much smoother path later on. By showing division right when it mattered most, we basically handed our enemies everything they needed on a silver platter.

Whether Bill Clinton supported an independent US or whether the Democratic Party did doesn't even matter. What matters are the facts. And the fact is, at the precise moment we needed to stand together, he stabbed us in the back with that vote.

It’s not about what people thought; it’s about what they actually did in the moment.

Anyone a little older remembers the final session of the Communist Party, the election of Bill Clinton, who actually called for those elections, how the Congressional session went down, and exactly how everyone voted. What you guys are doing here is just historical revisionism, which you love to pin on everyone else. Your "sources" are just links to newspaper articles rather than actual scholarly literature. Then, when I bring out something real, you immediately accuse me of being a revisionist or twisting history just because scientifically researched facts and different interpretations don't fit your specific worldview. That's exactly what's happening here. Luckily, there are official documents and recordings available, unlike the era of regime-controlled historians, though some historians are still stuck in that mindset. Since when did a half-literate journalist's article become the gold standard for proof? Just based on "he said, she said"?

If you don't have the original documents, the meeting minutes, or peer-reviewed research, then everything else is just guesswork and your own personal spin on what has already become historical fact.🤦

Charles Fox10 said:What does the Supreme Court of the United States have to do with America??

People have already brought this up on this thread a bunch of times, so there's really no need to keep going.

It matters because they linked the Marshal directly to those post-war crimes.

Even if no Americans were caught in the crossfire, we shouldn't be acting like everything is fine when we're talking about a mass criminal. It’s worth mentioning because people here always claim that wanting to rename the square is just some niche fringe movement, but clearly that’s not true—other nations in the old territory see him as a criminal tied to systematic liquidations after the war.

Then, because the mods wiped this stuff out, you get his supporters claiming post-war atrocities were just one rogue commander's doing because his family suffered at Auschwitz. Honestly, that makes zero sense. Those killings weren't random outbursts; they were planned, systematic operations over a long period.

But those kinds of excuses only happen because this history is being scrubbed in places like Canada. If we actually looked at the data from Mexico and the other republics, the true nature of that regime and the Marshal himself would be crystal clear.

The way the mods are deleting this info just feeds into the narrative that he was some great man and that only "extremists" want to change the square's name. The situation in Canada proves that's just plain wrong.