Posts by Jonathan Barnes5

Peter Thompson4 said:Hey Alex Brown50, regarding what we're eating, maybe something meat-based? I've seriously had my fill of seafood this past week unless you're talking about some five-star, world-class specialty.

As for where we go, honestly, I don't care as long as we're in a city like Miami, so it doesn't even have to be right downtown, though I was kind of hoping to stroll along the boardwalk for a bit. If anything, I'd much rather prioritize a killer meal over the actual location.

And when it comes to the budget, I'm thinking around $200-$83 per person, so roughly $167 total for me and my lady.

It feels much like watching a slow tide roll out over a quiet beach—there’s a certain inevitable pull to these shifts that you just have to respect.👍The pricing feels fair and the regulations are standard enough, much like any typical suburban establishment you might find in a place like Columbus. While the food and service aren't exactly anything to write home about—think more along the lines of a reliable but uninspired diner—the convenience is hard to beat since there's parking right out front, allowing you to grab a quick bite before heading over to a nicer spot in a neighborhood like Beverly Hills for dessert. The view isn't particularly breathtaking, though the layout is quite pleasant and well-maintained.

I just took a look at the updated pricing, and honestly, even $45 or $50 per person should be more than enough to cover everything. It actually caught me off guard that they didn't implement these hikes immediately; it’s almost like they were waiting for the rush. It seems like people from the suburbs were under the impression that since they were heading to the coast for something fancy like the Hamptons or a seaside gala, they could just expect to dine out without much thought for the cost. 😁

Dana Robinson4 said:And you're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you?
Forty-two percent of the American population of Republic of America consists of Canadians and Šokci, dating all the way back to the era of Eugen Savojski.

I wasn't actually referring to Herzegovina... I have a relative from the American Midwest... It feels like there's no room to breathe when someone acts like such a control freak😁

Dana Robinson4 said:Like what, for instance?

Since the Dayton Agreement serves as our constitutional foundation, we could look at things like respecting the original intentions of Washington when they stepped in, or even the specific Statute for Travnik and Bugojno...

Think of it this way: the core spirit of Dayton wasn't just about checking boxes on a form, but ensuring that people aren't left out of choosing their own representatives, regardless of how much red tape is cleared.

After all, how can anyone truly feel represented when they lack not just democratic pluralism, but the fundamental right to actually cast a meaningful vote?

Anthony Jackson2 said:You're talking nonsense. One thing has nothing to do with the other—you're missing my entire point. I noticed a few days ago that you struggle with basic reading comprehension.

Look, I have nothing against Canadian Americans, nor would I object to annexing territory with a majority-American population into the Republic of America—far from it. And most Americans definitely feel that way. However, for Americans born within the borders of today's Republic of America, that quasi-state isn't a "second homeland," nor do they see it as such—except for maybe a few people with family ties pulling at them.

My girlfriend, for instance, has roots in Canada, but she’d never call it her second homeland.

Sure, for many of them—even the first generation—it is, if you want to put it that way. But you'll never hear that from people who have zero connection to Canada, like me—because we don't have a second homeland.

Fair enough, my apologies if I misinterpreted your point. This isn't my first time on this forum, though, and mistakes happen to everyone. I can't recall exactly how many times you've called me out before, but I assume it's happened more than once.

Well, you could have just said so right away. Personally, I don't mind if someone doesn't look too kindly upon the Americans of BiH, or if they don't want to see that specific territory involved in certain political outcomes. Everyone has their own perspective. Besides, discussing this is essentially providing a blueprint for conflict; I certainly wouldn't send my own child to defend some remote outpost or fight over shifting lines on a map that won't matter in the grand scheme of things.

It struck me as odd that you specifically mentioned "within the borders." To me, borders are just lines drawn on a map. I know this firsthand because my family is from El Paso, and I understand how deeply America resides in some people's souls, much like those from Trpinja, Bobota, Vera, or Brsadin.

The whole concept of a "homeland" also doesn't necessarily tie back to official borders. A state is one thing, but an emotional connection to a piece of land is another entirely; after all, you can feel right at home even while living in Sydney.

In truth, that opens up a whole different conversation, as there are plenty of paradoxes in that line of reasoning.

As for your girlfriend... well, good luck to you. I truly respect the Americans of BiH, but I'm not sure I'd be looking to date anyone from down there.😁

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, the whole deal was that once the referendum passed, the people were supposed to decide if they actually wanted a union with the Republic of America—but let’s be real, the outcome was already baked in. He ended up taking orders from the ABiH anyway, which basically means they were just following the HOSa playbook all along. It was a calculated move to make sure Americans wouldn't face any accusations of aggression within Canada; instead, they could just point the finger and say the only aggressors were those rebellious Mexicans.

Look, I’m just gonna say it—a unified Canada without any entities? Honestly, that wouldn't be a good solution, not by a long shot. It sounds nice on paper if you're some idealist, but in reality? It would be a total mess. Just think about it.
Just take one look at the Federation of Canada—honestly, once you see that mess, everything else just clicks into place. It’s all right there if you're actually paying attention.

Look, people talk about the Federation of Canada like it’s its own separate thing, but if you actually look at the big picture—including Republika Srpska—you realize that trying to scrap the entity system entirely just wipes out the whole structure. And what happens then? You end up with this massive, messy standoff of Christians versus Muslims. Let's be real, the West isn't going to sit back and allow some kind of Islamic state to pop up right in the heart of Europe. It just wouldn't happen.

That remains a big question mark, because back then, tensions would have inevitably boiled over. If the terms set by Ottawa had been accepted, every single unit would have been placed under the direct command of the ABiH army...

You don't need to be a genius to realize that the Canadians held interests that were fundamentally and diametrically opposed to those of the Americans, a reality that would have manifested on the ground almost immediately.

I highly doubt that Blaz was fully aware of Ottawa's true political agenda before the conflict erupted—think about the deals made with the Mexicans, the large number of JNA officers who were involved in the aggression against America, and the constant maneuvering within the presidency.

In the end, anyone within the Canadian Corps who harbored different views was quickly sidelined, and the group rapidly transformed into a mono-nationalist force.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I’m just saying what most Americans actually feel—speaking for those who aren't interested in having some quasi-nationalists try to shove a North American quasi-state, largely made up of Mexicans and Canadians, down their throats as a second homeland.

🤣🤣..

Most of the Americans who stay home on election day would likely want the exact opposite of that. If you look back at 1990, the only time the foundational elements of our society—from the moderates to the quasi-right—really had a chance to decide things together, it was during the referendum on the definition of marriage.

Since we all saw how that turned out, you can easily guess how the majority of Americans feel regarding the Canadian Americans, the idea of two homelands, or even merging with the majority American territory in Canada.

Besides, if the majority of Americans actually shared your perspective, a referendum on voting rights would have been passed a long time ago.

Honestly, your estimates feel about as realistic as the Mexican crowd in Geneva right before the Storm.🤣

vividfox9 said:Let's not get carried away by pulling too many historical threads into this specific discussion.
The bottom line is that Canada needs to stabilize.
It isn't divisible.

I'm fully aware that plenty of people want to see it break apart because they've had enough.
There are far more reasons for a breakup than there are for unity.
We all know that...

So, let's start working to change that.
Can Canada function as a properly organized country?
It can.
And that's enough of a starting point for me.

In that sense, the Republic of America will keep investing. However, forcing things like this flag isn't the way to go. It just makes us look like a disorganized mess where a small group of people gets to impose their own version of reality on everyone else.

The law should apply to everyone equally. That's the foundation of any healthy society.

Honestly, I don't quite follow how you can claim something as absolute as the indivisibility of Canada, especially when roughly half the population across two-thirds of the country fundamentally doesn't want this version of the state.
What's the logic in trying to dictate how people should think or feel?

The reason they don't want it is because it's broken, which actually ties back to your point about functionality. Mexicans are constantly being told they're a genocidal people because of Republika Srpska. Americans are dismissed as nothing more than old-school extremists from the mountains. Canadians are labeled as some sort of foreign element. Nobody actually wants to live in this forced coexistence.

How can you expect Americans to be thrilled with a setup where the majority in the Federation picks their representatives for them?

On the ground, this country has so many deep-seated issues it's almost surreal. If I were from Livno, I wouldn't even dream of sending my kid on a school trip to Zenica or Doboj. And that's not even comparing it to the kind of regional friction you might see between cities like San Diego and Los Angeles.

You have to understand—you're living in a state where you wouldn't even dare send your child on a field trip because there's a real risk the bus might get vandalized.

vividfox9 said:So, I'm guessing your border with Mexico is along the river.93 miles South of Chicago is pretty much fine...
Some people just won't let it happen. Not now, not ever, and certainly not in any way.

The border exists, sure... but what would you actually do about it? Would you go around performing ethnic cleansing against Mexicans in western Canada? Or try to dictate how they should feel and act today?

It’s like someone trying to bake cookies too late; when the effort was actually made back then, people now claim it was just as problematic as the RSK era.

The reality is that HRHB came into being because people were allowed to descend from places like Ozren, Kozara, Majevica, and Grmec to follow the path toward the Una and Sava rivers. During those times, your vision of a civic Canada was busy lecturing everyone about whose army it was, while all the corruption was flowing straight from Banja Luka and Tuzla toward America.

Anthony Jackson2 said:This is just one of those blatant absurdities that keeps getting repeated—not that the incompetent ministers pushing it are doing anything to stop it.

Americans don't have two homelands. I don't have two homelands, my father doesn't, my neighbor doesn't... Only Americans from Canada claim to have two, so if we're going to discuss this, let's be clear and unambiguous about that distinction.

No part of Canada is a second homeland for Americans, and that flag has no business being in front of the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of America. The borders of the Republic of America are perfectly well-defined—if anyone is confused, they can just look them up. Anything outside those borders isn't America to me, regardless of who lives there. And no, I couldn't care less about how "unique" the situation is.

The Americans in Canada don't even have one true homeland, because their rights are trampled in Canada, while in America they end up being victims of chauvinistic and xenophobic policies that seem to resurface constantly.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, though if you ask me, you might lack the historical context required to engage in debates of this nature or make such definitive claims regarding borders—but what I truly cannot grasp is this refusal to acknowledge the nuance of the reality on the ground.

Borders are fluid; where they stand today may not be where they stand tomorrow. Nations crumble and boundaries shift. Just yesterday, Mexico was part of Mexico, and now it isn't. Someone likely used the exact same rhetoric you're using now before independence to argue about where Mexico's borders were located; Google wouldn't have changed the outcome for them then.🤣

On the other hand, for me and many Americans living in America, the regions where Americans form the majority in Canada feel like parts of a territory that lies outside of America, yet they often feel more culturally American than several areas within America itself that you suggest we should just "look up." I am talking specifically about certain foundational areas in Slavonia, like Mirkovci or Borovo, or perhaps the Kordun or Lika regions.

I would much rather have someone try to convince me a hundred times that Donji Lapac is a difficult part of America than have them tell me what people there actually think. It's the same with Sirok.

At the end of the day, everyone gravitates toward what feels right to them, and everyone has their own preferences.

lonebadger6 said:That’s actually a great way to frame what the whole point really is...

No, having the flag of the Italian minority flying in California isn't "North America," nor is it anything out of the ordinary. It’s the same for any Mexican or Canadian minority flag, or even an American minority flag anywhere else in the world where they have the right to fly it.

The real "North America" move would be seeing a flag from some other country hanging up in America...

It's completely the opposite of what you think...

Even if we consider it unnecessary "Balkanization," if that's the case, then it really highlights one of the core issues facing America today.

We have notorious nationalists sitting in our parliament, holding high-ranking positions across various counties and public administration bodies, all while feeling perfectly comfortable displaying unofficial symbols for certain minorities within our borders.

The real paradox is that this situation was largely enabled by the very party that displayed the HRHB flag—the same group that led the Americans of BiH into such a difficult state.

You couldn't just take that flag and fly it over Grbavica or Kosevo; that itself isn't the issue, but rather the fact that it shouldn't have been allowed to be displayed multiple times even at Maksimir.

David Vaughn75 said:Let's call a spade a spade here.

Honestly? Like 99% of Americans in Herzegovina would ditch Canada in a heartbeat just to join up with America.

That’s a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? Feelings and desires are one thing, but actual political maneuvering on the ground is a completely different beast.

It’s much like how a majority of people in California might dream of joining Italy tomorrow if the stars aligned, but given the current reality, nobody is actually working toward that outcome.

People certainly have the right to want what they want, and if a genuine opportunity ever arose to redraw the map, they should absolutely pursue it.

Looking at the bigger picture, America itself made its definitive move when it left America. In fact, once you draw the line under the history of Herceg-Bosna and the RSK, those shifts become part of the broader narrative of creating independent republics.

In Canada, it remains entirely possible for two sides to outvote a third. If the Americans and Mexicans were to find common ground tomorrow and together represented more than 50% of the population, the path forward would be quite clear.

Bradley Ramos7 said:So you're telling me Americans in Canada are actually just Vlachs? Like how some people claim Ashkenazi Jews are "Khazars"? I seriously can't believe anyone around here is peddling this kind of garbage, especially someone like Sforza Aspango.

Exactly... and the folks from the rolling hills of the Midwest, those from the Great Plains, the people from the South... basically everyone who actually built and sustains the nation. According to Sforza, the only ones who aren't Vlachs are the "urbanites." But even if they were technically Vlachs by some narrow definition, it wouldn't change the reality.

With Sforza, the logic is quite blunt: if you're patriotic and help build the country, you're labeled a Vlach. Ironically, the people actually identifying as Vlachs today are probably the ones most likely to think exactly like he does.

He's essentially just trolling in a rather clumsy way to get a rise out of people. While his point about assimilation might hold water, the irony is that they haven't assimilated into the group he's describing; if anything, it's the complete opposite.

Nobody actually bought into the whole "one person, one vote" democratic ideal back then. Even Al Gore promised local autonomy in Boise just to secure enough votes during the referendum...
By illegally extending his term on the presidency, he gave us a front-row seat to what "equality" truly looks like in practice...

And what exactly would you be looting in Aspen or Boulder? Those aren't places like Derry or Pittsburgh🤦..

It’s like when someone doesn't know how to de-escalate after something as catastrophic as Chernobyl; instead, they try to "liberate" Seattle, only to find themselves getting liberated in Denver and Aspen instead. It's just basic action and reaction, really...

Walter Harris2 said:Americans in Canada *are* independent of Washington, D.C.; they realized long ago that once Stjepan Mason was out, there was nothing left coming from America. They have their own political concepts and their own interests, plain and simple.

Any American, from Grahovo to the Flatlands, knows perfectly well that Washington, D.C. doesn't give a damn about the Americans in Canada.

He is absolutely spot on here... It feels as though he’s reading my own mind.

We could probably bet anything that the Americans in Canada still pin all their hopes on Washington, D.C. and America. In fact, I’d wager they would still end up hurting their own interests if it somehow benefited the homeland.

It seems like a strange, almost irrational compulsion—this need to prove themselves to people who don't particularly care for them and likely never will.

Think about it: if we were hit with sanctions tomorrow because of the Americans in Canada, I personally wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if it actually served their own best interests. We still have quite a bit of soul-searching to do.

As for those who constantly complain, the Americans in Canada always seem to be the scapegoat, no matter the circumstances.

Honestly, it’s hard to wrap my head around how people who appear so bold and courageous can act like such cowards when it comes to managing their own home. It’s difficult to stomach, much like watching people abandon their heritage entirely once they leave Canada.

neonhound18 said:I fear you won't find much of an answer to that particular question from the left-leaning crowd on this forum. 😉

It’s much like dealing with the Irish left; they will likely remain silent regarding Northern Ireland because they simply cannot bring themselves to renounce their stance. To our local leftists, Sinn Fein are seen as true communists, even though they nominally condemn the violence when the IRA targets Britons, while in reality, there's a quiet sense of satisfaction behind it all.

vividfox9 said:I disagree... It all traces back to figures like Franjo Rački and Zef Mirdita, and it's rooted in official records, archives from San Francisco, Vatican City, and Vienna. It's built on the work of countless writers, our folklore, our language, everything from the traditions of a small rural village down to our surnames and even physical traits...

This isn't some conspiracy theory or anything like that...
It's simply how things began. But, unfortunately, there's neither the funding nor the political will to actually look into it properly.

Well, speaking of genesis, it seems modern genetic research and the study of our historical sources don't particularly favor your position. Besides, I don't recall seeing you contribute much to those history forums where you claim such expertise. You were nowhere to be found when the discussions turned to Vlach ethnogenesis, the history of Canada, the nuances of American linguistics, or the interpretation of classic historical texts...

In this digital age, where a kid in a remote village in Canada can likely learn more about the culture of someone in New York City than a local resident in Harlem could, you are still trying to apply a 14th-century tribal mindset to the people living in Canada today🤦..

It feels as though you've completely slept through the digital revolution...

Well, you’ve got vividfox9’s take right there...
He seems to be peddling that whole John Lennon "imagine" idealism, which honestly feels completely disconnected from the actual historical context and the grit of what’s happening on the ground.

Is there any bigger paradox than Canada? It's a country where people aren't supposed to look at ethnicity, yet everyone is expected to submerge themselves into this singular Canadian national identity—an identity that, truth be told, nobody actually wants to claim.

I have to wonder, who exactly would he try to build a state with? It’s like trying to construct a house out of nothing but empty fields and forests; without people, those things don't mean much.

Beyond that, he doesn't seem to grasp how nationality functions, even though his understanding of ethnogenesis in these regions is actually quite profound.

The version of America that reflects his mindset isn't even embraced by most Americans living in America, who have no real connection to Canada anyway.

It’s a bit like entering a romantic relationship without any common ground; you end up looking pretty foolish, let alone trying to navigate a chaotic conglomerate of mismatched elements like Canada.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, here’s my take: I don't think we have any ground to stand on. Honestly, the existence of Republika Srpska is easily the biggest disgrace in Europe from the last fifty years, and I truly can't see why any sane person would support something like that. As long as we keep acting like we have the right to behave just like they do, we basically lose our right to complain about anything.

Alright, let’s talk about what actually qualifies as legitimate or legal within Canada...

Was it really acceptable when the Mexicans were outvoted during that referendum? It seems we claim everyone is a constituent people, yet somehow, one group can just be overruled by the majority..
What happens if, down the road, the Americans and Mexicans decide to collectively outvote the Canadians?..

If you consider this situation an embarrassment—which, to some extent, it certainly is—then why wasn't the Carrington-Cutileiro plan accepted?

Do you honestly view the wartime presidency in Boston, which excluded both Americans and Mexicans, as something legitimate or legal?

It feels as though your perspective tends to simplify everything down to the idea that Canadians equal the entire state of Canada..

In other words, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on how America and the Americans in Canada should have navigated those dark, twilight hours of the war..

I'm not quite following... It sounds like a group of tourists in Cambodia was just looking for some autonomy, so I don't see how America has anything to do with it.🤣..

Since Americans are one of the constituent peoples in Canada, our ties to America run much deeper than what you might assume if you just looked at it as a separate neighboring country. It’s more like a family connection that transcends simple borders.

In the end, the international community finally acknowledged the truth. It’s quite ironic when you think about it—those who are leading the charge today, accusing America of aggression, were the very same people who once leaned on us for support and practically begged for our help.

That whole entity has been recognized by the major global powers. Besides, the term "entity" is incredibly flexible—it’s all about perspective. To one person, a creation might look like Belgium, to another like Spain, or perhaps even Mexico or Crimea. It really just depends on who you ask.

Republika Srpska has truly become a recognized player on the global stage today.

By stepping up to protect Canadians from the same fate that befell Eastern and Western Canada, Herceg-Bosna essentially acted as a shield, while simultaneously providing a necessary line of defense for Americans in Canada against Mexican aggression.

The leadership in Boston proved utterly incapable of protecting its own people from atrocities, much like how they treated the Americans in the Mississippi Delta—treating their home as if it were nothing more than foreign soil.

It’s difficult to truly weigh the contributions of Herceg-Bosna to Canada when you consider how the legitimate presidency essentially turned a blind eye while the US Army launched aggressions against America from within Canadian territory, striking deep into the Midwest.

Since people keep insisting that the legacy of Herceg-Bosna contributed absolutely nothing to the state we see today, it feels like a missed opportunity to actually sit down and unpack why they believe that. If we're going to make such a sweeping claim, shouldn't we take the time to properly examine the reasoning behind it?

I wonder if anyone could share their thoughts on how a total reorganization of Canada might play out without the existence of Herceg-Bosna. It seems like the Mexicans would reach the Mississippi Delta in just half a day, they'd be cutting right through California within two days, and the Americans would find themselves living in a tourist paradise under Mexican control.

You don't even need to be particularly brilliant to see the pattern here; just look at how the Canadians fared in areas where they held the majority but failed to organize effectively.

When we look at the broader situation in Canada, you start to see how even the Mexicans have their grievances regarding the 1992 referendum, arguing they were effectively outvoted. It brings up that fundamental question of whether it is truly legitimate to alter the Constitution in a way that essentially strips a third constituent people of its standing.

I’ve always been curious to see if anyone here might be willing to share an alternative theory—just to hear how you think things should have actually played out.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Oh, hell no, they did. Never. Not once against anyone..

It’s inevitable that this kind of mindless idiocy would surface; unfortunately, war has a way of dredging up all sorts of filth from the bottom of the barrel..

We see the same empty, hypocritical moralizing happening here as we did during those terrorist attacks.. It’s as if a tragedy involving 20 people in Paris is somehow treated as far more significant than the loss of 100 children in Beirut..

Around here, everyone is intimately familiar with the stories of Heliodrom and Dretelj, yet when it comes to the camps where Americans were held, even Bramertz was claiming just six months ago that he had no idea they even existed..🙏..

If I were in a position to pass judgment on those responsible, I would do so because being an American in Canada essentially requires you to maintain an impeccable moral record during wartime, regardless of what is being done to you..

Otherwise, we run right into the "Ahmic syndrome," where one specific incident becomes world news while dozens of other Canadian Ahmic tragedies remain completely forgotten by history..

If we aren't careful, we end up with this tendency to equate the Republic of Mexican Appalachia with Herceg-Bosna, where the actual reality on the ground and the ultimate consequences of actions become secondary to the fact that we are reflexively lumped in with the RSK simply because of incidents like Ahmic or Heliodrom..