Posts by Jonathan Barnes5

@Brian Martin78/">@@Brian Martin78
It all feels like smoke and mirrors to me. The toughest part is when the Bad Boys underperform simply because they aren't following the specific whims of the higher-ups back in headquarters🤣..

I mean, where does that even leave us? It’s as if the new kids can't succeed because their style doesn't perfectly match the directives being beamed down from the corporate office in New York🤣..

Walter Mendoza80 said:They showed up and then they were gone, which feels somewhat contrary to all the hype leading up to it.
Given how quiet the media coverage remained, I can't help but wonder what was actually achieved here.
It just seems to strengthen the case for fighting against organized crime and corruption, yet that intended psychological impact feels like it missed the mark.

Exactly. It’s nothing more than defeatism and barroom philosophy.🙏..
As someone who has lived through enough years to stop chasing childish, idealistic slogans or obsessing over whether people are wearing black jackets versus other colors, I found myself genuinely surprised by both the turnout and the palpable energy in the air.

It is almost as if these younger kids aren't fully grasping the weight of reality, leaving you to step in and offer that old, weary perspective that things won't necessarily improve.
Perhaps they won't, but seeing the scale of it all at one point felt truly surreal.

Raymond Reyes3 As if I hadn't heard that already.
You all are being incredibly harsh. I truly hope our paths never cross under such circumstances. 😁
No matter which direction we decide to take, we really ought to keep in mind that there is a genuine risk posed by those American fighters. 😁

That’s actually quite simple to handle. However, I don't want anyone getting into the habit of constantly retreating or backing down when things get tough. You have to watch out for that reactionary feedback loop; if you aren't careful, it can end up neutralizing us entirely. Habits are dangerous things once they become second nature.😁

Raymond Reyes3 said:It’s quite funny watching those Americans try to act tough; they spent half an hour going at it, yet in reality, nobody actually landed a single punch. 😁 I honestly can't wrap my head around how YouTube allowed this video to stay up given the sheer amount of violence displayed. This kind of footage really belongs on LiveLeak. 😁
We can certainly revisit the matter of Zandar's conduct and that notorious streak of repression in your neck of the woods at a later time. 😁

Did any of you actually attempt to hold the line against the Delije during the last two matchups?😁

Was the whole strategy of launching an initial assault only to follow it up with a tactical retreat designed to build momentum for a half marathon, perhaps by convincing yourselves that the Delije truly care about you?

Paul Chase95 said:I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. From what I understand, runners consume carbs primarily because they're efficient—basically, the body treats carbohydrates as its main fuel source.

Then there's the whole carb-loading thing used within ketogenic diets (if that’s what you were aiming for), where people cycle through loading and depletion phases—essentially dropping carbs to a minimum before slamming a massive amount one day just to trick the body.

And of course, there's running without carbs altogether via an LCHC diet; honeychild over on the forums swears by it. ☕

First off, for anyone out there hitting the pavement for an epic run,🤦
Secondly, for those who keep buying running manuals written by an Ethiopian, just one more thing...🤦
And finally, thirdly, I think we have collectively overrated carbs. I managed to build quite a bit of muscle in the gym while staying strictly keto.☕

Justin James10 said:You're certainly high-strung, ☕

What has anyone actually achieved in the liberal arts besides becoming a punchline? 🤷

Let's be real: if I were in charge, I'd privatize higher education entirely. Then all those various slackers would have to deal with being broke on their own dime! ☕

It seems FF has started to seriously underestimate themselves lately. It’s likely weighing heavily on them, though one has to wonder what the world would look like without the humanities. Think about how many engineers and PhDs out there are socially inept; I don't just mean they're difficult to work with, but that they genuinely lack the basic social graces required to function in a community.

Paul Chase95 said:Alright, let me pivot away from these topics for a second. Does anyone actually know the deal with Tesla and how the whole company operates? The reason I’m asking is that I’m not super well-versed in it, but whenever I scroll through BuzzFeed comments or dive into threads here, the sentiment regarding Tesla is almost always negative—like, 90% of it is just pure hate. So, I'm curious from a purely informational standpoint: what's the actual story? Is this just standard American envy, or is the hype surrounding this guy genuinely overblown? I already know about his father, so you can skip that part—you can't judge a kid by his old man's track record.

Again, I'm only looking for input from someone who actually understands the industry and can be objective—not that cult-like crowd over in the economics forums. Over there, people are pushing these wild theories that Tesla produces and sells absolutely nothing, and that they're basically just running around the office while his dad's partners foot the bill.

All I know is that I don't give a damn. Just my inner self and Buddhism.☕

I would love to sit here and keep the conversation going, but as Sergio Ramos would say, I really have to head out and go make some money😁.

urbanhawk17 said:Give me some rotation, I can't deal with reading this.

If I actually had a wife to come home to, I wouldn't be wasting my energy on this nonsense.☕

Let me tell you one more thing. I’ve reached a point where I simply don't buy into these narratives anymore. It isn't because I lack a well-researched opinion based on a serious study of the subject, but rather because this nation has become so brazenly dishonest that it’s almost absurd. It feels as though individual ideological stances or deep-seated worldviews mean absolutely nothing the moment Luke hits the field; everything else just evaporates. That is how I experience it. I know a handful of people who wouldn't call themselves religious, yet they fundamentally live by the principles found in the Gospel and are truly good souls. For me, that is enough. Then you have these pretentious, "progressive" wannabe intellectuals who, in many ways, possess a narrower worldview than folks living in rural towns. This country has swallowed so many paradoxes that I feel like I've been burned a hundred times over by these issues. My perspective on life and all these matters has shifted significantly lately.

You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

brightpilot6 said:During the communist years, the Church occupied a dimension of influence that, according to its own doctrine, it shouldn't have possessed at all. Preserving nationalist sentiment certainly isn't a core part of the Christian message. With the birth of America, that specific identity became redundant, yet that old role is missed so desperately that a significant portion of their political activity now boils down to reanimating political corpses like Marshall, America, or the communists.

They’ve quite cleverly woven their former "merit" of nationalism—now rebranded as a "struggle"—into their supposed divine mission. This creates this murky, diffuse amalgam of patriotism where any critique of them is framed as either a regression to one-party rule, an attack on the American people, terrorism by the minority against the majority, or simply an insult to God. It is, quite frankly, the perfect weapon for defending against an entire spectrum of political opponents. But what exactly is the foundation for all of this?

Since those things usually go hand in hand, you aren't far off the mark, regardless of how much sarcasm you throw in. You've just latched onto a different set of tropes, specifically targeting those figures the media insists on putting on every front page.
The process of ethnogenesis and the formation of a people is far too intricate to reduce the Church's role to something so simplistic. At the same time, safeguarding national identity, language, script, and culture falls under its purview as well...
It is an inseparable part of the national fabric. I suppose if we want to trivialize everything over coffee, you could interpret it that way. But that isn't a serious conclusion; it belongs in the realm of Instagram comments.

Take me, for instance—as someone who attends Mass, I never actually hear the things the atheist crowd claims are being preached from the altar. It’s quite a paradox: people who don't attend at all seem to know exactly what is being said. And whenever there’s a camera rolling, I make sure to stay away. It seems that whenever a lens is present, an ideologically blinded fool always happens to be the one standing behind the pulpit. Is that just a coincidence?

And everyone is guilty of that last part. Here is my perspective: how wrong would Ante Hasanbegović be if he made the exact same arguments regarding anti-fascism? Because, essentially, you are reaching the same conclusions.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:Personally, I don't think you've ever heard anyone speak quite like this before.
Are we really going to start acting superior toward White Stones?

It seems you’ve started looking down on folks like Vinkovcan, which is quite a leap from where this all began. It feels as though a certain collective madness has taken hold of the group—a loss of perspective among people who used to carry themselves with much more common sense. You see individuals returning from a border crossing, openly stating they aren't even attending an away game, yet suddenly everyone feels entitled to lecture others about the club. Honestly, people would likely criticize White Stones too if they hadn't accomplished everything you currently deem acceptable. It’s a bit unsettling to witness how narrow the criteria have become; it seems the criticism only stops once everyone meets your specific standards🤣. Of course, there are always exceptions if you consider yourself one of them, but that is simply the nature of growth—when a movement becomes larger than its origins, the ego tends to expand along with it. There is no denying you have built something powerful here; you have a club and the influence to make things happen, but that ego is becoming far larger than anything we ever experienced back home.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:If you had built your own club from the ground up, you’d automatically have that kind of standing. But under this setup, you won't see anything until the first big display happens, fueled by those trophies won under mamicev management.

Even if we had started from scratch with our own organization, people like you would still feel entitled to lecture us on what's acceptable and what isn't. It’s just part of your nature at this point. There are likely things people observe about us from the outside too, but when it comes to preaching, you guys are truly unmatched. You live under conditions reminiscent of North Korea, yet you mock the very idea of repression through your messages. Just imagine how long one would have to wait for the first choreographed show. Personally, I have no issue admitting that some things we once mocked have come back to haunt us, proving that those critics were actually right all along. Unfortunately, that kind of humility seems to be missing from your side. Edit
It’s funny when I think back to the talk about the East Side being treated like a second-class group in the US. It was nothing more than mocking the consequences of oppression. They use a common enemy as an excuse, but then they turn around and ridicule the actual fallout of that struggle. Pretty soon, this will all just be dismissed as "ultra mentality" whenever it becomes inconvenient.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:Every loss, particularly during international tournaments, essentially means a lighter treasury and much tougher circumstances when trying to sustain those questionable transfer deals or orchestrated match outcomes through player movements.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but do you realize how futile it feels to hold onto that hope? It is much like a Sevilla fan dreaming they might suddenly compete on equal footing with FC Barcelona or Real Madrid to clinch a title.

Furthermore, for things to truly change, the club would practically need to face immediate relegation to feel the impact, which isn't even on the radar. You end up hoping for a miracle just to face disappointment later. I don't think you can truly grasp just how surreal and exhausting this entire situation really is.

Austin Collins6 said:If you just swapped out the name of the club for the Republican Party in your text, people would immediately understand why so many Americans tend to vote the way they do. There is just too much raw emotion, layers of history, and perhaps even a touch of pathos involved; it all feels somewhat irrational, like a grand illusion. It is quite difficult to rise above those feelings to maintain a sense of realism. I have nothing but respect for everything you've done, and I salute you like any veteran of the National Guard, but supporting a team like Los Angeles FC—which means cheering for them—is essentially endorsing the people running the show. This isn't just some temporary management crew that we can simply replace next season; Jerry Jones and his circle have become synonymous with the club itself. They have taken it over, stripped it bare, and left it broken. Personally, I find I cannot celebrate a goal when Jerry Jones and his associates are the ones orchestrating it. Then again, everyone processes these things differently.

I don't think that comparison quite holds water. In terms of identity, Los Angeles FC is as fundamental to the fans as the nation itself is to its citizens. In that light, Jerry Jones represents the Republican Party. You previously made it clear where you stand regarding him. Furthermore, your analogy would only truly work if one were forced to support Jerry Jones because there simply wasn't a viable alternative, which is often how Republican voters view their situation. The club is permanent and enduring, whereas an administration like Jerry Jones's is merely one chapter in a much longer story; they are transient.

By that same logic, the only people who would be entirely correct under your reasoning are those who boycott the club altogether.

Michelle Sullivan said:It’s funny how one person defines true passion, while another just sees it as mindless noise.

🤣🤣. It’s honestly pathetic..

In about two years, this ridiculous narrative is going to turn into a repetitive, mainstream chant. You'll have groups that don't even have half the grit or presence of the Blue Army lecturing everyone else on what real support looks like.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:I’m not quite following your logic regarding who is making deals with whom; honestly, that analogy doesn't really hold water.

As for this whole existential crisis about whether the group even has a purpose, I think it's pretty clear why we're here. It feels as though you might be better suited watching professional football rather than indoor soccer. Am I remembering correctly, or is the glory usually found in scoring goals against opponents like Cleveland?

Oh, it certainly stands. You just have to flip the script and look at who is actually being accused of making deals with the devil while they try to build an entire argument around trivialities like goal counts.

I'm not even bringing up Cleveland or Indianapolis.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:Imagine if Germany and France were at war. Suppose the French government decided to back the German resistance movement, only for the German military to turn around and shell Paris while the resistance celebrates during a victory parade in Berlin.

That’s essentially your logic in a nutshell.

You remind me of the old Fianna Fáil era under Eamon de Valera. It’s like when people end up targeting those with the best intentions—much like what happened to Michael Collins—only to face the paradox where Sinn Féin still clings to Northern Ireland even though the fighters involved reached an agreement ages ago. That’s your whole philosophy in short: just moving forward with more nonsense.

Douglas Rodriguez27 said:If you think following Real Madrid's lead by celebrating offside goals in an illegitimate league is the goal, then I suppose you're heading in the right direction...

It’s quite something to witness the sheer level of self-importance and pretension on display here; watching you all act like high-and-mighty Facebook community managers with your little strolls through the comments makes me want to laugh.
It seems to be part of your nature to talk nonsense, much like how you handled things during those intense boycott periods back in the day.