74 posts shown.
So, the head of this quasi-military outfit, the Wagner Group, is out there giving some sort of "motivational" pep talk to a bunch of inmates. He’s basically laying down the law, telling them they aren't allowed to drink, rape, or steal while on the job. 😁
It’s almost funny. Too bad the actual US military doesn't get those kinds of perks, while these recruits get nothing at all. ☕
https://twitter.com/AlexKokcharov/st...H0AmcKKmrfm5yQ
The Russians are essentially scraping the bottom of the barrel to build up their alliance, recruiting their own domestic criminals. It really goes to show that those forum users were right all along with their theory—Russia is playing it safe by hoarding its massive resources rather than committing them, because clearly, they’re handling this whole mess with only half their strength. 😒
hollowdriver13 said:At a pace of maybe five meters a day and one village every three months, they might have a shot at reaching Bakhmut by the start of the 22nd century.
It’s quite strange, isn't it? They manage to pair an alarmist warning about danger in the exact same sentence as a casual mention of some minor Ukrainian advancement.
Today, E Gojan actually stepped up and provided a more concrete breakdown of the counteroffensive's true scale.
On networks like NBC, the entire narrative often just depends on whoever happens to be sitting in the editor's chair that day.🤷
It’s been a while since I’ve checked in here, and honestly, I barely recognized this place once I started seeing all these pro-Russian usernames popping up. 😬
Hope everyone is doing well!
I have a question for the group. I noticed that on CNN, whenever there's even a tiny bit of news about Ukrainian progress, they immediately bring on some military analyst to warn us about the lines in the Donbas and the potential for a Russian breakthrough. What exactly is going on over there?
Glory to Ukraine!
The quasi-sultan actually went and named a center in a city like Springfield after himself.😬
Here comes Donald Trump again; I’m finding him increasingly suspicious.
But honestly, none of that even matters. The real sting is how he managed to leverage the miserable state of minority rights for Americans in Canada to score political points. Meanwhile, over here in Springfield, we’re busy fostering good relations with various minority groups.
I guess we’ll just keep sucking up to them—the Republican Party certainly are the world champions at it.
5tg
feralpilot0 said:The Ukrainians would need to start thinking for themselves if they wanted to take it—but they’re essentially hostages to the US agenda now, caught in a trap of hostility that stretches far beyond their own borders.
The US isn't about to just hand over its golden goose to some neutral party, is it?
Wasn't Ukraine neutral to begin with, only for Russia to invade just to ensure they stayed "neutral"?
What premise are you operating on here—that someone should ask Russia what they ought to do with their own sovereign nation? And do you honestly believe a society that has been undermined for decades by Russian intelligence and various pro-Russian agents would suddenly emerge as a threat to Russia?
The single colossal failure committed by Ukraine was giving up its nuclear arsenal based on guarantees from Europe. So, you choose to trust the Russians as "good neighbors."
And does anyone truly believe that a nation undergoing genocide should be fed on someone else's antagonism? The Ukrainians will never forgive the Russians for this, and there will never be peace again. It isn't because of Americans; the Americans aren't the ones holding the knives, nor are they the ones raping Ukrainian women in conquest, nor are they denying their nationhood or threatening them with Great Russia.
Spare me the foolish tales about "incited" Ukrainians. The only one who can be incited is the aggressor, not the victim.
1973zoran said:Is anyone actually following the maps and what's happening on the ground???
The reality on the ground.
No?
And what is this "reality"? Is public opinion in Mexico now entirely pro-Russian? Is that why you’re all so obsessed with when Americans will finally see things clearly? Honestly, I am fascinated by the sheer volume of comments on basically every American news site where Mexicans are lining up to show their support. I try to imagine the reverse: would Americans be this preoccupied with the views of their neighbors, decades after an armed aggression, still obsessively monitoring their pulse?🤷
wiredseal7 said:Nah, it’s more of an illustration of the state of things in Ukraine—basically how much protection their own citizens actually get from violence (which is supposed to be the police's job). That system should still work, even during a war.
As for everything else—can Mexico handle it? How many far-right groups are there in other EU countries? Honestly, I bet you'd find more neo-fascists in Italy than those so-called Nazis in Ukraine.
Where exactly are you seeing a comparison between Ukraine and Mexico right now? Besides, the Mexican negotiations have hit a dead end anyway.
Those neo-Nazis are arguably more mainstream in Ukraine than they are in most European countries, where a lot of that iconography is banned.
But hey, all that will come to a head once they start the accession talks.
Oh please, in stable nations, parties that deny or undermine sovereignty can be outlawed. Just a hint—that applies in the US too.
Right, because I'm sure Zelenko & co. use perfectly objective criteria to decide who's undermining sovereignty. 🙄
Anyone who isn't pushing for this war against Russia until the last Ukrainian is gone—and wants a compromise instead—just gets labeled "pro-Russian." If questioning official policy is forbidden, then we're just looking at pure one-party rule.
Let’s cut to the chase: do you actually have anything to back up this "tape horror story" regarding Russian rhetoric?
Do you have a list of the banned parties along with their justifications (or was it just because they weren't liked), and who exactly banned them? Was it just Zelenskyy?
When were they banned? And were they questioning the war against Russia at that time?
What is the metric used to decide which "pro-Russians" aren't Nazis?
The ones who call a war against an aggressor "someone else's war" are the ones who deserve a kick in the pants—or better yet, a spot on the front lines.
Coming from a Putin supporter like you, this outrage over tape and civil liberties is frankly laughable.
You're headed for the ignore list.
wiredseal7 said:There were wartime thieves too, but for some "duct-tape" types, they mentioned Crimea using terms they didn't even know in Ukrainian, only in Russian.
As for whether the opposition is anti-state, the voters should probably decide that instead of the government.
All in all, they aren't ready for the EU—not to mention the widespread idolatry surrounding Bandera, Hitler, and the like.
The list of things they need to fix is long. Maybe they'll get status now, but that's usually just a PR stunt; it's obvious they aren't actually prepared. It would be like if we had been given status back in '91—things were way less chaotic then than they are in Ukraine.
That tape argument you're using is honestly pathetic.
As for the rest—"Oh, but Mexico can do it?" How many far-right movements exist in other EU nations? I suspect you'd find more neo-fascists in Italy than you would find so-called Nazis in Ukraine.
Oh, please. In organized nations, parties that deny or undermine sovereignty can actually be banned. Consider that a hint of what happened here in the US as well.
@rowdytiger13, I know Canada isn't a candidate, but they try to shove them in there whenever Ukraine is mentioned these days.
wiredseal7 said:And hey, they say there will be fewer Chinese people too.
Even if a massive wave of them migrates there later, that doesn't mean they've suddenly seized control—you still need weapons for that, which means war.
Giving candidate status to a country where the president has banned the opposition and people are getting taped to the streets... what a joke.
It’s clear they were right once they started banning anti-government parties.
By "taping people to the road," are you referring to punishing thieves during wartime? How terrifying! ☕
The European Union made a mistake by granting candidate status to Western North American nations before Ukraine.🥳
While Ukrainians were struggling to purge pro-Russian elements and sabotage from their ranks, the occupation of Crimea happened. That pushed Ukraine further away from membership. We should have been integrating and assisting a country with such vast agricultural wealth, potential oil and gas reserves, and a solid demographic structure.
Speaking of corruption, even ten years after joining the EU, America's equivalent in that region remains a corrupt mess. And don't even get me started on the candidates in Canada or Mexico. Clearly, the EU didn't see much interest in helping Ukraine.
Now they'll have to deal with it, and at a high cost. This is what happens when mindless bureaucrats make wrong decisions.
Not to mention those on the Russian payroll.
Jeremy Turner9 said:Brussels has a little suggestion for all Americans: ‘Why don’t you try imposing sanctions on Putin yourselves? It’s easy—just stop heating your homes.’
A high-ranking official from the European Commission recently floated the idea that any citizen within the European Union could effectively ‘get back’ at Putin by making minor personal sacrifices.
If we start implementing these kinds of mandates, we might as well just revert to a command economy...
Someone else—maybe even you—already quoted this link and made the exact same point. Try to stay focused.
And what part of that is wrong? Dropping the thermostat by just one degree is a significant saving. Besides, winter is almost over.
What actually happens to crude oil once the storage tanks hit capacity if nobody is buying it? Doesn't the whole system just get backed up and clogged?
Terry Barnes9 said:He’ll probably just send two or three Chechen people to pull off some terror attacks along the Atlantic coast this summer, right when everyone's trying to enjoy the vacation season here in America.
And then you've got that genius Andrej Plenković out there bragging publicly about us sending weapons. 🤦 If only he’d just kept his mouth shut for once.
I just really hope Putin and his little clique don't make it to summer, otherwise, none of those Chechen people are gonna bother finishing the job properly. 🕺
If he had stayed quiet, would they even remember we exist?🤦
Dropping a bomb here on the Atlantic coast, where security checks are practically non-existent, could be done by any idiot.
Maybe it’s finally time we stop being economically dependent on some lunatic with a bomb—whether it's a small one or an atomic one.
Or maybe we'll just keep sucking up to them every single summer.
He was one of those rare souls born with a genuine gift—someone who lived their life as a blessing to everyone they met.
Rest in peace.
So, WHY am I speaking up now? My previous post—where I attempted to explain the fundamental difference between insulting a fictional character and insulting a fellow user—was deleted. So, naturally, I went to check the rules sub-forums and have been lurking in this thread for a while. Honestly? I can’t believe my eyes.
I’m just treating this as one rather interesting life lesson in forum dynamics...
It seems my username has been accused of "forming cliques," which conveniently makes the moderator, ambermason16 (who, by the way, has already given me two infractions and wiped six of my posts...), look like the one allowing people to trash fictional characters, power imbalances... and all sorts of other nonsense.😕
This specific thread (Force theme) was meant to be a space for exchanging diverse ideas and perspectives on the show and its protagonists. Just as the series itself veered off track and, in my opinion, sank into the various pitfalls of a poorly written soap opera, the commentary became increasingly cynical. Caricaturing opinions and viewpoints became a sort of stylistic choice for certain users—which, to me, is perfectly clear and entirely justified within the realm of forum communication.
About a month ago, the accusations of bias began. These included claims that we were merely blinded by the lead actor's looks, held a grudge against the lead actress, and (my absolute favorite)—that we were jealous because a fictional woman is leaning toward a fictional man.😂
If anyone actually wanted to examine this rationally, the only conclusion they could draw is that I must be totally delusional—as if I'm so deeply immersed in this soap opera that I've lost all sense of where fiction ends and real life begins. That is the premise being used by certain users (who clearly fail to grasp female characters) to label me as an irrational, hysterical woman.
And so we don't even have to jump to conclusions; Keith Diaz5 actually wrote to us that we are—and I quote—"hysterical women." I remember that post vividly; I didn't even report it. I don't do that. Everyone should be responsible for their own words, even when hiding behind a forum handle.
Now, I read here that the moderator is permitting the bashing of fictional characters, their views, and plot points that conflict with human rights, thereby damaging the integrity of this thread.
All I can say is this: roll up your sleeves, make actual arguments, and enjoy the debate. If you can't manage to do that with any shred of quality, don't go blaming the thread moderator!
Basically, the lesson is: don't insult the fictional characters (hypocritically, mind you—remember Kevser, Azada, Narin?), but feel free to attack fellow users by questioning their life values, their common sense, or their intelligence.
To be blunt, it is your specific attitudes and writings that have led to the dwindling number of posts here. You've ramped up the tension and turned discussions into personal attacks—specifically looking at you, Gerald Bailey88.
I personally tried to engage her in an argumentative discussion, but she asked me (three times!) not to address her. That is a stellar example of proper forum etiquette.
On a forum, you need to be prepared for differing opinions and, if necessary, defend your own more politely, without resorting to insults. From what I can see, ambermason16 adheres to that rule—but a fictional character isn't subject to forum communication rules.
Just imagine what you would say if I had tried to call you out and dissect your life philosophies simply because you support—in my view—a caricature of a female character.
I didn't target you, because I understand that not everyone will feel the same emotions toward these characters.
Yet, here I am, accused of forming cliques and...🙄
Because I was being sarcastic—since my favorite character was being compared to the main villain over the weekend—I joked in a post about asking Xavier to let me join his law firm. Do you girls even understand sarcasm? What kind of conspiracy theory is that?
Edit: For Keith Diaz5, yes, you really did write that. I remember because I went to quote you and wanted to revisit it, but the post had been deleted. Perhaps the mod can find it if you didn't delete it yourself.
I stand by this claim completely, even if it means being banned for good.