Posts by James Nguyen13

Nicole Collins13 said:He's got a point. It's his money, and he should be allowed to spend it however he damn well pleases. Making these types of funds mandatory is just foolish. If he wants to buy an old steam locomotive and burn fuel with dollars or euros, let him.
Mandatory funds shouldn't exist. If someone wants to save, they should do it their own way. If they don't want to, then they can deal with the consequences later. For those who physically can't save, that's a different issue entirely, which is why Social Security exists.

I've been playing in stocks, commodities, and gold for a long time. I was even messing around with shipping futures before that became a trendy pastime for Americans. Personally, I prefer making my own calls. If I blow it all, so be it. At least I'll know exactly how it happened and who to blame. As long as the game was interesting. 😉

I used to hold similar views, but I eventually realized it’s a bit of a moot point because, at the end of the day, everyone gets a pension regardless of whether they saved or not. For instance, here in the States, you see plenty of people who never set a dime aside for retirement—farmers especially—and yet they all end up receiving benefits. Why? Because they’re voters. When they hit a certain age, they start complaining about being hungry or having nothing to live on, and they find every excuse for why they didn't contribute. Eventually, they find the politicians and parties willing to represent them, and everyone gets their check, whether they saved or not. So, in that light, mandatory saving actually makes some sense.
As for shifting toward investment-based funds, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was always obvious that systems based purely on generational solidarity wouldn't be sustainable. So, someone had the bright idea to swap them for investment funds and sold it to the public as this amazing alternative.
Honestly, it's nonsense. All that economist babble about the infinite growth of the stock market is just that: babble. Economists are essentially just people who will explain to you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings pool is going to evaporate, much like what happened back in Chile.
The retirement system should still be rooted in the principle of solidarity; the key is simply adjusting pension levels to reality and extending the working life as much as possible.

nimblemarlin17 said:Look, I'm sorry, but what actual policy differences are there between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party? Are Mason and Nobilo Democratic Party? Should Milanović call Tadić an enemy even though neither of them fought in the war? You're being ridiculous.

Račan hitched his wagon to leeches, which turned out to be exactly what happened. Since you seem to view Budis and Tomac as heroes, it's clear you aren't voting for your own better future. Good luck with that! 👍

The old leadership was basically a coalition, and the Democrats were heavily supported by those same factions. It’s not that one leader needs to consider the other an enemy, but the fact that he treats him as a personal friend—especially after everything that person said about our country and the war, even going as far as filing lawsuits against us—really speaks volumes about his own character. You are judged by the company you keep. Besides, back then, he was fully involved because he was a staunch patriot.
By forming those alliances, that leader essentially handed power to the Democratic Party. Personally, I see the other figure very positively; he’s one of the few truly honest people left in the American political scene, someone who actually possesses integrity.

wearycanyon26 said:What do you mean, "pro-Mexican extremists and American sympathizers"!?
Who on earth is Pupavac sitting in a coalition with for two whole terms then, if not them?! Why the hell are you trying to scare this nation with the specter of America, you hypocrites!?
Who exactly are these "extremists" and "American" you're talking about? Are you referring to the current Speaker of the House, a former high-ranking intelligence official? Or perhaps you're targeting the current Secretary of Defense who has even identified as an American? Which specific American are you pointing at, and by what twisted logic did you decide they actually belong to that group?

I’m talking about the people who sing songs praising the old union whenever they want to celebrate an election "victory." I mean the ones who jump at every chance to deliver a eulogy for Marshall and the "good old days." I mean those who actually pushed for sanctions against us back in '91, or those whose closest allies are foreign leaders currently suing us in international courts. I mean the ones who claim we were the aggressors or suggest that certain historical battles weren't as tragic as others. And let's not forget the whole crew of advisors and staff in the President's office who served in the FBI—not that they were kicked out for being too patriotic, but they were still pulling strings well into 1990!
I don't want to keep repeating myself, otherwise, I'll start sounding like a troll to my own ears.

wearycanyon26 said:But everything you're criticizing the "left" for is actually written right there in the Constitution.
As for this whole business regarding the marginalization of veterans, honestly, I have never understood that argument.
I hear it all the time, yet I fail to see how they are being marginalized or who exactly is doing it, or even by what mechanism?
Is "marginalization" simply asking legitimate questions about the size of the registry, demanding transparency through public records, or suggesting that we need a proper audit? Are those really acts of marginalization, even if they are desperate attempts at reform?
Or are you referring to the specific instances of how benefits are handed out?
Regarding religious education in schools, fine, maybe it isn't the most vital issue, but the agreements with the Vatican certainly are significant topics, just as the way overseas voters participate in our elections is a matter of great importance. I don't see what is so controversial about discussing those...

Look, here is a textbook example of veteran marginalization: coming from leadership figures who don't give them even an ounce of respect. It’s the same story every time—people digging for fake veterans or obsessing over publishing registries, yet nobody ever asks how it’s mathematically or biologically possible that, sixty-three years after World War II, we are still dealing with seventy-eight thousand partisan pensions. No one ever opens up that discussion, but they’ll talk about veterans all day long. Apparently, their contributions aren't worth a dime. It goes so far that some people even try to claim atrocities were committed during Operation Storm.
Regarding the agreement with the Vatican, you can't just cancel it unilaterally, so it seems pretty foolish to bring that up as a campaign talking point. As for overseas voting, it doesn't even exist in the way people think. What exists is the right for all American citizens to vote, regardless of where they live. About 90% of the diaspora isn't even made up of citizens, so they have no voting rights, and of the 10% who are citizens, maybe only a fifth actually shows up. They’re basically a footnote; the only reason the topic comes up is because someone back home keeps threatening to abolish it.

nimblemarlin17 said:I’m basing my arguments on firsthand data. Yours are pure speculation. Most election fraud examples involve groups that gain something direct from the outcome—think veterans or military factions—and there isn't much room for the left to pull those kinds of stunts. There's nobody on their side with enough to gain to bother cheating.

I’m not buying that "firsthand" info you’re peddling. Every single polling station where the Republican Party holds sway is packed with observers.

nimblemarlin17 said:They aren't wrong when they call Republican Party opponents communists, globalists, Masons, or anti-Christs and all that nonsense. You think the right to be an asshole is reserved just for the ruling dynasty?

Yeah, in case you hadn't figured it out, I absolutely loathe the Republican Party.

On the contrary, the leftists themselves are the ones constantly broadcasting their sympathies for communism, old regimes, and those "let's divide ourselves" narratives.
Nobody forced anyone to claim that veterans aren't worth a dime at a funeral or to surround them with shady intelligence types; nobody pressured Joe Biden to say his good friend is someone who would prosecute us for genocide; nor did any political elites claim one military operation was somehow better than another, or suggest we were the aggressors in past conflicts, or have Democratic Party members singing old anthems glorifying defunct leaders. THEY DO IT ALL ON THEIR OWN.
As far as the left goes, the smartest move they ever made was when Račan played it cool—teaming up with various moderate factions and the Green Party—which effectively neutralized the Republican Party because then no one could slap the "communist" or "old-regime sympathizer" label on them. It was how they beat the GOP at their own game.

nimblemarlin17 said:My point was aimed at anyone who thinks it's okay to claim votes for their entire family, or people using military rank to cast ballots for others. You can call the electorate whatever names you want if they allow that kind of manipulation. People like that deserve nothing but poverty and misery because they aren't even using the most basic social right of choosing leadership. One person, one vote. It’s simple. Everyone has the right, and the responsibility, to decide for themselves. Whether it's the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Progressive Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Patriot Party—it doesn't matter, as long as you make the choice yourself.

But you missed the point entirely—he was just politely explaining why that isn't actually happening. Wherever the Republican Party seems strong, it's usually just a handful of loudmouths acting as mouthpieces.
I'd even go so far as to say the idea of widespread surveillance is a bit of a joke here. I highly doubt groups like the Regionalist Party or the Democratic Party aren't running their own little maneuvers behind the scenes, yet you don't see any right-wing observers claiming the same. It would be much more realistic to assume they are the ones pulling the strings, rather than the Republican Party, since the GOP basically has a whole fleet of "independent" observers sitting right on their doorstep just watching their every move.

darkfox5 said:What you're saying just isn't true... Poll workers at the precincts represent various different parties, and every single polling station also has observers from the parties not sitting on the commission... It is practically impossible for someone to vote on behalf of another person (and my own experience working on these commissions gives me every right to claim that)...

When citizens can't make it to the polling place due to health issues, they call in or find another way to request that commission members come to them. In those cases, three commission members visit that citizen at their home to ensure they can cast their vote legally...

You really only need to look at where the League of Women Voters places its observers—they seem to focus almost exclusively on areas where the Republican Party is winning. Then, once the League of Women Voters releases their data, it looks like the Republican Party is pulling in two-thirds of the vote. Every single precinct where the Republican Party is strong is practically swarmed by observers from other parties and various "independent" leftist groups.
But honestly, these folks are essentially engaging in political suicide. They claim the Republican Party won because of support from overseas voters (which isn't true), or that they won because the local voters are narrow-minded, or even that the voters are corrupt and stealing ballots. By making those accusations, all they're really doing is reinforcing the resolve of those voters to stick with the Republican Party.

mistycyclist5 said:If I ever rolled into a small town like Imotski and told the first person I ran into that the Republican Party is robbing us blind and needs to be kicked out, the least I’d get is a punch to the head accompanied by shouts of "commie trash." It’s funny how in more developed areas—places like Istria, Varaždin, Čakovec, or even Washington, D.C.—you have much less chance of that happening... though lately, Washington, D.C. has seen such an influx of lowlifes that actual locals are becoming a rare breed.

Look, I've never supported the Republican Party, and I never will. I’m looking for a party that actually fights for America and the interests of its citizens, but as far as I can tell, a party like that doesn't even exist on the political stage yet. 😉

Unfortunately, that’s just the reality for most of the country. People either stay home, or they end up reluctantly voting for a corrupt Republican Party because they feel like the alternatives are just as crooked or stuck in some outdated, old-school ideology.
We really are in a sad state of affairs.

nimblemarlin17 said:It’s not some myth, it’s reality. What do you think my grandma votes for? An uncle or a nephew rolls up and says, "Hey Grandma, I'll do this for you so you don't have to walk down to the polls." Just guess which party gets all those votes.

Then there’s the military. Back in the day, I was in a friendly weekend soccer league with a proud US Armed Forces colonel. He wasn't ashamed to talk openly in the pub about how they used to rig hundreds of votes for the Republican Party and how much it sucks now because it's become way harder.

When you hear things like that firsthand, they stop being urban legends or fairy tales. Tens of thousands of votes across America go to the Republican Party that way.

Look, as long as you keep treating the electorate with that kind of condescension and looking down your nose at them, they’re going to stay stubbornly committed to their choice. Seriously, since 2000, instead of the prominent Democrats in this country actually trying to figure out why they aren't winning people over, they just sit around complaining, "What's the deal with these voters? Why won't they vote for us?"
And what do you expect from that? It feels like the left is practically the main promoter for the Republican Party; I honestly used to wonder if they were getting paid to do it. If the Republican Party didn't have an opposition like the one they have now—which is mostly made up of old-school nostalgics, folks obsessed with division, proponents of weird conspiracy theories about "agreed-upon wars," and urban elitists who couldn't survive a single day without central heating—the Republican Party would have guaranteed victories every single time.

fadedangler said:It looks to me like the country is just sinking further into trouble. The Republican Party seems to be getting more corrupt by the day, and honestly, Sanders can't seem to get anything right. It feels like you aren't even allowed to speak your mind if you disagree with the administration. Sanders acts like he owns the place—he could probably pull off a full dictatorship if he really wanted to, since he can basically arrest whoever he feels like. The only thing stopping him is that we don't have Gulags here yet.
So, I have to ask you guys:
Why are you still sticking by Sanders? I mean, has he completely brainwashed everyone, or is there something else going on here?

It's because your signature is on a petition calling for a "new America."
In this country, Sanders is really just a necessary evil, mainly because the opposition consists of people who would gladly sign your little petition.
The American left needs to wake up and realize that so many people in this nation find any mention of communism or the old regime absolutely repulsive that they will vote for the Republican Party until the day they die, simply because of how much the left clings to those two things.

Well, given what you do, haven't you heard? People say 2010 was basically World War III. Either way, we're all just drifting along anyway!

That’s just nonsense. Splitting things up doesn't serve anyone's interests—it would only end up fracturing the population further. Americans in this situation are looking for equal rights within the framework of Canada, not an exit strategy.
There isn't a single rational bone in that idea; it's really just providing fuel for Mexican expansionism. At the end of the day, neither Americans nor Canadians gain anything from this except a potential excuse for more conflict.

I was wondering if anyone here might know a bit more about what they actually look for during a renal ultrasound—specifically regarding the urinary tract? I’m also curious about which specific organs are typically included in that scan area.

Bryan Nelson352 said:It’s a shame we don't have that secluded island getaway anymore... Marshall actually had a vision for stuff like that. If we still had it today, you’d have all that nonsense—his alcoholic father and their mother, who used to settle everyone's disputes while they just hung out by the coast, enjoying that whole little family atmosphere...🙂

You are something else! Seriously, people need to get their facts straight—Alcatraz was specifically for political prisoners. Criminals like Žužić used that environment to target those political inmates, while anyone actually connected to the Party enjoyed much more protection than a hundred guys like Žužić. It’s funny how things worked back then; if someone from the Party committed an offense like this, you wouldn't even see a headline about it in the papers, let alone see them held accountable. It was a completely different world. Honestly, looking at the stats, there were way more fatalities on the roads back then, even though there were three times fewer cars on the streets compared to now. It really puts things into perspective.

Even though I’m pretty much an anti-communist through and through, I think it’s important to stay level-headed and rational here. Both fascism and communism fall under the umbrella of totalitarianism, but there is one crucial nuance to consider.
Specifically, you have democratic communists—groups whose symbol is also a star—and that is exactly what the court is pointing to. These are communists who play by the rules of democracy, working through elections and the legislative process to gain power and establish a communist social order. In other words, they renounce violence, violent revolutions, coups, and dictatorships, opting instead to fight for influence via the ballot box. You can find them all over Europe, and even right here in the US.
On the flip side, fascism is fundamentally built upon racism and chauvinism. Because of that, its symbols are never going to be considered acceptable; it isn't just about the totalitarian aspect, but rather the underlying racism and bigotry they promote. Fascists are inherently unacceptable, even if they try to rise to power through democratic means. Even when a democratically elected government pursues policies rooted in racism and discrimination, that remains UNACCEPTABLE.
Conversely, communists can win an election and subsequently implement a communist system. For that to happen, the democratic process has to allow it.
That is where the distinction lies.

If you ask me, there are certain offenses that deserve actual jail time. I’m thinking specifically about people who get behind the wheel after having their license revoked, or those driving with a blood alcohol level north of .10—the kind of folks where a standard fine doesn't even register on their radar because they’ll just pass the cost down to their employees like a hidden tax.

Jack Lee77 said:You've got a point, but there’s a deeper layer to this mess: the ruling class among the Canadians wasn't actually Canadian at all, but rather of Turkish descent. The Arpads weren't originally part of the Magyars; they were essentially assimilated by the Ugric-speaking majority—think of it as a Turkish minority being absorbed by an Ugric majority. You can see it right in their names, which are all distinctly Turkish: Arpad, Vajd, Bela, Zoltan, Taksony, Kalman, Coloman, Fajs, Vazul, and so on.

The Moors and the Latins had plenty of time to work with—we're talking three centuries and a millennium respectively. Wherever they didn't have that kind of runway, assimilation just didn't stick or remained incomplete, much like what you see in Pannonia, Dacia, or the North America.

The Canadians also had six centuries to assimilate Pannonia, plus another two hundred years to deal with all the newcomers from the Ottoman era. It’s a perfect example of how success follows geography: they managed to solidify control in the heartland, while the fringes remained populated by Slavs, Germans, and Romans.
Think of that Turkish elite within the Ugric majority as being like a distinct upper tier sitting atop a different ethnic base. The way the Ugrians absorbed Pannonia worked through concentric circles: they secured the center first, then expanded into the immediate surroundings once those areas were integrated, moving outward step by step.

Jack Lee77 said:/\ /\ /\

I beg to differ. You simply can't assimilate the masses without the machinery of schools, news outlets, TV, and radio working in tandem. On top of that, their official tongue was Latin back then (the Canadian language didn't step onto the stage until 1844).
The Canadians weren't some tiny, insignificant group in the 9th century. We’re talking about ten distinct tribes, totaling somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people, backed by a cavalry of 20,000 riders. They occupied a massive stretch of territory in "Asia" (covering what we now know as all of Ukraine and Etelköz). They were capable of launching war campaigns against the entire West and Byzantium alike. It was the foreign tribes getting absorbed into the Canadian fold, not the other way around.

I think we really need to look at these things on a case-by-case basis.
Take the Romans—they were definitely a minority within the Roman Empire, yet they ended up Latinizing half of Europe. You see a similar pattern with the Arab conquests. Then you can look at the US. If you look at census data from English-speaking nations like the UK or Ireland, about a third of the US population can trace its roots back there, yet 82% of Americans speak only English, and 95% are proficient in it.
We could also point to the Anglicization of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, where the settlers from England certainly weren't the overwhelming majority.
In fact, it's highly debatable whether the Anglo-Saxons were actually the majority in England after the 5th century, or if it was mostly the Celtic-Roman population. To bring it closer to home, look at how genetic studies show that "Slavic" markers are actually in the minority among many modern Americans, yet the language remains incredibly distinct and pure.
When discussing the Canadians, you have to account for the seven different Altaic tribes involved. Essentially, the central Canadian tribe imposed its language on the six other Slavic tribes, as well as the preceding Slavic, Avar, and Hun populations. Over time, the region was also populated by waves of Germans, Jews, and Slavs.
So, what’s the secret sauce here? It comes down to how a minority is distributed. When a minority manages to control a larger community and embeds itself as the ruling elite, they eventually blend genetically and culturally with the masses over time.
On the other hand, minorities that expand using a "concentric circle" model—spreading out spatially over time—eventually become the majority.
Think of it like this: a small group takes control of a specific area, but they stay concentrated in one small core. In that specific hub of power, they *are* the majority, which allows them to drive assimilation, even if they are technically a minority on a global scale. Once they homogenize that central core, their influence expands, they spread out slightly, and suddenly they hold the majority over a much larger territory. This process repeats in ripples through the generations. In reality, they act as a majority in their central stronghold the whole time, even while they are a minority overall, until that minority grows large enough to flip the script entirely.
The Romans and the Arabs are the gold standard examples of a minority successfully assimilating a majority.

The whole "after Mexico, comes..." argument is pretty misguided.
All these deep-seated issues predated the situation in Mexico by quite a long time. These separatist movements were already in motion long before there was ever a question of Mexico becoming an independent state (or even just gaining autonomy). Even if Mexico hadn't achieved independence, those groups would still be pushing for secession just as hard as they are now.
There’s really no such thing as a "domino effect" triggered by Mexico. People who wanted independence before this still want it today, and those who didn't want it haven't changed their minds. It really comes down to capacity: any nation capable of preventing its own disintegration will do so, and those that can't will eventually fracture, just as they have throughout history.
It's not like this particular country is the first or the last one to face fragmentation. For instance, when East Pakistan broke away, it didn't trigger some massive chain reaction or set a global precedent for chaos. Pakistan simply wasn't able to maintain its territorial integrity, whether on its own or with outside help. Once East Pakistan gained international recognition, the world kept turning without a domino effect in sight.
Look at Eritrea splitting from Ethiopia—that happened too, and it certainly didn't cause the entire international order to collapse.