Posts by Mark Nguyen6

And what is it that they’re actually protesting about, anyway?

Lawrence Thompson58 said:It's because you people—just like those old-school socialists—keep trying to hand us these "ready-made" solutions that we can't even verify ourselves. We're expected to just take your word for it, but frankly, you blew all our trust through the gutter over the last twenty years.

Are you seriously ignoring the obvious signs here?
When you use the term 'you people,' who exactly are you targeting?

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Why on earth would I just take anyone's word for what happened back in '45? I don't trust a single soul—not one of them. I have to weigh everything myself. Besides, my own life experiences and the sheer amount of time I've spent navigating these issues give me a perspective that I simply won't ignore.

Look, you have every right to focus on whatever you want and tune out anything else. That’s your prerogative.
But, I suppose, it becomes a bit foolish when you claim something is nonexistent or impossible to grasp just because it falls outside your own understanding.

So, if the subject doesn't interest you—well, then there isn't much intelligent commentary to offer. It is what it is. Not everyone is cut out for every discussion.
I just don't quite get why anyone would bother getting so worked up about something that barely affects them in the slightest.

Rachel Garcia said:No, it’s just that you’re impossible to reason with. They established those rights, plain and simple.

By the way, what’s your take on civil, labor, and individual rights in America today? 😉
Jesus, everyone is obsessed with democracy lately. 😛

What exactly is it that supposedly can't be explained to me? Come on—try to pull together some actual logic for a second and get specific. Are you suggesting some fool back then just declared they'd grant voting rights—much like how Churchill promised immediate democratic elections after the war, only to let the wolves devour the lambs? Or am I not supposed to explain how, in that so-called "democracy" where voting was granted, hundreds of thousands of people ended up in mass graves solely because they weren't willing to shout the leader is god?

Please, don't mess with me using dead letters on a page when the reality of that era screams with the lives of the dead—it's simply irrational.

And if that isn't clear to someone, then fine, but then we have nothing left to discuss, because it's just—well, it's frankly disgusting.

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Everyone seems to have their own idea of what true voting entails—and frankly, I don't care much to dwell on those political upheavals from the late '40s—but over the last two decades, I've certainly noticed how democracy seems to be $0.33 eroding away.

It’s also quite clear when someone is being ignorant.

Rachel Garcia said:Whether one likes it or not, it is the reality. Under the South administration on August 8, 1945.

I mean, what kind of voting rights are we even talking about under a communist regime? Especially when you consider how they were—quite literally—physically eliminating anyone who didn't fall in line with their ideology at that very moment.

Please, let’s not be so incredibly naive.

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Sadly, it’s the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

Hold on a second—are you people actually being serious right now?

The text mentions communism and how it supposedly gives everyone equal rights—claiming it ensures everyone has food and a roof over their heads—but I guess that still translates to this: I’ll just take whatever I want from whoever I want, and I can silence anyone who gets in my way without saying a word.

What are you all even talking about? 😲

Rachel Garcia said:What is the difference between then and now? With the fall of Communism, the Church walked through the front door and gained even more influence than before.
Muslim women were given the chance to be equal to men. Now, the veils and prohibitions are returning. No matter the religion, women always, absolutely always face imposed rules.
Do you even know when women in America gained the right to vote?
August 11, 1945. During that "bloody era."

It was the Stalinist regime that granted them the vote.
Open your eyes, world! 🤦

Revolution—it’s such a weighty, loaded term, isn't it? I suppose when we talk about it today, we aren't just talking about politics; we’re talking about that fundamental shift in how a society views its own soul. It feels like we are standing on the precipice of something significant, though I hesitate to say exactly what. Perhaps it's more of an evolution than a sudden explosion, but the sentiment remains the same. People are restless, and honestly, given the current state of things, I can see why. It makes one wonder if the old structures can actually hold under this kind of pressure, or if they'll simply snap. kaže:
I mean, if we're being honest—Franklin D. Roosevelt actually gave people that kind of freedom—the choice to just be themselves, whether they wanted to dress up or just grab a quick local breakfast without all the fuss. I guess a good portion of the folks in Canada still remember that, but apparently, some people have decided to just "move on" from that reality.🤣

It seems like women's rights haven't just been rolled back in Canada—if anything, it looks like they might be the last place in the region to see any real progress.☕ It seems like that’s much more visible over there—whereas here in the States, things work a bit differently. Ever since the nineties, people just suddenly start praying the Rosary and consider the matter settled—though, I suppose you might still see them popping up at a midnight Mass here and there. 🙂 If you happen to be a public figure—I mean, someone actually under the spotlight—you’d probably tell the media that you're renouncing any interviews or even just laying down the plow during Lent. 🤣

It seems like there isn't much anyone here to call out—not that people would be able to handle it if they actually tried. 🤔

The hypocrisy of these self-proclaimed "antifascists" seems to have no end—it’s honestly quite something.
Ultimately, I’m the one who decides whether or not to practice my faith—it's my choice alone. Whether you follow a certain path or not is entirely up to you, really. And, if you want to look at it like a little bit of sugar on top—I suppose I am the only one who truly understands your underlying motives and the actual reasons why things are the way they are in your life.

That is exactly why I say this is nothing but layers of hypocrisy—you pioneers keep preaching about freedom, yet you’re the ones with hands that are somehow even bloodier than Hitler's.

I suppose you could at least look into what communism actually had to say about religion—from those Leninist attempts to seize control of the Russian Orthodox Church all the way down the line. But then again, it’s a bit complicated—how could anyone sing anthems to Franklin D. Roosevelt or those other monsters if we were to speak out clearly and loudly about what kind of criminals they truly were?
And you actually have the nerve to lecture us about freedom and democracy—I guess some people really do lack self-awareness.
Well, you certainly have some nerve.

Sarah Wilson95 said:The series itself feels like total trash to me, though I suspect the real issue isn't just the crude jokes about "pigs"—which, honestly, is pretty offensive regardless—but rather how the show attempts to portray some sort of generic, multinational lifestyle in Canada. You see all these diverse names popping up, people drinking alcohol, chasing women, and the lead actor, James Earl Jones, seems to be playing a character whose mindset is stuck somewhere back in the heyday of the CIA... and so on.

It’s obvious that pulling at "religious sentiments" is always the easiest way to get a reaction out of an audience, much like those old episodes involving Voldemort we saw back home.

Unfortunately, it seems like local networks are just cranking out even worse garbage lately; looking at the television landscape across the Middle East, especially these interconnected networks, they seem to have been completely stripped of any sense of humor, irony, or the kind of sharp cynicism that defined the last few decades.

They just don't seem to know how to navigate life in a democracy.🤣🤣

Don't act like you and your little group of 'anti-fascists' are some kind of messengers for modern times and democracy just because you praise Marshall. Honestly, if you have any shred of decency left, maybe just stay quiet about these trends🤣

redeagle42 said:Honestly, why do you even care if I'm narrow-minded or superficial? It’s pretty obvious you’re just obsessing over things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.
And what exactly is New York City rehabilitating?

Look, if after reading several pages of discussion you still manage to drop a question so vague it feels like it fell straight from Mars, then I guess it’s only natural to wonder if there's a slight issue with basic comprehension—or maybe you actually *are* living on Mars. But please, don't go getting all worked up about it.

redeagle42 said:Look, stepping back and distancing yourself from nationalism or the whole "nation" identity thing is totally fine by me. So why on earth do some random people on these forums always have to get so worked up and negative about it?

Are you being willfully ignorant here, or just incredibly superficial?

I mean, what kind of "distancing from national identity" are we actually talking about when it involves people moving to New York City—a place that, quite frankly, has spent its recent history officially rehabilitating groups like the Royalists?

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, Djoka is fine... you definitely can't label him some ultra-nationalist radical. He's nothing like those other guys mentioned above who have zero loyalty to the country.😁

Maybe Djoka seems alright to you because he treats Americans well... but I suppose you should ask, say, a certain group from the Southwest what they really think about him.😁

To be clear, I actually agree with him—and I have nothing against those specific immigrant groups—but none of that really makes Djolet a liberal or a tolerant person, I guess.🙂

Morgan Cook10 said:Interesting theory... but why wouldn't they just become some liberal Mexican like Djoka Balasevic instead of a nationalist?🤔

Well, it looks like one of our liberals has passed away—I guess that’s that. 😁

Gregory Howard said:The specifics escape me, but I believe it was during his trip to that jazz festival in Mexico, where
he went on about those bearded insurgents.

There was zero ambiguity there. Just pure, greasy fascination. It was reminiscent of some third-rate version of Rebecca West—
some might say I’m being too harsh, but I am not—
especially given her obsession with those North American mountain men, who she portrayed as these stoic, unshakable, incorruptible, almost otherworldly spiritual giants.

Your memory is actually quite sharp.

PS.
In New Orleans, he wouldn't have had anyone else to ramble about anyway.

But hey, the main thing is that the man is an intellectual, a true cosmopolitan, and someone who has moved beyond the pettiness of nationalistic tribalism.

urbanmarlin8 said:Of course it matters to me, but honestly, reading that Unknown columnist isn't going to change a single thing. If I start reading his stuff again, I’ll just end up stuck in this same endless cycle of nonsense.😍

That's what you're talking about. Anyone with even a shred of common sense can read his columns, have a good laugh, and then just go about their day. It’s only the mindless ones who actually buy into it and treat him like some kind of icon—though he probably doesn't even believe his own hype.
I guess that's just how the world works these days; it's how they sell newspapers.
Instead of just treating the symptoms, we really ought to be looking for the root causes, but those run a lot deeper than most people want to admit.

Well, now you’ve drifted off into something entirely trivial.

The point isn't about how much influence someone holds; rather, it is precisely about the motivations behind these local anti-American agitators. We are discussing their actual impact and behavior, not whether thousands are following them around like they're some kind of messiahs.

It almost makes me think that a nobody like Unknown might have some sort of significant influence on anyone, other than perhaps a toddler. But that isn't even our focus here. We are talking about the nature of his actions themselves.

urbanmarlin8 said:I'm not quite following the logic here. I don't really get how he managed to pull that off. Did he write some specific piece where he takes a hard stance against Donald Trump?

It’s already been explained to you:

Unknown said:That "Western anarchist" used to think those old-school militias were just charming folklore...

So, the bottom line seems to be: those militias aren't important.
And that's pretty much how Donald Trump’s rise went—as if it were nothing significant at all.

The question remains for you, though: is it really unimportant?

urbanmarlin8 said:I don't see how Trump has anything to do with Thomas in this conversation. Thomas is a writer, and writers are essentially there to provide entertaining nonsense for the masses (very American style). He’s just doing his job. Personally, I find myself laughing every Saturday morning when I read the paper, mostly because the pages surrounding his column are filled with a million ridiculous situations he describes and pokes fun at.
As for Trump, he probably deserves a bullet to the head, and that's that.☕

edit:
I should probably mention that in this whole mess, the only truly delusional entity is the Department of Justice, which keeps letting various Nathans and Alexanders slip right into the country.

But that's exactly what we're discussing—honestly, I can't stand that kind of writer.

Since when does a writer follow daily politics so closely that you can't even find a single column of theirs that isn't buried under a pile of political garbage?
If that's your idea of a good columnist, then fine, but it's a pretty mediocre way to approach writing, if you ask me. Even our colleague Unknown mentioned that he’s quite pathetic as a writer.

And regarding the question of what connection exists between the writer and Donald Trump, the answer is actually quite simple: it was precisely this writer who helped lay the groundwork in public opinion, making it feel as though Donald Trump arriving wouldn't even be an event. It really should have been a massive scandal where heads would have had to roll, but apparently, it didn't matter to anyone.

urbanmarlin8 said:I honestly don't see why you'd drag that piece of trash into this conversation.

I don't think they're quite the same thing, but hey, to each their own...☕

The issue is that he tries to frame something completely serious within this pseudo-humorous context. By the end of his little "mockery" of those extremists, all you're left with is a crowd chuckling as if those people are just some harmless, ignorant, stinky losers who don't even deserve our serious attention—which is exactly how he uses humor as a shield. Meanwhile, you have Aleksandar Vucic visiting the Tompkins district—a member of the very party whose official mouthpiece is 'Greater Mexico,' and someone who views that same Tompkins territory as being strictly within his own borders.

If that isn't completely schizophrenic, twisted, irrational, and strategically idiotic—then I really don't know what is.

On top of everything else, I personally find the whole thing anything but funny, and certainly not a joke.

urbanmarlin8 said:Great post!👍
I wanted to recount a little situation that happened to me recently. I was trying to explain the whole concept of the flu to someone I know, and things just... went sideways.
I was trying to explain to him that a virus isn't even technically a living organism, but he just kept staring at me like I had two heads. He wouldn't let it go, either—just kept circling back with the same question about what bacteria have to do with any of this.😕
How am I supposed to explain anything to someone like that? It’s a lost cause.
Look, I’m far from being some great intellectual. I'm just a student and a bit of a science enthusiast who happens to know a little more than your average American.🤷

There’s one thing you’re missing here, which is that he’s actually mocking those extremists by doing exactly that. Think about it: if you were trying to project this image of being some dangerous, bloodthirsty barbarian, you probably wouldn't want anyone associating you with anything lighthearted. They definitely aren't looking to cultivate an image of being folksy or good-natured, so by framing them that way, he’s essentially making fun of them.
Honestly, I don't think he actually read the piece. My whole argument is based on how familiar I am with Smith's specific writing style. If you happen to have a link to the column, though, could you drop it here? It would be much easier to actually discuss the content if we're all looking at the same thing.

It was a similar situation when Sessions was joking around with Minimax about how those insurgents kill people; he joked that their victims actually die from tetanus because the insurgents use 'rusty spoons.' The whole studio was just cracking up.