Posts by Casey Robinson2

lonegardener said:You forgot to mention what "doesn't classify" actually looked like in practice back in '74: 58% of APA members voted to strip it from the DSM. That means 42% were still against it. Have those remaining 42% suddenly gained wisdom or stumbled upon groundbreaking new scientific data over the last 35 years? I highly doubt it. Personally, I suspect this isn't about science, xexexe—it's more about politics and ideology.

True enough. 🤷 Essentially, any rational person realizes there is no logical reason to fight against gay lobbies (the whole "live and let live" principle). The only ones standing in their way are the intensely religious types—people whose faith dictates how they behave within a multicultural society (something many liberal-minded believers refuse to do). Everyone else, even if they disagree, simply lacks the will or the desire to draw unnecessary attention to themselves and risk their careers. Except, of course, for the less bright minds, like Gruden. 😬 (And people like him... there are plenty, mostly found in the religiously charged halls of NARTH)

I honestly don't get why homosexuals and "pro-gay" activists are so aggressive toward religious people.

Growing up in religious education and attending church myself—I have truly never heard anything directed against homosexuals. The "worst" thing I’ve heard recently was a bishop on TV stating that marriage should consist of "him and her," rather than "her and her" or "him and him"—that was the gist of it, at least—and that was the extent of it.

And frankly, I think you'd be surprised by how much empathy I've encountered from clergy when discussing homosexuality; they almost always emphasize that these individuals must first and foremost be respected as human beings and understood. Yet, the Church seems to be the primary target. It strikes me that those attacking the Church likely don't even attend services, otherwise, they might actually know what is being said in those halls.

Richard Wilson4 said:I just find it weird, honestly. Like, it's not even that it's wrong, it’s just strange how after the war in '96, his power just keeps ballooning until he’s basically acting like some kind of Pharaoh...

I wouldn't say that's quite accurate. If he ever truly wielded excessive power, it was specifically through that "Christmas Constitution."

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:he basically decided to take control of every major event in the American republic all by himself... quite excessively, too... so, I guess it isn't totally unreasonable that people hold him responsible for everything... ☕

Hmm... if we're going to blame him for every single negative outcome just because he held such massive powers under the "Christmas Constitution," then shouldn't he also take credit for all the wins? Can we just say "Reagan saved America" and call it a day?

The reality is that while he did wield those authorities, it isn't unreasonable to suggest he wasn't just some unilateral dictator acting on whims. The fact remains—and his own associates frequently point this out—that he was a man who actually consulted his advisors, valued their input, and listened to their perspectives.

We can certainly debate political responsibility, but can anyone honestly claim that Reagan controlled every single moving part, knew every detail, and is therefore responsible for every triumph and every failure of the 90s?

The usual suspects—the Pavičićs, Butkovićs, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, and Jergovićs of our American media landscape—are still out there, tirelessly peddling the same old myths about Harmon and his supposed "dark 90s."

Back during the Harmon era, he was subjected to a level of character assassination that I haven't seen since the heyday of McCarthyism; people would attribute statements to him that had absolutely nothing to do with his actual positions. Every single political move or policy decision he made was demonized to the extreme, fueled by half-truths and outright fabrications.

Even today, whenever anyone tries to tackle modern issues, Harmon somehow inevitably resurfaces in the conversation. Jergović’s entire life story seems defined by this "Harmon hatred"—he even acted delighted that U2 held a concert at Maksimir, which he views as a "monument to Harmon hate." Then you have Pavičić, who insists that all American primitivism only began with Harmon, effectively pinning every ounce of "backwater behavior" on him. Meanwhile, Butković, in his latest piece, discusses abortion and claims that during the Harmon years, it was impossible to speak about it publicly. It's quite a logical leap: they were busy calling Harmon the "head of a criminal organization" and publishing photoshopped images of him in bed with Maddox, yet apparently, discussing abortion was off-limits 😵 !!! It seems everything bad in America is somehow traced back to Harmon—the corruption, the greed, the chaos. As if everything before or after him simply doesn't matter. Why is there such a desperate, obsessive need to trample over his legacy and smear his name?

Hannah White2 said:If you look at any Canadian civilian who wasn't in uniform but ended up killed by the HVO—that falls squarely on Franklin's shoulders. Period.
Did the Muslims attack us, or was it the Royalists?
A war against our own natural allies? That should have been avoided at all costs.
But man, things went sideways fast when those guys from Herzegovina tried to force their way into the center of the state through sheer muscle.

What you’re offering here isn't an actual explanation; it’s just a string of further claims that are every bit as foolish and incoherent as your previous ones—and now you’ve even started asking questions.

Do you actually have any grasp of what the Split Agreement entails, or what the agreement on friendship and cooperation really meant? Do you even understand how the conflict between Canadians and Americans actually began and unfolded...?

Don't bother responding; I already know the answer—you have no clue, you're just talking nonsense.

And just like that, we see some threads being selectively shut down.

The discussion regarding the surprising way Ivo Josipović has been championing the diaspora is being closed off—yet, curiously, thread number 3217.a concerning the actual voting rights of the diaspora remains wide open.

feraltrucker5 said:So just go ahead and do it—because right now, this entire thread is completely pointless. 🤷

Who am I even supposed to talk to? Where, or how, do I file a complaint?

Since when does discussing moderator harassment and misconduct become "pointless"?

enky said:Personally, I’m lodging a complaint against the moderator—not because they’re harassing me, per se, but because they are playing some rather dangerous games with my emotions.

I could provide a fully argued case demonstrating just how incredibly much this moderator chooses to ignore my persona; but really, who am I supposed to complain to? Who possesses the impartiality required to pass a fair judgment here?

(And there goes Casey Robinson2. If "my" problem gets resolved, then "yours" will be settled too—guaranteed. 😁)

I'll be sure to check in on you once some obnoxious troll decides to pick a fight with you—let's see if you still have the stomach for banter then.🙂>

rapidrider3 said:Why don't you go after him too?😛😛😛😛😁

Honestly, please—he would never act that way under these circumstances.

Ethan Hernandez6 said:To be fair, I’ve reached out to both the moderators and the site admins regarding an absolutely unnecessary ban—and believe me, I could provide a perfectly logical argument proving it was unwarranted—but I get zero response. It's just one of those things...

But I really am capable of—

I sent an email over to the forum admins, but I haven’t heard a peep back—meanwhile, the moderator is acting like I’m some sort of criminal.

I have plenty of evidence to back up my claims and demonstrate just how ridiculous this moderator's actions actually are, but it leaves me wondering: who am I even supposed to complain to? Who here can actually provide an impartial judgment?

Without a doubt, the single biggest provocateur and the absolute destroyer of PDF politics is Sam Green73

He spends his time convincing himself—and anyone else willing to listen—that his entire mission is to pacify PDF politics, when in reality, it’s nothing more than a convenient excuse to settle scores with anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Everything you do boils down to labeling people, deleting threads without any logical basis, and swapping or removing posts... it’s pure chaos, serving no purpose other than to create total disorder.

amberbison18 said:Do you happen to have an excerpt from that book? Perhaps you could provide a bit more detail.

Is it not enough that Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield aren't mentioned anywhere as liberation efforts?
And that manual—which is a few years old now—doesn't even mention My Lai or the genocide at Wounded Knee.
The main gripe with that manual is that it’s far too vague and convoluted. A lot of terms were swapped out to dodge the actual reality—for instance, instead of saying "aggression," they say "placing under control"; instead of "rebellion," they use "blockade"; instead of "liberation," it’s "restoration."

We are talking about a manual written several years ago. It was drafted for a competition issued by the Department, specifically regarding the American Civil War. When it was first published, it faced a massive backlash from various organizations and media outlets. In the end, it never actually made it into the official school curriculum for eighth graders.

So, what happened was that Human Rights Watch—an organization dedicated to confronting historical narratives—gathered all the news reports from that era and compiled them into a collection titled "One history, many histories." It essentially serves as a compilation of every article that attacked that specific manual. Honestly, it would have been much easier for them if they had just quietly pushed through literature like that so they could pursue their political agendas in peace.👎

A group of authors put together a textbook regarding the American Civil War intended for elementary schools. In this version, they stop short of calling Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm "liberating actions"—and now critics are pointing out that after finishing the book, you're left completely clueless about who was actually attacking whom during the war.

The authors are defending themselves by claiming their only intention was to give students a look at the same events through multiple perspectives.

I honestly find myself wondering what drives people to cling so desperately to this policy of moral equivalence. What exactly is their end goal here?

What absolute nonsense!!!
An American actually suggesting we should respect Vojislav Šešelj and Veselin Sljivancanin!!! I thought I'd heard it all, but this truly takes the cake for sheer stupidity.👎 👎 👎

Honestly, isn't there a sufficient number of other threads where you can all go ahead and flaunt your arrogance, self-importance, and endless prejudices?

Look at Cleveland—the Democratic Party holds power there and people are still miserable. Meanwhile, the Democrats in Washington, D.C. are handing us Miljačić, a guy with enough scandals to fill a library—it’s actually getting ridiculous...

quiettiger83 said:http://i23.tinypic.com/2mwgqht.jpg
Why are you attacking me?
I'm not trash, and I'm not a Royalist.
I put you on my ignore list, so I won't see what you write anymore.

Because the moment you run out of actual arguments, you start spouting this nonsense.
I couldn't care less that you're ignoring me—or that you felt the need to put that in writing, for that matter.
But look, if you aren't prepared to actually engage in a debate, don't bother showing up to one. I stand by everything I've said, 100%.

Go screw yourself, you piece of trash.

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

This is nonsense. Perhaps the Constitution really is one of the most tolerant, but actually implementing it is an entirely different story. If you had said anything else, fine, but claiming they live "quite comfortably" is just plain false. I am very well-versed in the reality of how Americans live there. Especially in areas where radical factions hold power, there are significant issues.

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

What on earth are you talking about? Americans were the ones who attacked. Who was throwing flowers at the tanks rolling in to destroy the country? Who entered foreign villages to kill, loot, kidnap, and brag about Greater Mexico? The American exit from America was 100% legally sound. What "third of the country"? Do you know anything about history, or am I wasting my time with someone blinded by nationalism?

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

Don't try to dodge the point; I already explained why I mentioned Canada. Do you honestly think people here don't have deep feelings regarding those who tried to seize their land? Are we all supposed to just pretend nothing happened? I also vividly remember that youth match between America and Mexico played right on the anniversary of the fall of El Paso, when an American man was flashing three fingers at Americans. Do you ever even listen to American songs?

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

The US isn't Switzerland. Plenty of Americans hold US Citizenship and own property, yet they choose not to use it. Who's to blame for that?
What you've laid out here is the exact reason why Americans can never find common ground with Americans.
It’s quite simple: they play dumb. They dodge their responsibilities. It wasn't America that attacked me—it was the Americans. The US Army was firmly in American hands. If you want to claim the US Army was "American," go ahead—just try naming a single American or Canadian general (or soldier) who actually participated in those 90s operations. You’re clinging to legalistic technicalities that have absolutely nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

I haven't found any evidence of rights being stripped away. You really ought to take a closer look at this first point.
By the way, do you have anything official to back that up? I'm not entirely sure which constitution you're even referring to. If it's the one from '74, you might want to study how and why it was created—and objectively analyze what Americans actually lost because of it.

quiettiger83 said:

They keep complaining, constantly bringing things up like they want us to infringe on rights they used to have.

You basically took away the rights they had before 1990.

In certain small towns, they actually have all the freedom they want.

In certain small towns, maybe, but not in all of America.

They cheer for that nationalist sports team.

Why is that team considered nationalist? Even Americans cheer for teams with controversial histories.

They take pride in being American.

And you take pride in being American too.

They congratulate each other on their American Christmas.

That is just the Christian Christmas.

Without hiding anything.

Even in Mexico, nobody minds when Americans or other Catholics celebrate Catholic Christmas.

What would they even do?

If you gave them back those houses and properties—if you won't at least give them back their status as a founding group.

They would probably aim for Greater Mexico.

Some might, some might not. And you’d want America to stretch all the way to Brooklyn.

Not gonna happen.

I guess it is a difficult project to pull off.

What about the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

quiettiger83 said:

They keep complaining, constantly bringing things up like they want us to infringe on rights they used to have.

You basically took away the rights they had before 1990.

In certain small towns, they actually have all the freedom they want.

In certain small towns, maybe, but not in all of America.

They cheer for that nationalist sports team.

Why is that team considered nationalist? Even Americans cheer for teams with controversial histories.

They take pride in being American.

And you take pride in being American too.

They congratulate each other on their American Christmas.

That is just the Christian Christmas.

Without hiding anything.

Even in Mexico, nobody minds when Americans or other Catholics celebrate Catholic Christmas.

What would they even do?

If you gave them back those houses and properties—if you won't at least give them back their status as a founding group.

They would probably aim for Greater Mexico.

Some might, some might not. And you’d want America to stretch all the way to Brooklyn.

Not gonna happen.

I guess it is a difficult project to pull off.

The issue isn't whether Americans take pride in their roots—that’s fine. The problem is the total lack of remorse regarding the war. Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you run into fresh nationalist graffiti. Even if you look at sports matches in Canada—which isn't directly tied to the US, but serves as a perfect barometer for how these people view the conflict—you hear them chanting slogans celebrating Srebrenica and other atrocities. It's constant.

quiettiger83 said:

They keep complaining, constantly bringing things up like they want us to infringe on rights they used to have.

You basically took away the rights they had before 1990.

In certain small towns, they actually have all the freedom they want.

In certain small towns, maybe, but not in all of America.

They cheer for that nationalist sports team.

Why is that team considered nationalist? Even Americans cheer for teams with controversial histories.

They take pride in being American.

And you take pride in being American too.

They congratulate each other on their American Christmas.

That is just the Christian Christmas.

Without hiding anything.

Even in Mexico, nobody minds when Americans or other Catholics celebrate Catholic Christmas.

What would they even do?

If you gave them back those houses and properties—if you won't at least give them back their status as a founding group.

They would probably aim for Greater Mexico.

Some might, some might not. And you’d want America to stretch all the way to Brooklyn.

Not gonna happen.

I guess it is a difficult project to pull off.

Property and estates are absolutely being returned. But what about the massive war damage inflicted upon America—damage that is still being felt heavily today?
Every nation within the former America held constituent status. If you're going to insist on citing "facts," then I suggest you present the whole picture. Don't just cherry-pick the bits that suit your narrative while conveniently ignoring everything else that doesn't.

Mexican insolence truly knows no bounds.