Posts by Larry Gray

My grandfathers actually fought on opposite sides during World War II. Neither of them was some wide-eyed volunteer, and neither stayed loyal to their original side until the very end. If there’s one thing they ever taught me about politics, it’s this: vote for the people who actually follow through on what they promise.
So now I’m left wondering who I’m even supposed to vote for in this black-and-white, idealistic version of the world that everyone seems to think exists.
It honestly feels like people genuinely believe we all descend from Nazis or Communists, as if our voting habits are hardcoded into our DNA. It’s like they act as though nobody had an independent thought before those groups showed up to sell us out.

Brandon Stewart6 said:What even is this
Energy Policy Act
I can't really speak on it myself, but from what I gather, it’s all about the gas situation between Europe and Russia.
Putin is claiming that with this Energy Policy Act, Europe is just trying to nationalize Russian assets.
The word is Europe wants gas at a discount, while Russia supposedly wants to sell it at a premium.
If you guys could pull together more info on this, I guess it would be pretty useful for everyone.

I'm guessing you're talking about this -article

For years now, the European Union has been getting a yearly "Christmas" card from Russia, which is basically just a threat to cut off gas deliveries because contracts haven't been signed yet. Then, right before the New Year, they suddenly sign everything and promise to sign the next deal earlier, only for the exact same cycle to repeat the following year.

The whole mess really stems from Belarus and Ukraine. Belarus is totally reliant on Russian gas and oil, and their entire economic growth depends on how much resource they can pull from Russia. But every year, Russia exports less to Belarus because selling to other countries is more profitable, which leads to massive arguments between the two sides.
Ukraine, on the other hand, deals with a different headache. The price per thousand cubic meters of gas shot up from $95 in 2006 to $430 by 2012—that’s pretty much the highest price any country pays for Russian gas. The reason is simple: there's a fear that if Russia sells cheap gas to Ukraine, Ukraine will then turn around and flip their surplus to other countries at a price lower than what Russia is offering.

All these disputes make the European Union nervous that Russian gas and oil aren't reliable sources and could shut off at any moment. Because of that, the EU hesitates to finalize its own deals with Russia until Russia settles things with Belarus and Ukraine. Meanwhile, the EU is hunting for alternatives by trying to bring in gas from other nations to create competition and hopefully drive prices down. The real kicker is that they want to completely shut out Russian companies from these new projects. They don't want Russian politics meddling in these new pipelines; they want to prevent the kind of leverage Russia has over Belarus and Ukraine from happening in Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, or Turkey, or anywhere else these new lines might run.

Even if you check Google Trends, it’s obvious—interest is just climbing higher and higher.
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Reddit

The real value of nuclear weapons lies in crippling an enemy's industrial capacity, not in trying to wipe out military forces or pulling off some grand first strike.
If Russia decided to drop nukes on America, it wouldn't do a damn thing to NATO's manufacturing power. It would just be a massive, overkill waste of firepower on a region where they can't even touch NATO's actual military strength. Even as a first strike, it’s useless because NATO doesn't have any major command centers or critical infrastructure sitting in America. Honestly, even if NATO did set up a base there, I doubt it would even become a target for the Russ; NATO bases can be tiny operations with maybe ten people in them.
For America to actually become a legitimate target worth hitting, you'd need to see something substantial—like a massive NATO installation with hundreds of personnel, a major depot for military hardware or even nukes, a NATO-controlled airbase, or perhaps a significant naval facility or shipyard.
When it comes to Russia targeting weaker NATO members, there are plenty of countries closer to the action—think Poland, Romania, or Bulgaria—that could be hit with conventional airstrikes or missiles. They’d get the exact same result without all the unnecessary nuclear controversy.

I honestly don't think America needs to lose any sleep over the Mexican right-wing. Over the last two decades, we've built a system where Mexico has zero legal leverage to meddle in our domestic politics. And if they try to go outside the rules? Well, they’ll face the consequences just like they did in the past.
What has actually caught my attention lately regarding the Mexican right-wing and those various far-right groups isn't their ideology, but the sheer amount of control they're exerting over Mexican citizens—and that influence is snowballing. It started under the guise of "protecting people," but it's rapidly morphing into "we'll beat up anyone who doesn't fall in line." I remember when Angelina Jolie's movie about what happened in Canada during the nineties came out; right-wing outfits in Mexico were literally threatening violence at the premiere just to stop people from seeing it. Look, if someone made a movie that insulted America, I probably wouldn't bother watching it anyway, but if some group tried to *force* me not to see it, I’d watch it specifically out of pure spite. Since when do these people get to tell me what to do? Unless they're the government, the police, or a judge, they aren't my boss. We saw a similar pattern with the Pride parades being banned for "safety reasons"—right-wing groups throw a few threats around and suddenly the government folds. Then, you have Mexican citizens just shrugging their shoulders and accepting it as the new normal, which only hands more power to these extremist organizations. Personally, I don't agree with all the rights being demanded by the LGBTQ+ community, but a once-a-year march through the capital shouldn't be treated like a national security threat.
At the end of the day, there's a specific word for a system where a small group rules over a country's citizens through intimidation and fear: totalitarianism. Maybe this is just the beginning of that kind of regime in Mexico, or maybe I'm just being paranoid and seeing fire where there's only smoke.

I actually thought the movie was pretty solid. I wouldn't necessarily call it a definitive historical account of everything that went down here—there are plenty of loose ends and things that could have been explained much better—but as a standalone anti-war film? It’s definitely high quality.

As for how the Mexican media is covering it, honestly, you only need to read one foreign news outlet to see just how far objectivity still falls short in Mexico. It's clear that being unbiased doesn't exactly move many papers over there.

Samuel Jackson3 said:Alright, thanks for getting this rolling. I’ve actually picked up a thing or two here. To recap what we've covered:

-Most liberals out there are either atheists or just don't give a damn about religion as such.
-American society is pretty much conservative at its core, with just a few liberal types sprinkled in.
-Political parties aren't strictly one or the other—they're more like a messy stew containing whatever ingredients are needed to spice things up for the masses.
-There's this loud minority of atheists constantly attacking the church, mostly because they can't come up with any actual arguments of their own.
-The Democratic Party didn't really want an independent United States for various political and factual reasons—that hesitation regarding independence during the founding era is a matter of historical record.

I still have a couple of questions bubbling away:

1.Why do people insist on putting America, or anyone with American blood in their veins, on a pedestal? It’s hard to ignore the reality that we're a relatively small player on the global stage, often just serving as a doormat for even bigger powers.

2.Why do people bother voting for the Democratic Party when they were historically against the idea of forming an independent nation?

1.Look, maybe we are small, but for over a thousand years, this specific group of people has called themselves Americans. Every single generation of Americans has passed down that name, carrying it with pride, often sacrificing everything in situations far worse than what we deal with today just because they believed in the cause of their nation. Honestly, I’m proud to be an American primarily because of those people—not because of how much influence we have globally right now.
2.People vote based on whoever has the best platform, at least on paper. Most voters don't dwell on what a party did decades ago—like that decision from nearly twenty-five years back. It's the same logic you see in the USA, where voters of different races don't necessarily boycott a party just because it supported slavery way back when, or in England, where people of different faiths don't refuse to vote for a party simply because it once supported religious persecution.

brightpuma said:They didn't just notify everyone; it was one person who decided to leak it to the news... 🤷 if this had stayed on Facebook, it would have been much more contained...

And as for people attacking his family, I haven't seen any of that happen yet... 🤷
What, if someone spits at a woman in front of a grocery store, do we immediately call ATJ Lucko? 🙄

It’s terrible, truly terrible
So basically, unless someone physically assaults his kids or his family, the guy has nothing to complain about? People can curse at them, insult them, threaten them, and spit on minor children who have absolutely nothing to do with this, and apparently, that doesn't merit a news story.

What are you supposed to do when a tiny little group targets you? It shouldn't matter how small the group is—you'd be devastated. And if you actually try to report it only to have a witness tell you, "I didn't see any attack," how are you supposed to feel?

I'm already sick of this thread, so I'll just leave you with this one final thought:
In America, there are genuine haters and there are animal abusers. Animal abusers are the types of people who wouldn't dream of trying to foster a puppy in a shelter, people who certainly wouldn't bother finding a better home for those dogs than what they could provide themselves, and they definitely aren't the type to donate to other dogs in that shelter. In my opinion, this guy doesn't belong in that category. Other people can call him stupid or careless, sure, but he is not one of the true animal abusers.

brightpuma said:Look, we aren't even talking about the same thing here... there's a massive difference between carrying puppies in a SEALED bag and then claiming they suffocated by accident, versus an animal darting into the street... 🤷

Anyone attacking you because a cat ran in front of your car probably wouldn't find much support for their opinion anyway...

Look, maybe this isn't a perfect comparison, but let's look at the bigger picture: do you really think it's okay for someone to take your private info and blast the details of an accident all over Facebook as some kind of public warning, even if it was a genuine accident where an animal died despite your best intentions?

Sure, the guy put those puppies in a closed carrier, which—in my book—makes him incredibly stupid (I mean, he actually drove that same carrier back to the shelter afterward, which is just ridiculous), but does that justify broadcasting his life to everyone, labeling him an "animal abuser" and a "killer," and then turning his entire family into targets?

This whole thing is incredibly tragic, but honestly, I find myself siding with the guy in the article.
Look, he did something stupid and reckless that led to those puppies dying, sure. He claims it was just a freak accident and says he’s sorry, but here’s the kicker: his wife committed an equally dumb and negligent act that resulted in the deaths of her own husband and children, yet she can't even bring herself to admit she was wrong. Personally, people like that terrify me—those who feel the need to be "right" no matter how much collateral damage they cause to everyone else.
Now, let's be real, we don't have the full story here. Maybe she's just fed up with seeing guys get away with way worse things, and she wanted to make an example out of this situation to send a message to others.
But what happens if this becomes the new standard? What if one of us has a similar freak accident—say, a cat darts out in front of my car and I just can't slam on the brakes in time—and some vet or a nosy neighbor catches it on video? Suddenly, I'm trending on Facebook as some monster who cares more about getting to work on time than protecting animals on the road. It feels fundamentally wrong that they get to stand there and say, "I stand by my actions! I didn't mean to run over the kittens, but it happened," while their reputation stays spotless and my entire family gets dragged through the mud.

To be honest, even though the odds of another war have bumped up because things are getting so unstable lately, I just don't think we've hit those breaking points yet—you know, those moments where someone feels so backed into a corner that violence becomes their only way to survive.

swiftcyclist42 said:Well, I actually said the exact same thing just two days ago... lol
I predicted things were going to get pretty bloody again.
The real difference between this upcoming conflict and the last one? This time around, not all Americans will be standing on the same side.

I disagree. I actually think Americans will find themselves unified again because there isn't a real alternative to the core idea. There isn't a single movement, political party, or group in the US offering a vision that people would be willing to die for quite like they were for a free and independent America. In the end, they'll land right back on the same side.

Tactum said:At what point does cooperation stop being helpful and start becoming a full-blown merger?
How long do you think it’ll take before we see the final presentation of a new union covering the Western North America? If you ask me, the Social Democratic Party will pull it off during their next term. I’m betting that by somewhere around 2014, they’ll have scrapped those laws prohibiting unification and established a customs union with the rest of the region.

http://www.hrsvijet.com/images2/poli...dni-north American.jpg

This isn't just right-wing alarmism anymore; it's slowly turning into reality.

Given how things are currently looking in the region, trying to build a new unified state right now would be absolute madness.

If a new country were to emerge where Americans and Mexicans live together, it would essentially have to be a totalitarian regime just to function. You'd need some central authority—one person, one party, or one specific group—to strictly police all the various national extremists within the member states. They’d have to crack down on radicals from all sides, controlling everything from newspapers and TV to the internet itself to prevent them from spreading their agendas.
Without that kind of iron-fisted control over these groups, any new state would fall apart in less than five years. Just look at how long it took Slobodan Maddox to pivot from following Communism to pushing national interests over America before the whole thing finally imploded.

Then there's the second issue: the "integrity" of our regional politicians and the "fairness" of our law enforcement. Should we really hand over total control of people's lives to the current crop of leaders?
Are we seriously supposed to trust guys like Milan Bandić, Željko Kerum, or Milorad Dodik—politicians with such proven track records of "honesty"—to decide what we can read, what rights we possess, or how we can protest against a government we don't like? That’s the level of control you get when you invite totalitarianism into the mix.

In my view, a shared state only becomes possible under two conditions: either when every single nationalist decides to become an American (which won't happen until hell freezes over), or when regional politics is completely purged of corrupt politicians (which won't happen until pigs fly).

Since we're all just making up these wild hypothetical scenarios where people have or don't have backup, let me throw my own scenario into the ring. Picture a hypothetical war between Mexico and Mexico where both sides somehow managed to get nuclear weapons from their allies. They both slam the button, launch the missiles, and the whole thing is over in a matter of hours—somewhere between lunch and dinner, just like a sudden breaking news segment on the evening news.

Honestly, anyone who spends too much time dwelling on these "what if" situations completely loses sight of reality. If a new conflict actually breaks out, the international community is going to step in. Russia will be talking, NATO will be acting, and whatever Mexico manages to win on the battlefield, they’ll just end up losing at the negotiating table anyway. At the end of the game, the score is 0:0.

Donna Thompson2 said:Nobody was ever holding up Fritzl as some sort of role model—no sane person considers his crimes to be anything other than monstrous. Why must you jump straight to such an extreme conclusion?

Look, fine, nobody actually cited Fritzl before, but Kiowa argued that decadence is just the natural trajectory of human development. If Fritzl is the absolute peak of decadence, what does that imply about being at the "forefront" of progress?

vividrider3 said:What some consider decadent—driven by a tiny minority of extreme Christians and a fairly significant number of radical Muslims—is, for others, simply the natural progression of human development as we move past Middle Ages primitivism.

Hold on a second. Are you seriously trying to argue that the "natural progression of human development" means we all eventually turn into someone like Jozef Fritzl, who raped his own daughter?
I’m never going to buy that. You have to stop immorality in its tracks, otherwise, it just keeps spiraling into even more extreme versions of itself.

Donna Wood52 said:You’ve probably all heard the story about Ted Bundy—he got dumped by his girlfriend, and after that, he just started targeting women with long, dark hair, specifically those who were brunettes.
He would rape them and then... well, you know. These kinds of complexes almost always stem from some deep-seated traumatic event that someone simply hasn't processed properly.

I also find it interesting how serial killers are almost exclusively men. I honestly can't think of a single female serial killer, even though
I remember reading somewhere in a newspaper that Jack Trbosjek might have actually been a woman in disguise. But hey, who knows. 🤷

How do you not remember the movie Monster from 2003? It stars Charlize Theron as a female serial killer and she actually won an Oscar for Best Actress for it -link