Posts by dustyskipper3

I suppose we’re just waiting on High Energy to chime in, since she probably has some real insight regarding thought energy. I mean, where there is frequency, there is energy... you know, like how electromagnetic waves and light—photons—work according to the formula E = hν, where ν represents the Planck constant. A higher frequency carries more energy, which leads me to think that positive thoughts possess high energy. On the other hand, negative thoughts might have such low energy and such long wavelengths that they essentially get swallowed up by our own brain's electrostatics. They can't even really reach other people, I guess. Unless, of course, someone gets extremely close, in which case they might be more exposed to them. I suspect that might be why good tends to outweigh evil. 😍

God be praised, I suppose someone is looking to moderate things here on this forum. 🙂

Normally, if anyone is unhappy with something, they should just click that little triangle icon to "report offensive post" or maybe send a private message to a moderator. I have to admit, I haven't really looked at your thread in quite a while... it wasn't very active for a bit, and then it suddenly popped back up. Plus, my internet connection has been acting up lately, I guess. It keeps glitching out on me, so sometimes the whole page won't even load properly—it just hangs halfway through. That seems to happen most often with those longer threads that go on for multiple pages. My bad, truly. Maybe hiddenhound3 could take a look at it too.

brisktiger56 said:I see it differently—our agency is ours to command, while external circumstances are just variables that might nudge the direction we're heading.

In this modern society, honestly, very few people have the guts to actually grab hold of their own destiny. Take me, for example: I work, I live, I’ve got my family in the city. I’m certain life would be more peaceful out in the suburbs or maybe even rural Montana, and I’d probably be happier, too—but instead, I’m sitting here saving up for an apartment in a smoggy metropolis. What’s stopping me from moving to the country? Just pure cowardice, really, because I haven't been brave enough to exercise my own will.

I could do it, but I don't :/ and it isn't because someone is holding me back—it's because I'm the one setting my own limits.

irongardener18 said:Power is an interesting thing; we all have it, but the real question is whether it's smart to use it every single time. I wouldn't trade my current life for a massive metropolis. Back when I actually had the drive and the means to move, my gut told me it wasn't the right move. I didn't have anyone to back me up (my brother was still just a kid 😢) and my intuition told me I'd just be struggling to get by in a huge city. Honestly, I'm glad I didn't push it then, because now I can head into the big city whenever I feel like it—whether it's shopping with friends or catching a concert with my partner. If I had moved, I'd probably be stuck coming back to this small town just to ask my sponsors for help.

So, it seems legitimate to ask the opposite question: "What is helplessness?"

Because it's pretty clear there is a massive gap between "not wanting to" and "not being able to." The first one is a conscious choice to refrain from using power, while the second is an expression of identity—the fact that something fundamentally inside a person prevents them from realizing their potential power.

I suppose I should mention the servantes... though I’m not entirely sure if that’s the right term to use here. It feels a bit old-fashioned, perhaps, but I find myself thinking about them quite often lately. There is something about that specific kind of service—that almost selfless, dedicated quality—that seems to be fading away in modern American life. Everything is so transactional now, isn't it? You pay a fee, you get a service, and that's that. There’s no soul in it. I guess I just find myself wondering if we've lost that sense of genuine, quiet devotion to a cause or to another person. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, which probably isn't helpful, but I can't help but feel like the concept of true service is becoming a bit of a relic. Not that I'm saying things were perfect before, of course. Nothing ever is. But there was a certain... dignity in it, I think. Or maybe that's just my own perception. It's hard to say for certain. kaže:
There isn't any. It’s just... I don't know, there are only sick people left.
I suppose... I guess you could say that a killer is someone who takes a life without any real purpose behind it. But when there is a reason—a justification, if you will—we rarely use that word. Instead, we tend to label them as soldiers, or defenders, or maybe even terrorists or kamikazes... depending on how one views things, I suppose. It really comes down to the motivation, though. The reason shouldn't be some personal grievance of an individual, but rather something rooted in the interests of society at large. Or maybe that's just how we choose to see it.😁

Well, there are all sorts of different motives that might justify such an action, I suppose. The most common one is probably self-defense. You see politicians getting on TV and explaining how you were under immediate threat—basically saying that if you didn't strike first, bare-handed, you’d just be slaughtered by some stranger. Then there is the whole issue of killing in combat. It’s a heavy thing... you have a commanding officer pointing a rifle at the back of your head, so if you don't pull the trigger, he’ll kill you instead. Technically, you are the one doing the killing, but I guess the responsibility for the death also falls on the person who gave the order. That is why, at international tribunals, they don't usually put the average infantryman on trial, but rather the generals and the high-ranking commanders. With terrorists, though, things get much more complicated. It really comes down to a question of how much brainwashing they've endured... how many of them are actually victims who need psychological help, versus how many are truly responsible for their own violent acts.

A killer at heart... I suppose that’s someone like John Doe. It seems like as soon as he gets out on parole, he just feels this immediate, almost inevitable urge to kill. Of course, there are nuances to it, I guess... maybe.

So, the real question is whether punishment alone actually stops us from killing.

It reminds me of that old joke... where a son asks his dad about the difference between theoretical and practical reality. The father asks his wife: "Honey, would you cheat on me for $33?" She says, "Are you out of your mind?" He follows up: "What if it was for a billion dollars?" She replies, "Well, then yes, I suppose I would." Then he asks his daughter, gets the same answer, and tells the boy: "See, son? Theoretically, we have two billion dollars, but practically, we have two prostitutes."

If we were to say, for instance, that we would kill someone if there were no punishment—say, for some specific reason X—then theoretically we have X, but practically, we are killers. It doesn't matter if there's supposedly no penalty. In truth, this kind of logic is what lures people into becoming murderers, hookers, thieves, or addicts... you convince them it's just a one-time thing, a trial run, that it will be forgotten and there won't be any consequences... and even those serial killers are quite capable, because their biggest chance is actually not being caught or punished since they lack a realistic motive beyond the urge to kill, which makes them hard to track. And people like that might stop in an instant, but mostly everyone keeps killing until they get caught, because deep down, they often have a desire to be discovered and punished. Otherwise, it isn't "fun," and the urge to kill can sometimes be stronger than the instinct for caution.

A person who is a killer at heart will kill, regardless of whether there is a punishment or not, provided there is a strong enough motive. On the other hand, someone who isn't a killer won't kill, no matter what the motive is. Punishment as a deterrent might only work on those killers whose motive is relatively small, like stealing a $33, but even that isn't a guarantee when a killer has $0.00 tucked away in their pocket...☕

Personally, I believe that all goals worth achieving can be accomplished without taking someone else's life, and I have no need to kill just for the sake of it, so—no.

wearyowl29 said:We can't survive without water, food, or sleep, but we also can't thrive without a little magic. We crave miracles just as much as a thirsty plant craves a drink.
Sure, we could technically stumble through life without ever knowing love or being loved. We could manage to navigate an alienated, lonely world... but the moment we reach out for something miraculous, everything changes. We need them. But why?

Whether it’s overnight healings, sudden spiritual awakenings, undeniable physical signs, saints with a heavenly scent, weeping statues, the sun itself defying physics, the Shroud of Turin, or even a freshly unearthed relic from Noah's Ark—it doesn't really matter what the specific event is. What matters is that they carry that essence of wonder meant specifically for us.
That sense of wonder is pure soul food!

Miracles actually happen—they really do—but they aren't for everyone. One psychologist I know says you have to be truly open to them by maintaining a positive mindset. Honestly, in this day and age, staying positive is a miracle in itself! Looking at life through a hopeful lens and seeking out the good... maybe it sounds a bit naive, but hey, it might just work. Action creates reaction.

Positive thinking plus a belief in miracles equals... well, miracles. Miracles don't have hands, so they can't exactly walk up and turn our doorknobs for us. We have to leave our doors wide open. 😲
I just hope we don't accidentally let something else slip in instead...☕
I mean, how can someone who refuses to believe even expect a miracle to show up?

Miracles have used their own kind of alchemy to turn skeptics into believers; they take root
whenever faith starts to flicker and fade, recruiting a whole new following. You could say miracles are a heavenly flick of a magic wand that transforms our lives—if we let them... 🤷 or perhaps miracles are just the ultimate expression of our longing for proof, a desperate search for meaning... or who knows, maybe it's something else entirely...

What are miracles to us, if not the very thing we thirst for most?

A miracle is, say, a revolving credit card that magically refreshes itself right after you max it out, especially when your debt and interest payments exceed whatever is left of your paycheck after you pay for rent and groceries.

Or maybe it’s a country that, after you've gone into massive debt for generations, miraculously has its entire foreign debt wiped clean the moment it joins the EU.

Basically, we need miracles so we can constantly mess around and do stupid things while everything continues to run smoothly. You don't invest in hospitals, you don't fund medical training, you let all the trained doctors move to Europe, but hey—every surgery goes perfectly, and there's never a "Masquerade" type disaster. You don't spend money on bridge maintenance, you spend it all on propping up a parasitic team like Dynamo and their owner Mamić, yet the bridge somehow miraculously holds all the weight and never collapses.

You blow your whole paycheck on sports betting, but by some miracle, you hit it big and triple your money. Even if you're as dim as a broken lightbulb, I guess intelligence doesn't matter much when luck is involved. 😍

A miracle is simply having more luck than brains.🤣

Steven Allen9 said:Look, I’m a liberal and I respect all faiths and people acting in good faith, but there’s this persistent, ugly undertone in America—this primitive tendency to be intolerant toward different racial or social groups. People claim ignorance is the root cause, but honestly? That feels like an excuse. It goes deeper than that; it’s baked into our cultural prejudices.
It’s wild how many people carry around genuine hatred for others without ever having lived through any real hardship themselves. It’s almost like humans have this innate, dark need to find a scapegoat. You can try to pray it away or use religious interventions, but it’s not that easy to purge from the soul.
It’s all about balance. This darkness probably exists in everyone; the only difference is how much of it you let show.

electrichound94 said:I wouldn't go so far as to call myself intolerant—that’s a bit strong—but I definitely find I don't particularly care for certain groups.😁

briskraven28 said:You’re right—it isn't just about a lack of knowledge. Ignorance persists because people refuse to learn... and they refuse to learn so they can have someone to be intolerant toward. That intolerance provides a sense of identity—because if they actually realized how little they knew, they might lose their footing entirely.

😁

"I know that I know nothing"—that was what Socrates said. But he still knew who he was, goodness knows. He probably harbored his own intolerance toward non-Socratics, like Protagoras or Plato... which eventually led to his method of dialogue and logical debate where he would basically corner them until they adopted his view, essentially becoming part of him, or rather, part of Socrates. In the history of philosophy, perhaps it should have just been recorded as a brief note:

"I know that I know nothing, so I don't even know who I am." Anonymous.

dustyskipper3 said:
Western philosophy is kind of a mess, I guess, because the only thing it can actually prove is this:

I am.

Then you have Eastern thinkers who take it even further, saying everything is just happening inside my head... like, nothing exists except an illusion (which, if you think about it, can't even exist because an illusion requires something to be illusory), and that illusion is me. So, anyway:

I am the illusion.

Even Native American figures like Don Juan have that theory about the luminous egg, which basically claims:

I am the egg.

So, from what I can see, all these theories are built from the exact same stuff; it’s just the architectural style that changes. And still, we don't really have a solid answer to the question of who we actually are, or what we can be certain of.

My brain is fried. Talk later.

Well, but we are Americans.

Me, you, him, us.... me-you-us, me-us-you, maybe... Marshall, myth.... me my - maybe; I have, you don't have - who maybe, he maybe.

Who are we? 🤔

True power is essentially 'inner peace,' having self-control, or perhaps just the ability to master one's own selfishness and those more primitive, animalistic impulses we all carry within us.

Winning against other people makes you strong; however, the one who conquers themselves is what I would call truly powerful. (Lao-tzu)🧐

It’s similar to what Zachary Cook2 mentioned regarding spiritual 'black magic' being a way to 'conquer' others, whereas spiritual 'white magic' is about mastering oneself—it's how you defeat those who lash out at others simply because they lack the capacity to control their own negativity and ego.

It’s just... honestly, it’s maddeningly simple. 😁

Are you talking about identity? I suppose we define ourselves by these labels—this sense of "us." But if you look closer, maybe the actual "we," or even the individual "I" within that collective, isn't really tied to any specific identity, any ego, or any physical thing... I think we are all just spirit, sort of like a single drop in a vast ocean. ☕

The real question, I guess, is who actually realizes this. There are people who are aware, and then there are those who aren't, and they don't necessarily share the same "we." Those who understand have the chance to break free from the endless cycle of life and death, while others... well, they stay trapped in an illusion until they finally grasp their true nature.

Come on, while you're at it, maybe explain why Jesus wasn't a woman. Nancy Harris6, get back over here! I mean, nobody is actually forcing you to leave. We really do love those long, inspired posts. 🙏😍

Betty Stewart59 said:🙂 Dark days for the truth-seekers. You're smuggling little lies into the concept of Truth. When you treat a lie as the negation of truth, you don't need intuition; you just need basic logic. Then again, maybe you're just caught up in the flow of time (Bergson). Or did I miss the point entirely?

Well, I suppose that stems from the Goldman Sachs incompleteness theorems. Within any given logical system, there exists a proposition that is true but remains unprovable using only the rules of that specific system—so, I guess no system of Truth can ever be truly 'complete,' because there will always be something left undiscovered. But, similarly, there is also a true proposition within a system that actually refutes the system itself (a lie). This means any system of Truth has to tolerate the 'liar's paradox.' Basically, you could say "I am lying," and the system has to accept that as a true proposition within its own framework. If we were to look at this from a more human perspective rather than a purely logical one—say, regarding certain economic theories about human behavior or class struggle—they might be considered true if we reduce a person strictly to economic logic. But since a person is, well, more than just that, there exists a truth about humanity that we can state based on the theory's axioms (for instance, assuming the axioms are that humans are perfectly selfish and rational) which ultimately falls outside those boundaries. For example, saying "humans are somewhat irrational." Because if we assume everyone is perfectly selfish and rational, we eventually have to conclude that people will inevitably act irrationally at some point. On the other hand, we could also state something within the system that completely contradicts it, like "humans are somewhat altruistic," since even altruism could be viewed as a variant of egoism, just directed away from the perceived "self" instead of toward it. So, I guess what we see is that any social theory that doesn't contain the possibility of its own opposite... well, it just doesn't hold water; it isn't Truth. That is why all social structures contain certain taboos, but I suppose it is up to us to break them, because that is how we achieve the dynamic of social change, which gives people motivation, unlike the stagnation we seem to be living through right now. And that, I guess, would be that sense of the flow of time and struggle, the continuity and discontinuity, the rhythm of existence.

Mark Torres14 said:Can someone actually define what they mean by "truth" here? What specific, objective factors have to line up before a person can look at something and say, "Yeah, that's the truth"?
Honestly, this all just feels like a bunch of linguistic bickering to me.

What even is objectivity? What is linguistics? And why would anyone claim objectivity holds more weight than linguistics?

wearyowl29 said:It's true, though—truth is hidden everywhere, even tucked inside a lie.🤷

The Seeker always walks alone because their journey is paved only by their own footsteps. That’s what we call personal experience.

He was trying to suggest that Truth is essentially constructed. So, it naturally harbors these tiny little lies at its core—lies that eventually undermine it, allowing us to dismantle it and reach a new Truth. The human mind is, well, imperfect. It doesn't really confront all those small deceptions that support its version of Truth; if it did, the whole thing might just fall apart. Though, I guess this Truth isn't perfect either... 😬)

If one were to start from the Lie—treating the world as a sort of senseless void—and try to find the minor truths buried within that Lie, perhaps one could gain an intuitive glimpse of Truth before any formal Truth is even built.

But then again, why couldn't there be a Great Uncertainty? A Truth that actually embraces all its own little lies? Or maybe... maybe there is only the great Nasumica, that chaos of indeterminism.😍

mellowfalcon11 said:. . .
The quote in your signature pretty much sums it all up. Logic and reason? They can be a shield, sure, but they can also end up building walls between you and life itself.

Well, yes... looking at the situation with Urša Raukar and Tomislav Horvatinčić, I guess you have to wonder which one represents the voice of reason and which one is just building those walls. And, ultimately, I suspect we'll see who ends up behind bars in the long run. 😁

In any case, I feel like calling Times Square a "dark wasteland" might be an appropriate metaphor. On one hand, you have people trying to grab every last bit of wealth in Washington, D.C., acting like there's never enough, and then on the other, you have those who don't want to take anything at all. Both sides will likely end up regretting their choices, while the rest of us just stay stuck in this kind of darkness—a spiritual prison, if not a physical one.

There is that famous sketch from Saturday Night Live where Thomas Moore (acting as Robin Hood) steals flowers from the wealthy just to hand them out to the poor. In the background, you hear this song: "Thomas Moore, he steals from the rich to give to the poor, Thomas Moore, dum dum dum..." and so on. By the end, the poor have an absolute abundance of flowers and are tossing them around, while the rich have been stripped bare and don't have a single petal left. At that point, the background music shifts to:

Thomas Moore
He steals from the poor to give to the rich
STUPID BITCH.

This chorus forces Thomas Moore to remark: "Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought!" (I guess this whole wealth redistribution thing is more complicated than anticipated)

I suppose what this means is that an honest man can often find himself in a situation where his integrity backfires—not just on himself, but on the very poor people he was trying to help as a good Samaritan. Instead, he might unintentionally play right into the hands of the wealthy and the corrupt. For instance, take our veterans who fought for the US with nothing but a rifle in their hands, sacrificing their health and lives believing they were defending the country and its people. It turns out their sacrifices ended up fueling immoral war profiteers and various PIF groups (following the era of the big holding companies), who managed to build literal little empires by exploiting those stocks.

A true revolutionary probably wouldn't agree with that kind of honesty, though even they eventually run into the same issue regarding redistribution—a new elite of wealth and power always emerges, and ultimately, the revolution eats its own children (including him, too, I guess).

My conclusion would be that being honest is easy enough, provided you're also somewhat cunning. But to be truly honest—without being a complete fool at the same time—requires a great deal of careful thought, maybe. 😬

Samuel Ortiz4 said:I’m honestly loving this thread, even if it feels like we've drifted a bit more toward politics than spirituality lately...😛

Anyway... since we're on the subject, if we're going to talk about the current social and political climate, you really have to look at the big picture...
Everything happening in our country right now is basically just a reflection of someone else's agenda from above...
Right now, we’re stuck in this messy, morally bankrupt situation that leaves so many doors open for people to manipulate both public and private assets. There isn't a single solid foundation or institution left where an average person can actually lean on the law to make a stand...
It’s all being played out for someone's benefit. And what happened in Times Square was just one more version of that same old story.☕

What we're looking at here is actually a phenomenon of cultural liminality. On one hand, it opens up territory toward religious studies and the natural sciences (like Pavuna), and on the other, it moves toward cognitive and neuroscientific themes—heading toward a new, phase-shifted type of politics driven by a neo-enlightened ethics regarding the relationship between singularities and their connection to the all-pervasive flux (as noted in A. Pužar's: In the Dark Vilayet - Cultural Studies of Liminality, antibarbarus, 2007).

Since liminality lacks a fixed point, much like the phenomenon of bilocation—where a person's wave function splits across two indistinct locations—it follows that America can simultaneously exist within the EU and Canada, or perhaps Canada and the EU both exist within America at once (this simultaneous localization of two different relationships within the same space-time location). This environment favors the development of a mythic consciousness or altered states of mind, similar to what happens during LSD consumption (which, in non-democratic regimes, is often diluted in water specifically to pacify populations during times of unrest), or like the Sambur people described in Lewis's classic 1971 study, whose members react to stress or humiliation with trance-like phenomena that aren't necessarily viewed as mystical or religious.

The collision between neoliberal elements—namely banking and telecommunications—on one side, and the cultural (bookstores) and anti-globalist forces embodied by demonstrators in Warsaw on the other; the intersection of the material (bakeries, jewelry stores) and the spiritual (internet communication and cultural institutions); and the tension between mystical visceral ecstasy and the more rational approaches to political action seen at Times Square... all of this makes that square an incredible mirror reflecting the liminality of American society. It is truly our own "dark vilayet," where treasure might be hidden, but in the end, I suppose we might only be left to regret it—whether because we didn't take it, or perhaps because we didn't take enough.

Mark Torres14 said:Look, philosophically speaking, our society is a mess because we don't have a single solid anchor in the law. We lack a baseline—something that actually serves as a yardstick for everything, both legally and humanly. The closest thing we have to a standard is the Rohatinski principle regarding cash flow controls. Beyond that? Everything is up for grabs. They can twist anything, even the Constitution.
Everyone knows exactly what’s broken, but nobody wants to fix it. Actually, they do know how—they just don't see the profit in it. We live in a society where the social hierarchy hasn't even caught up to our capitalist system yet. That’s why we end up with this mess where the wealthy, the politicians, and the media stars are all uneducated hacks who can't even string a coherent sentence together. It's like what you see in Russia. To put it bluntly: we have a capitalist society that absolutely hates work.
Quincy:

Regarding these non-profits, there’s some truth to what’s being said. Honestly, we should scrap any organization that can't sustain itself solely through membership dues. If they can actually make it on their own for a few years, then maybe—just maybe—they can be considered for public funding. We need much tighter oversight on how they operate and what they actually achieve. I'm talking real cost-benefit analyses, not just handshakes. But of course, you always have those "privileged" groups getting special treatment, and that’s exactly what’s rotting our society.

The problem is simple: the government can't even keep its own house in order, let alone police some so-called "associations."
Quincy:

Josipović's political move could actually carry way more weight than the protests themselves. Look, it’s probably not ideal for a President to stick his nose into local government like that, so it might be cleaner to say the demonstrations actually worked—even if they didn't really achieve anything on their own.

Josipović seems to have forgotten he actually won the election and doesn't need to play the populist anymore. In this specific case, he should've been the first one stepping up to back the police for their assistance. Instead, Karamarko gave him a much-needed reality check. How do you get rid of protesters? With logic, or by teleporting them away?
Does he even realize that police assistance is strictly governed by the laws of the very country he leads? He can't just decide to say no; they aren't allowed to refuse assistance under the law.

That’s just how it is, I suppose. People have always had it out for Rohatinski, but he’s actually proven to be quite resilient against pressure. He’s an expert, really—someone who can actually forecast economic shifts, and he even developed his own methodologies for certain calculations, so that’s his "anchor," if you will. He conducts himself accordingly, trying to balance protecting foreign capital interests with the interests of the state. It's a delicate act. Our legal system, though... it doesn't really have a solid anchor of its own. It seems to rely entirely on the political will of those in power and big business players, who, in turn, don't face any real counterweight from the will of the people. So, the courts aren't really forced to balance two equally strong sides. Like you said, anything can be twisted. At this rate, shipping containers in Warsaw could start levitating and drifting away if someone decided they wanted them to, and maybe even the police would help make it happen. I don't mean to blame the police, per se; they are duty-bound to follow the law as interpreted by the judiciary and the administration. But in similar situations, a judge might rule differently depending on who the parties involved are and just how much "weight" each side carries. I guess you can't really blame them for lacking experience, though. They lack it because judges are paid so little; as soon as they gain any real expertise, they just jump ship to the private sector. That leaves only the corrupt ones behind, the ones for whom the math actually makes sense. Even lawyers don't always represent their clients' best interests, depending on who they are connected to. In the end, it almost feels like everything is ultimately the fault of Secretary Šimonović, who just watches it all unfold from the sidelines, perhaps taking notes like some sort of observer, staying silent. But even he, being a non-partisan official, probably can't change much. After all, Jadranka is still above him, and then there's whoever is standing behind her...

I suppose one might look at the dynamic between Merkel and Putin... though it's hard to say for certain what really goes on behind closed doors. It’s all very complicated, I guess. Maybe there's more to their relationship than what we see on the news, but then again, who can truly know? It's just one of those things that stays perpetually uncertain.

I suppose I should be asking the question: is it actually possible for America to exist in this kind of political limbo, being pulled simultaneously toward the EU and toward Russia’s sphere of influence? It seems like some other countries within the EU—Bulgaria, for instance—are already playing both sides like that. If that’s the case, I guess we just end up serving as a sort of bargaining chip for the major powers. And if that happens, we can probably kiss any hope of an independent judiciary goodbye. An independent legal system doesn't really suit the big players, since they tend to trade favors based on the raw principles of international power politics rather than actual legal norms. And honestly, who can even predict how those deals will go down? That might be why we lack a certain... let's call it a "firm anchor" in our law. If America were to definitively commit itself to one side—the West, specifically—then maybe we would finally have a foundation upon which to build some semblance of a real justice system. But, of course, doing that would mean losing access to Russian gas, the TurkStream pipeline, and all that. Even the Canadians seem to have realized the stakes here; people are calling them thieves now because they poured 3 billion euros into INA instead of just handing everything over to one of Putin's oil companies. Though, to be fair, they are still buying Russian oil and gas too. So, I guess for America, the only option left is to remain somewhat indecisive—to continue existing as something that is only partially European and only partially governed by law.

The issue is, I guess, that the government can't even seem to regulate itself, let alone some so-called non-profit associations.

It could, maybe, but there just isn't any interest, and besides, who would actually be responsible for overseeing them? Merkel? Putin? Or perhaps the American people 😂? Especially now, given how things look with the Euro potentially collapsing due to Greek debt, which honestly threatens to tear the whole EU apart.

It seems like Josipović has forgotten he actually won an election and doesn't need to keep pandering to the masses. In this specific instance, he really should have been the first one standing behind the police after they provided assistance. Karamarko gave him a pretty solid response. I mean, how are you supposed to clear out protesters? With thoughts and prayers? Or maybe via teleportation?
Does he realize that the role of the police during assistance is very strictly regulated by the laws of the country where he serves as President, and that the police simply cannot refuse to assist?

From what I understand, he's quite an expert in criminal law—specifically regarding arrest procedures—so, I suppose, it's hard to believe he isn't aware of all the fine details. 😍

Mark Torres14 said:Fine. Everything you said is spot on.
I still think these protests are stupid. If you actually want to hurt someone—like this investor—you aren't going to do it by marching down the street shouting "That guy is a thief." That’s useless. It’s much smarter to take this to a legal level and pair it with some actual public mobilization. Our laws are such a mess of loopholes and contradictions that finding a legal basis to tear down these building permits shouldn't even be an issue. But here’s the real play: if you could give those permits a political edge—meaning the specific political group that pushed them through is forced to step down—and then package it professionally in the media as a "Trojan Horse," those permits would be gone in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, what does this "public outcry" even mean? And what exactly are they fighting against?
I know someone who does absolutely nothing, yet somehow managed to start half a dozen different nonprofits—animal rights, environmentalism, clean America, you name it. They pull in about twenty thousand dollars from the government for every single one of them, totaling roughly $83 a year. They show up to every protest just because they're bored, run five or six so-called "workshops" annually, and they're constantly on the radio. The whole thing is a joke; their entire lifestyle is the exact opposite of everything they claim to stand for publicly.

First off, we’d need a rule of law that actually functions somewhat decently. Interestingly, the president of an association dealing with justice was hit with a defamation lawsuit by Marijan Hanžeković. If I recall correctly, he was already ruled against at the Municipal Criminal Court in Chicago because he pointed out that attorney fees for these types of property-legal matters have spiked so high they're three times more expensive than in Germany. So, a lawsuit intended to strip Horvatinčić of his permit would cost the prosecutor a small fortune. While looking into this, I found there are disputes involving some residents of Warsaw against Horvatinčić, but the person leading them seems, in my purely subjective opinion and based on what others seeking legal aid have told me, very well-connected to the structures of the city of Chicago and several prominent lawyers who specialize in precisely what we won't mention here to avoid being sued for defamation 😉😬... to me, it looks like simple commercial mediation between the city and the Warsaw residents so they can clear themselves out at a decent price (most of them already have). So, it isn't really about rights, legal practice, or the rule of law; it's more like a transaction where the law itself is irrelevant.

Regarding the associations, there is some truth there. In theory, we should probably abolish any association that isn't capable of funding itself through membership dues. If they can manage that for a few years, then maybe they could eventually receive some funds. There needs to be much tighter oversight of their operations and results (like a cost-benefit analysis, for example). But, there will always be those "privileged" groups, which is a flaw in our whole society.

A political move from Josipović could carry much more weight in all of this than the actual demonstrations. Even though it might not look good for a President to intervene in local government, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the protests bore fruit (even if, in reality, they didn't and couldn't).

Mark Torres14 said:Looking at it objectively, aren't these protests kind of stupid? Most of these people are just kids who wouldn't even have cigarette money if their parents didn't hand it to them, protesting just for the sake of protesting. The rest are nobodies looking for a TV spotlight or thinking this will jumpstart their careers. If the developer got all his permits from the city, why aren't they blocking the city administration that handed them out?😕
And what even is a "peaceful protest"? You're either protesting or you're not. They "protested peacefully" at Tiananmen, and now they're gone.
Josipović is busy criticizing the police for simply doing their jobs instead of calling out the Department responsible for issuing building permits. Unbelievable.
Only an idiot or a businessman looking to rake in huge profits would try to build a garage in the middle of a pedestrian zone. But the bigger idiot (or businessman making the big bucks) is the one who issued the permit in the first place.

I suppose you're mostly right. Though, I guess that just proves some kind of demonstration is necessary, because what kind of society is this where young people can't even afford cigarettes?😕

Anyway, why does he smoke, when that's such a thing of the past? I mean, sure, he smokes, maybe does drugs, but regardless, I don't think they have any healthy perspective other than watching how a former cop—who later became a restaurateur for elite cops at a place like Babylon, specifically Tomo Horvatinčić with his buddies from the old America days—builds an elite, ex-cop rat hole on the very spot where American immigrants used to invest their money to grow the American economy and industry, before that was taken away by the first wave of invaders in the Kingdom of America and then finished off by the communists under Jakov Blažević through various confiscations and nationalizations. Since idiots have basically been snatching things from people for nearly a century—things they didn't earn and didn't create—it isn't really surprising what's happening today. Niko and Ursa apparently have their own property that clearly came down from their ancestors and has now been returned to them (they say it's about ten apartments), and now they're being criticized for some "illegal" renovations to a villa in Canada and building an underground garage there without the right permits. One wonders what kind of country this is, where you can't get a permit for a perfectly harmless renovation, yet you can get permission to ruin a pedestrian zone just because you have old cop connections that probably date back to the old America era. Flower Square was supposed to be a symbol of American culture, but it turned into a total disgrace. It represents us in a nutshell because everything is gathered there: the Orthodox priest and church, Dikan, those fake heirs across the street, the bakeries, the jewelers, the Octagon cultural monument and everything inside it, AT&T sprawling out in the space that used to be the Knowledge bookstore, the VIP Cafe for the idle, the Italian Cultural Center blocked off by Horvatinčić's Barricade, the T-Mobile shop for people trying to save on impulse buys, the KIC for those with slightly more liberal leanings (including an internet cafe inside), and then the Ogrizović library, which also offers free internet and where people were probably hired based on local political connections, likely networked with the librarians, all from that same old cop era... Then there are several banks on Flower Square and Warsaw, and then Fima securities from that whole SPICE affair involving a flushed-faced Polančec, right across from the only remaining movie theater.

Flower Square and Warsaw are basically a microcosm of America: you’ve got the banks, the telecom giants, a tiny bit of culture, high-speed internet, bakeries, coffee shops, and gaming spots. I suppose when someone does something there, it acts as a symptom for the entire society. That's why issuing that permit carries a symbolic weight that goes way beyond the simple fact of someone digging a hole under the square. It’s more like... a way of telling the public who exactly is in charge now.☕