Posts by feralranger

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
If a person purchases a property in full compliance with the law, they have fulfilled their obligation. Even if some underlying irregularity exists, the buyer bears absolutely no responsibility for creating that discrepancy.👍

It’s irrelevant. The man is nothing more than a vulture profiting from the misery of others. Honestly, calling him a leech feels like an understatement.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
They were hardly elite operatives.👍

It is quite frankly an embarrassment to the police department, regardless of how one chooses to view it. To make matters worse, the creditor failed to arrange for the removal of the property—an obligation they are strictly required to fulfill under the public procurement law—which renders the entire proceeding unlawful. But even beyond the legal technicalities, there is the more pressing issue at hand: the sheer lack of morality involved in such an act.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
And is that not simply because other users have already begun discussing the subject at hand?😕

Besides, those links of yours are still sitting there right where you left them. Have you actually taken the time to sit down and count exactly how many there are?🤔

As far as Cacic and his collection of vehicles are concerned, I truly have absolutely no interest whatsoever; discussing the matter doesn't move the needle for me in the slightest.🤷

I have already made myself quite clear on this matter: if you wish to engage in a heated debate regarding Cacic, the political class, or the current regime, please feel free to take that discourse to the appropriate sub-forum, provided you strictly adhere to its specific rules and regulations.👍

Have you still not grasped the underlying connection? People resort to predatory lending and outright violence because they aren't the ones filling the bags that these supposedly "distinguished and respectable" elites plunder just to fund their grotesque luxuries—all so they can literally warm their parasitic backsides on premium leather seats.

The connection is far too obvious. We are looking at two sides of the exact same coin, yet somehow, that reality fails to fit within the narrow confines of your singular perspective.

Brian Edwards6 said:I couldn't agree more. Besides, you have an entire sub-forum dedicated specifically to those topics here—one that happens to be among our most read sections, too.👍

Is it actually moral to default on your debts?😕

What kind of "debts" are we even talking about here? Vukic was essentially iskamatariti after his small business went under. I truly don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but once it happens, you immediately resort to censorship by claiming I'm just being repetitive. Meanwhile, instead of actually catching criminals—you know, the actual drug dealers and such—the police have, quite shamefully, been complicit in the whole mess.

...and he won't even be able to claim his Social Security benefits if he hasn't paid up...

goldengull3 said:On what grounds? And while you're at it, maybe drop some links to actual legal precedents?

Simply put, this style of debate isn't what this subforum is for.

Hold on a second—are you actually suggesting that if one were to argue that, say, the American judicial system or the economy is in shambles, they would need to provide direct links as proof? You must be joking. But then again, wouldn't we agree that such an approach hardly constitutes a high-level intellectual discussion on your part?

goldengull3 said:He might be the owner, the buyer, a party to a lawsuit, or whatever else, but you can't go around labeling people on the legal section of this Forum just because you think they acted immorally. If you want to get into that, go to the politics or spirituality section instead.

Legal discussions should stick to the law—specifically, whether the transaction was legitimate. The "why" and the "how" fall outside the scope of legal analysis.

I beg to differ. It is my belief that both politics and the law should be anchored by morality; in other words, just because immorality is unfortunately common doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered undesirable in those spheres.

Brian Edwards6 said:For instance, if you look at the second and third bolded sections of the Rules regarding insults—specifically points 1 and 7 of those Rules.👍

Whether we are talking about specialists or the broader question of funding the treasury, that money goes toward education (whatever quality that may be), healthcare (regardless of how much out-of-pocket cost is involved), defense (which deserves its own separate discussion entirely)… and every other sector. In any case, I still don't see how this fits into that particular thread, but the link is right there for you. Actually, links. Have you bothered to count how many comments you've posted?🤔

Your comments are still up. What was removed was your constant repetition of the same off-topic link (30 points), insulting behavior (30 points), and commenting on moderation within a thread (30 points). Regarding this supposed "one-sidedness," why don't you ask yourself why no one else participating in the debate who happens to be on "your side" (conditionally speaking, purely in terms of the "one-sidedness" argument) has been sanctioned?😕

You have gone ahead and deleted perfectly coherent responses simply because you cannot wrap your head around them and they don't happen to align with your personal worldview.

And what exactly would you have me do—call a profiteer riding on the backs of others something as benign as a "fragrant lavender grower"? If I did, I would merely be conforming to your standards and to a regime that sends special forces against families, turning them into the homeless, all while crime flourishes unchecked...

Brian Edwards6 said:For instance, if you look at the second and third bolded sections of the Rules regarding insults—specifically points 1 and 7 of those Rules.👍

Whether we are talking about specialists or the broader question of funding the treasury, that money goes toward education (whatever quality that may be), healthcare (regardless of how much out-of-pocket cost is involved), defense (which deserves its own separate discussion entirely)… and every other sector. In any case, I still don't see how this fits into that particular thread, but the link is right there for you. Actually, links. Have you bothered to count how many comments you've posted?🤔

Your comments are still up. What was removed was your constant repetition of the same off-topic link (30 points), insulting behavior (30 points), and commenting on moderation within a thread (30 points). Regarding this supposed "one-sidedness," why don't you ask yourself why no one else participating in the debate who happens to be on "your side" (conditionally speaking, purely in terms of the "one-sidedness" argument) has been sanctioned?😕

Because the truth regarding the other side of the coin—which is quite clearly laid out in the links—is precisely what strikes you most painfully, and it is the very thing that least fits into your narrative of one-sidedness.

Brian Edwards6 said:I won't drag this out any further. Please just respect the rules of the sub-forum you're posting in. Best regards.👋

To keep things brief: intellectual conformity is what suffocates discourse on this platform. In our broader society, we far too often fail to debate legislation properly; instead, laws are typically pushed through via a single-minded adherence to party machinery and blind obedience.

We live in a nation that frequently practices this kind of forced consensus, and such dogmatic thinking permeates every layer of our social fabric—an unfortunate reality that your own actions illustrate quite vividly.
It really isn't surprising that we find ourselves in the current state of affairs.

Brian Edwards6 said:I wasn't asking you to delete it; I was asking you to stop. Do you have any idea how many times you've dropped that same link? And more importantly, what on earth does it have to do with the topic of relocation?😕

As for your renamed post—it wasn't "censored." It was removed because you called someone a sleazebag without having the slightest clue about them. Based on everything we know so far, they haven't done anything out of line, and since they aren't even participating in this discussion, you can't exactly claim they provoked you.👍

By what specific rule of this Forum am I forbidden from calling a man a sleazebag when he bought a house at a massive discount by profiting off the tragedies surrounding the Vukic family?

Which particular rule of the Forum does that violate?

Furthermore, just because you fail to grasp the examples provided in the link doesn't mean they aren't interconnected.

In short, the government essentially managed to iskamatariti Vukic after his small business collapsed, and now he's being chased by federal agents simply because he failed to fill the coffers that those scoundrels use to LITERALLY warm their backsides on leather seats— LINK. It’s all connected, though clearly, such a notion won't fit within your narrow-minded worldview.

And how exactly would you attempt to SILENCE me, or enforce this one-sided orthodoxy, based solely on your inability to see how these different sides of the same coin relate? You handed me three strikes of thirty minutes each.

Shameful dogmatism. Truly shameful.

So, Brian Edwards6 initially demanded that I strip out the links because he found them "irrelevant," seemingly failing to grasp that they actually illustrate the flip side of the exact same coin, meaning they are intrinsically linked in every sense.

To make the absurdity even more palpable, I actually went ahead and removed those links just to avoid his threats of censorship, only to have this incredibly thick-headed entry censored all over again. It’s utterly mindless.

Once again, Brian Edwards6 is deleting posts because he fails to grasp that you don't "demonstrate" double criteria by simply showing them—you illustrate them by providing a different case study.

To be perfectly clear, my links are directly relevant to the topic insofar as they serve to exemplify the concept of double criteria.

Furthermore, the examples provided in those links vividly demonstrate that, if one were to put it quite colorfully:

Refusing to fill a bag (which others are busy looting) and stealing from it are certainly not the same thing.

Brian Edwards6 said:Let me rephrase my question for you:

Would you actually be comfortable with someone owing you money, or having an intruder in your home, while the court refuses to issue an eviction order or the police simply decline to enforce it?😕

And I’ll throw one more in there for good measure:

How exactly are we supposed to decide which laws the police get to follow and which ones they can just ignore at their discretion?😕

My expectation—which I realize may be overly optimistic—is that legal professionals, IRS agents, and police officers actually possess a brain and, more importantly, know how to USE it. Instead, we have people left homeless and becoming a burden on the state, while the government hasn't seen a single cent in return. Is there any way to be more incompetent? It’s all utterly futile when people lack the basic capacity for logic, leaving nothing behind but some slimy opportunist profiting from the chaos.

Not only did the government fail to collect a dime, but the whole ordeal involved police misconduct, and the entire eviction was legally unsound because the creditor failed to provide any reasonable means for disposing of the property.

Brian Edwards6 said:As I mentioned before, I decided to lock the thread to save everyone the hassle of constant deletions and moderation cleanup. That said, I’ll admit you have a point—I could have left it open while handling the necessary housekeeping in parallel. I'll make sure to handle it that way next time.👍

P.S.: I didn't want to bother replying while you were still under suspension.👍

Would you actually find it acceptable if someone owed you money, yet they simply refused to pay up? Or perhaps you’d be perfectly fine with a situation where a tenant refuses to vacate your property, the courts drag their feet on an eviction order, and then the local police refuse to actually enforce it? Honestly, I can't imagine anyone finding that kind of systemic failure remotely palatable.😕

But how on earth does that even relate to the case at hand? On one side of the ledger, you have a family—real people with actual lives being upended—and on the other, you have a government behaving in this utterly absurd manner. I find myself once again staring at a dead link, which, in a truly poetic display of modern digital incompetence, serves as a perfect metaphor for my own life's trajectory. It appears the connection I was so eagerly anticipating has vanished into the ether, leaving me to wander this vast, empty expanse of the internet without direction or purpose. One might even argue there is a certain tragicomedy in searching for substance only to be met with a broken pathway. He's essentially treating his bank account like a sieve, just letting cash pour out without a second thought. And there are countless examples of that to be found..

Furthermore, the government entity that actually initiated the foreclosure process didn't end up receiving a single cent. Not even a cent to my name.Instead, she’s just inherited a massive influx of homeless populations who will undoubtedly become a heavy burden on the community. Is there any way to be more shortsighted than that? Honestly, when people cling to the letter of the law with the mindless, stumbling desperation of a drunkard clutching at a fence, everyone loses—except, of course, for some profiteering Canadian opportunist looking to cash in on everyone else's misery.

Even the police were complicit in this mess; instead of actually acting with some semblance of morality, they just went along with it—much like the behavior of those Spanish police officers I linked to earlier.

Beyond the sheer immorality of placing such arbitrary paragraphs ahead of actual human lives, there was also the blatant illegality of the whole affair; the creditor failed to secure the necessary arrangements for the disposal of property, which is an absolute prerequisite for any lawful execution of duties.

Furthermore, we have yet to receive any actual answer regarding why those police officers decided to participate in a deportation that was—to put it mildly—not only morally bankrupt but also entirely illegal under our own laws.

And why on earth, I ask you, is it that such questions are strictly forbidden, only to be promptly scrubbed from existence?

Sam Green73 said:Amending legislation falls squarely under the domain of Politics, rather than Law.

When discussing Law, it actually makes sense to address both the literal wording of statutes and how they function in practice.

It is certainly much easier to nitpick specific idiotic or blatantly unfair laws here among people who think they are legal experts... though it would be truly wonderful if those individuals also possessed the capacity—or perhaps just the courage—to actually use their brains and maintain enough perspective to grasp the 'big picture.'

crimsonsailor7 said:Topics like these have never actually been banned. In fact, some of the very subjects you mentioned are currently being discussed right now. Anyone with an opinion worth sharing—regardless of their specific viewpoint—is technically free to speak up. The real issue arises when a tiny handful of people decide to hijack the conversation, expressing themselves in a manner that flagrantly violates our community guidelines. When they inevitably get deleted, they fail to realize it wasn't their perspective that was the problem, but rather their delivery.

The reality is that anything deemed 'improper,' or any comment that fails to be sufficiently submissive, simply gets scrubbed away. Or, more effectively, entire threads are locked down, which serves as a convenient way to scatter the Forum members and silence the discussion entirely.

hollowtrucker77 said:For instance, why shouldn't an online community serve as the actual launchpad for an initiative aimed at fixing some poorly conceived or just plain ridiculous law?
And why couldn't a digital platform become the primary catalyst for demanding changes to something as fundamental as a traffic sign?

Well, wouldn't that be simply marvelous! Instead of blindly swallowing everything handed to us, we could actually expose flaws and spark movements to overturn stupid or unjust laws...

Brian Edwards6 said:I won't drag this out any longer; the thread is now open for legal inquiries. As for why it was shut down in the first place, it largely comes down to specific segments of your previous comments, such as:

... It was exactly those kinds of "arguments" used by people who served Germany during the Nazi era...

Yes, that particular snippet is just a fraction of your comment, and I'll admit it was taken out of context. However, posts like that are precisely what we try to prevent in threads like this. This is the Law sub-forum, yet the discussion keeps veering off into politics, history, and whatnot. There was a warning posted on the thread, so I’m going to ask you personally to please stick to the rules.👍

My points were entirely relevant to the subject at hand. Why does the presentation of facts seem to bother you so much? Furthermore, the film I referenced addresses exactly what happens to a society when the ideal of mindless obedience is glorified.

For instance, in Spain, there were instances where police officers decided they would simply refuse to carry out deportations— link.

In other words, even law enforcement officers (as well as legal professionals) are capable of exercising both intellect and empathy. The question remains: why do you all insist on celebrating such narrow-mindedness and blind compliance? It seems that on this forum—this space meant for actual debate there is significantly less room for critical thinking than there is in the minds of those Spanish police officers. Everything here appears subservient to the blind execution of the law.

Granted, that particular example is extreme, but it serves as a clear illustration of where a society ends up when it follows orders without a shred of thought. And I stated quite accurately that many of the enforcers in Nazi Germany utilized that exact same line of reasoning. That is, quite simply, a historical fact. If someone lacks such basic knowledge through their own general education, they could at least attempt to watch a serious film instead of drowning in soap operas, "Police Academy" comedies, and the various other pieces of trash people consume when they've collectively decided to stop using their brains.

crimsonsailor7 said:feralranger, hey, just take a breather, okay... I'm gonna get this thread started, I'm just waiting on Brian Edwards6 to hop back online so we can hammer out a few details first. And honestly, those deleted posts have nothing to do with any kind of political agenda, anyone looking at them can see exactly why they had to go...

I am perfectly calm, thank you very much. Why the sudden ad hominem attack? Ah, right—when one lacks actual arguments, one inevitably resorts to attacking the person instead.

Of course those posts are connected; even if they hadn't been scrubbed, there would undoubtedly be plenty of people willing to point out the obvious connections.

Frankly, if my assessment weren't correct, they wouldn't bother deleting anything; they would simply leave the posts up as "proof" of their claims. But that is precisely what they fear—that people might actually see the truth. And so, they pivot to "arguments" like "just calm down," which is a truly pathetic and uninspired ad hominem attempt.

Furthermore, I posed a very specific question: now that it is clear the entire mass expulsion was illegal, how should people go about seeking damages from the police department involved in such an unlawful relocation? Compensation should be sought for the psychological and physical distress endured, as well as for the unlawful restriction of movement imposed by those authorities.

If questions of this nature are considered off-limits, then it is painfully obvious that we are living under a regime-driven police state, where this forum possesses no true freedom, but is merely a mouthpiece for a single-minded authority.

It appears to me that even posts failing to toe the party line have been scrubbed from this space.

To be perfectly clear: the deportation was an illegal act, much as the latest news reports confirm; the police used excessive force, as evidenced by those harrowing videos showing officers grabbing people by their limbs and dragging them across the pavement; and we are currently witnessing a one-party state right here, given that any dissent in the locked thread was promptly deleted by the authorities.

They even wiped away the comments pointing out the government’s predatory lending practices—how they are attempting to seize homes worth ten times the actual debt, all over a measly $30000 (roughly $13,000), just to throw families onto the street...

Regarding the discussion about the Smith family's eviction, news surfaced during the debate suggesting that the entire eviction process was actually illegal.

In the final comment, where it was explicitly pointed out that the police used force to carry out an act that was, quite frankly, unlawful, Brian Edwards6 deleted the post—presumably so that the very last word would belong to someone more compliant with the regime or the police—and then promptly closed the thread.

When we discuss professional conduct, the term 'perfectionism' is frequently misapplied to situations where it simply doesn't belong.

For instance, I am often accused of being a perfectionist, which is quite a misunderstanding; I am merely adhering to the established professional standards of my field. In this current era of hyper-production and endless digital garbage, it has become a bizarre phenomenon where simply performing a job with actual competence is rebranded as 'perfectionism.'

Take journalism, for example: the industry has pivoted to cater to the masses—since maintaining a high-quality newsroom isn't profitable if you're only targeting a niche audience—which effectively makes it an indicator of the average person's intellect. Consequently, the entire value system has shifted; since the lowest common denominator is what sells, anything that meets a standard higher than "idiot-proof" is labeled as some sort of obsessive 'perfectionism.'

My profession shares the same tragic trajectory as mainstream journalism, giving me a front-row seat to just how much the average person has been intellectually dulled. The planet is practically suffocating under the weight of hyper-production and all manner of mindless clutter. I don't consider myself a perfectionist, but I certainly refuse to spend my life churning out trash designed specifically for fools.

Amy Edwards4 said:I have this idealized version of myself living in my head. It feels great when I indulge in the fantasy, but once I actually sit down and try to be realistic, I realize I’m nowhere near that person. Right now, I’m just some average guy—completely unremarkable in everything I do—and I feel stuck. There's no way out. Honestly, the realization is infuriating. I want constant growth. I want to reach a level where I’m self-sufficient, charismatic, interesting, attractive, and spontaneous. But instead of making progress, I just feel stagnant.

I’m trapped in mediocrity while craving perfection, both physically and personality-wise. Every time I see how minimal effort goes toward a slight improvement in physique after all that gym grind and sacrifice, my motivation just evaporates. Maybe I'm just envious of those naturally stunning people who don't have to lift a finger to look incredible. It seems like that physical advantage carries over into their personalities, too—they end up being those perfectly poised, spontaneous, fun individuals. I get the cliché about "accepting yourself as you are" and working on what can be fixed, but that isn't enough. Being "fine" won't get me anywhere near the standard I'm aiming for: being the kind of man who is genuinely desired in social circles, in the dating world, at work, and in everyday life.

How do I wake up from this?

Perhaps by attempting to stop being so heavily influenced by mindless American sitcoms and low-budget Hollywood trash? Or maybe by spending less time socializing with the vapid people who are under such an influence? 🤷

rowdyjackal56 said:It all feels a bit too much like "perfectionism" being used as a convenient shield in spaces where people justify their neuroses by claiming "everyone just wants to reach their maximum potential in life." Let’s be honest: that’s a total fallacy. Personally, I don't even have a clear definition for what that supposed "maximum" looks like.
For instance, my own aim is simply to become the best version of myself. I want to be the best person I can be for my own sake—not as some metric compared to the neighbors—and I want to navigate life knowing I've acted with integrity.
I wouldn't call myself a perfectionist in the slightest, especially not when it comes to those arbitrary benchmarks of academic or corporate success designed solely to make others perceive you as "winning." Now, that doesn't mean I haven't achieved things; it just means those achievements don't carry any weight in my internal ledger. They were merely the byproduct of my genuine interests and who I happen to be. And since those things can evolve, I see no reason to make a grand production out of them.
What I'm trying to get at, particularly for those who find these traits within themselves to be "toxic" or debilitating, is that you actually need perspective from someone who *isn't* stuck in that same loop. You need to observe a different way of operating to truly understand and adopt a better modus operandi. You don't need a support group of identical souls just to pat each other on the back and whisper reassurances that you aren't alone in your dysfunction. Unless, of course, that's exactly the kind of echo chamber you're looking for.

Who actually wants to be exceptional all the time? Me, frankly. Or rather, I refuse to exhaust myself chasing it. I find a certain joy in being unremarkable because I couldn't care less about social status, provided I know exactly who I am and remain a decent person to myself and those close to me. I have my peace, and that's plenty.

I quite admire that outlook on life... there is a certain elegant balance to it, and perhaps even a touch of wisdom...