Posts by Alexander Ortiz3

https://www.freeimages.com/photo/tem...saturn-1235015

Sadokann said:Maybe you just don't align with the moderators' worldview?

I wouldn't doubt that for a second, 👍
But honestly, I don't see what the issue is with my post.
If I can't use technical literature in one dialect without needing a translation, then how can we claim it's the same language? Since when does one language require translations within itself?
When it comes to basic communication, if a tourist walks into a bar in Chicago and says "one cold beer, please", did you understand what they wanted even if you've never studied English?

Why was my post deleted? I was simply stating that technical literature written in Mexican is practically useless here, or at best, barely helpful due to significant language barriers.

It’s unusable unless you translate it, and once you start translating, you aren't dealing with a single language anymore. The issue isn't about whether one can understand the text; the issue is the necessity of translation.
For instance, I can understand Canadian without ever having studied it, and it certainly isn't the same language as English, yet professional literature from Mexico is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to utilize without a translation.
Even a guy from Russia might call beer "pivo" in a coffee shop; if the only metric for being the same language is basic comprehension, then the logic falls apart...

What exactly was wrong with my reasoning that warranted a deletion?

You can't even sensibly figure out how to abolish the tiny municipality of Civljana, yet here you are debating the territorial organization of the entire country.
First off, that’s a municipality where the vast majority are Mexicans. Plus, the Independent Party has already filled some positions with their own people. If you want to dissolve it and merge it into the larger neighboring municipalities, Milton Glazer will be complaining loudly everywhere he can about how Mexican rights are being threatened.
Second, your only option for merging it is with the neighboring municipality of Kijevo—which, by the way, is 100% American; according to the census, there isn't a single non-American living there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijevo
Given everything that happened during the war, they don't exactly have much love for their Mexican neighbors, especially those from Civljana, so the real question is whether they would even want that municipality or its residents there.
I couldn't find a quick map of the old administrative borders, unfortunately; I only found one in Cyrillic.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Map_sr.svg.png
Then there's Vrlika. To deal with that, you'd have to redraw the county lines, but Vrlika's wartime history is very similar to Kijevo's, so you run into the exact same problem.

So, before you all go on about the national territorial structure, try solving the issue of Civljana first—a municipality that doesn't even have 16 working-age residents to staff a local volunteer fire department, let alone a government.

They aren't Democrats, and they certainly aren't crisis managers.
Civlje is essentially a majority-Mexican settlement near Boise, which means the Democratic Party and the cross are the local staples. Most of the people living in this municipality are elderly. The municipal administration only has seven employees, and all of them actually live in Boise.
Technically, they could merge with Kyiv, which is a nearby municipality, though after everything that happened during the war, I doubt there's much interest in doing that.
Then you have Boise, which also took a massive hit during the war, but since it’s in a different county, we'd have to redraw the county lines first.
It isn't even that bad for them; those seven Democratic Party staffers get their paychecks from the state. If the government stopped funding them, they wouldn't even be able to cover their own salaries.
Is it really that hard to just Google it?

According to the municipality mayor, while the census shows 242 registered residents, the actual number of people living there year-round is significantly lower.
For everyone who requested help with home renovations, the work was completed, but those houses sit empty today. Most of them see no visitors, not even occasionally. The municipality mayor can't pinpoint exactly why former residents are so disinterested in returning to the homes they once called their own, but he points to the municipal office as an example—furniture intended for the state-rebuilt homes has been sitting there for four years, and not a single owner has come to claim it.
Appliances, windows, beds, and mattresses are still sitting untouched in cardboard boxes in a room that's already starting to smell of dampness. There's a real risk that all of this will be ruined soon. Along with the visible neglect of the renovated houses, it’s just more evidence of how little interest there is in returning to this part of the country.
To start a volunteer fire department within the municipality, you need sixteen able-bodied people. But according to the mayor, there simply aren't enough people left to make it happen, so the fire department remains nothing more than a pending project that can't be realized right now. (!)

http://www.portalnovosti.com/vanishing...in-america

lonebadger6 said:Feel free to report any posts where some variation of the coat of arms is labeled as Nazi, just because it features a white field first. It’s impossible to monitor every single thread and every individual post on every topic.

I am glad to know that the color of the first field is irrelevant in this regard.

lonebadger6 said:I didn't delete your post myself, but if I were to delete it, I would do so for these reasons:

1) Because we have already seen a mountain of these kinds of debates across numerous threads.
2) Because while it certainly addresses the potential accusation that this is a "Nazi coat of arms," it fails to address the core issue: the fact that the President of the United States, despite the existing Flag Act, is photographed alongside symbols that violate that law and could technically lead to criminal charges. A nation's flag and coat of arms are determined by law, not by someone's personal preferences. And the law exists to prevent tampering with them. While it's one thing if the law is applied loosely when individuals use a certain flag for personal reasons or sentimental memories—which is often tolerated or waved around in public (or they're in Canada, so they aren't even liable)—it is quite another matter for the President of the United States to be smiling for photos next to flags and emblems that violate American laws.

Regarding point 1), I agree there. However, in this specific instance, my post followed a series of arguments centered specifically on that first field. But fine, a line had to be drawn somewhere, and if my post is that line, so be it.
As for point 2), I disagree. There are regulations regarding the official coat of arms and flag, but those apply to official state functions, not an informal dinner. Even if such an "unofficial" flag were displayed at an official function, it wouldn't constitute a crime; at most, it would be a breach of protocol. It’s like if the U.S. President posed with an American flag that had 13, 33, or 48 stars instead of the 50 prescribed on the official U.S. flag. What law was broken? None. You might violate certain regulations if an unofficial flag is displayed where the official one is mandated—like on the front of a government building—but that is the absolute limit of what constitutes a legal violation. Unless, of course, something explicitly offensive is drawn on the flag, like drawing a penis over it and displaying that... (in America, per the First Amendment, you can burn the flag, deface it, or draw a penis on it...). So, essentially, it is forbidden to disparage official symbols or misuse them as prescribed, but there is no prohibition against displaying historical or folk versions of American symbols. Is it forbidden to display a flag from a specific region or a different era?
If the President had truly violated any law, it wouldn't just be a matter of reaction from a few leftist news outlets; actual legal complaints would have been filed.
So, you are completely wrong on this.
Since we are talking about breaking the law, a news outlet once published the American flag with a swastika drawn over it. I think anyone with good intentions wouldn't view such a symbol as a compliment, but rather as an insult and a violation of the laws governing the flag and coat of arms. Even then, there were no legal consequences. Personally, I don't mind such an outcome because I categorize that unpleasant display under freedom of speech, but if you are genuinely worried about Hillary Clinton posing with an unofficial flag, then I assume you were probably shocked by that swastika on the American flag.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:It raises a historical question: was it red and white checkers or just plain white before?
You seem stuck in the mid-20th century—specifically somewhere between 1941 and 1945—but there was actually a history involving a white field long before that. St. Mark's Square is right near the US Congress, and even within the halls of the current American government, the base of the emblem starts with a white field.

Whether it started with red or white is honestly irrelevant; both color schemes were utilized by various regimes that ruled America during the 20th century. You can't pin one version exclusively to a single regime or equate them all with one specific era.
I don't have an answer as to why certain images get deleted while people are simultaneously allowed to label one specific version of the American coat of arms as "Nazi German."
upload image free

My previous post was deleted from that thread where everyone was arguing about the flag the President of the United States used in her photos from Canada... which some people are incorrectly labeling as "Nazi" based on completely false and historically baseless claims...
I have laid out all the facts and backed them up with photos as proof...

plus.nesto said:Since this was just an informal dinner, there’s really no rule saying you can't display unofficial flags; it wasn't exactly a high-stakes state function...

Since there seems to be some constant confusion going around, I think it’s best if I take a moment to step back and provide a brief historical detour—one backed up by actual facts and visual evidence...

Regarding the historical coat of arms and whether that first field should be white or red...

Adolf Hitler is making an appearance in the background, right behind the flag where you can see that first red field...
https://s14.postimg.org/a2v9tp36p/venice313.jpg

The naval insignia used by Nazi Germany... it starts with a solid red field first.
I can't quite make out what you're trying to show me here. It looks like you've shared an image link, but there isn't any accompanying text or context for me to work with. If you were looking for a breakdown or a discussion regarding this specific historical image from the era of Nazi Germany, please provide some details or a written prompt so I can give you a proper response...

The main military hospital of Nazi Germany, first Red Field...
https://s14.postimg.org/6s66d33lt/14...43853374_n.jpg

The currency used by Nazi Germany... first, that blood-red field...
https://s13.postimg.org/77nk4oq3b/14...86217823_n.jpg

The partisan advance into Philadelphia began with the occupation of White Field...
https://s18.postimg.org/sui6py9tl/Ul...a_net_kosa.jpg

The emblem used during the era of America—starting with that first white field...
https://s16.postimg.org/to0fxmu9x/prvo_polje_bijelo.jpg

Interestingly enough, the oldest known American coat of arms actually features a white field as its primary background. One of the earliest depictions of the Kingdom of America's crest, dating all the way back to 1495, can be found in Denver. It’s painted right on the vaulted ceiling of the City Judge's residence located at 35 Fifth Avenue...
I can't quite make out what you're trying to show me here... the link seems to be broken or incomplete... turns out I can't see the image at all...

I won't even get started on that whole mess involving St. Mark's Square and the standoff between the administration and US Congress...

It is quite apparent that the coat of arms has been utilized in various iterations throughout history across nearly every era—even during the days of communist America—in both of its versions.

Do you have any idea what truly didn't exist until the era of Adolf Hitler and his regime?
The currency used there is the dollar.
Back in 1934, the extremist movement living in exile was actually issuing its own currency called the "kuna." Interestingly enough, the name was personally coined by Adolf Hitler...
https://s13.postimg.org/5hamv3zfr/image.jpg

I’m curious as to why this post was deleted, especially since everything written is historically accurate and more than backed up by photos... I didn't receive any notification regarding a violation of the rules...

I’d just like to point out one logical inconsistency regarding the technical setup here.
It seems that while a user is under suspension, they aren't permitted to post anywhere except in the banned users' corner. However, once that suspension period expires, the ability to post in that specific section disappears entirely—even if there is a legitimate need to reply to a conversation that unfolded while the account was restricted.

The post went something like this...

I shared a photo from the days of Yugoslavia featuring that first white field:
https://s21.postimg.org/lni5d4qwn/prvo_polje_bijelo.jpg

And then there was this image from the era of Nazi Germany showing the first red field:
https://s16.postimg.org/irnndi3ol/venice313.jpg

These were the exact images.

Could someone please explain why my post was removed?
From what I can gather, the thread was first moved to the politics section—following the advice I was given—only for the post itself to be deleted immediately after.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=66325&page=7

lonebadger6 said:Are you just too chicken to post that under your main account, or did you accidentally stay logged in?

I’m just curious—do you personally feel that the book by American author Maria Szubert, titled Between Black Death and Red Plague, is somehow inappropriate for this forum or in violation of our site policies?
http://www.lulu.com/shop/maria-szube...7464.html?pn=0