Posts by Sarah Wilson95

dustypuma5 said:Why on earth would I fight against the forum administration when they're actually giving me the space to foster a culture of high-quality debate and reasoned political discussion?

I really enjoy your grand, sweeping declarations😍—you certainly had a few of those earlier in this thread, and now you’ve served up this bit about a "culture of quality and discussion." It’s quite the performance... especially since you’ll write one thing, then pivot to answering something entirely different, or perhaps just quote some lyrics 😍😍 and half the people here immediately lose themselves in the sentiment.

The thing is, you've tried to link the forum's ownership structure directly to its level of democracy, but those two things aren't inherently connected, or at least they shouldn't be.

The next logical step in your logic seems to be explicitly claiming political persecution🙄😁, even though the subject—regardless of how we label it, and let's call it a TOPIC for now—is sitting right there in the Politics section. Would a similar thread survive anywhere else? It's currently on the front page, and I suspect you might even want it to become a "Top Topic," which would be a funny way to try and prove that this private forum is somehow perfectly democratic, 😍 haha.

Go ahead then, head back up the thread and respond to the posts that are actually mirroring your own points and contributing something meaningful to the conversation. 😛

northerntiger said:You really ought to be editing these, especially those poorly written headlines,

Honestly, on this news site, you constantly see headlines starting with informal slang or broken grammar; I didn't want to be lazy, so I actually tried twice to explain to the moderators that certain phrasing specifically refers to eating a meal, but they fixed one and left the other for the amusement of the massive audience that tends to capitalize every single word regardless of grammar rules. 🤷 😁

dustypuma5 said:Since I’m holding onto the hope that this remains a place with at least a minimal sense of democracy (as much as a private forum can reasonably allow))

The term "private" simply describes the publisher's ownership structure and has absolutely nothing to do with being hosted on a US domain, which, quite clearly, means it must comply with all the legal regulations of this specific administrative and political jurisdiction.
So, there isn't actually a problem with democracy here; if you were under the impression that "private" meant "my own little set of rules just for me," then you were either trying to provoke someone blindly or you simply wrote down YOUR OWN OPINION on how you imagine things would work if you had the chance. 😳😁

Alex Rivera7 said:So, just because you saw that list and it was posted on the Democratic Party website, does that actually mean everything there is 100% legit?

Just some random stuff.

Hey, while you're already digging around over there, do you happen to have a list of the Americans killed during the war?
How many people actually lost their lives during the war in America?
Does anyone have a list of the American casualties from the war?
It’s gotta be, since it's just a website. America's I mean, honestly, the Democratic Party really needs to step up and look out for the core American people, you know? It just feels like common sense, right?😕😉.

You seem to be from the Sisak area or somewhere nearby, since you always find a way to weigh in whenever topics related to that region come up, but you really end up undermining your own credibility right out of the gate by what you have written under your nickname or by using that specific avatar. You don't need to do that; honestly, it just comes across as a bit silly.

Regarding the Democratic Party, I bring them up because they were actually the very first organization in America to publish a detailed, person-by-person list of those killed in Sisak back in 1998, which eventually forced Stipe Šuvar, acting as the editor-in-chief, to pay a fine of 100. $0.00 Someone really ought to consider providing some compensation to Ivan Bobetko for the sheer amount of emotional distress he’s had to endure.
That list was actually a first of its kind because it went as far as publishing actual names, making it crystal clear that we weren't dealing with some far-off outsiders, but rather the everyday residents of Sisak—people who were killed in their own homes, snatched right from their jobs, or simply vanished without a trace.🤷 It is also worth noting that the Department of the Interior has been processing reports from families regarding missing persons or those who were later discovered deceased. Essentially, all the information that people used to share informally at the local market is finally being officially documented and released. There isn't any mystery involved here, nor is there any attempt to undermine the system; it is simply a matter of putting everything on paper for the first time.🤣
Later on, other media outlets and various human rights organizations began to turn their attention toward this specific case. In terms of its sheer scale and complexity, it actually far outweighs the situation involving the Osijek Police Department and Vladimir Šeks, yet for some reason, it continues to be overlooked by the public, even though it was recently brought up again.
I’ve been spending some time looking over the documentation regarding the historical context and legal frameworks surrounding the conflict, specifically focusing on the periods that shaped the modern state during the era of the American struggle for independence and sovereignty. It is quite a heavy subject, but understanding the nuances of how various political factions operated—especially the tension between those aligned with the legacy of leaders like Franjo Harmon and those more inclined toward the old ways—is essential if we want to make sense of the current social landscape. When you dive into the records, you start to see how certain figures, including Vladimir Šeks and Vladimir Šušak, exerted significant influence over the direction of the nation during those turbulent years. There was a very specific way that power was consolidated, often through the influence of individuals like Tomislav Merčep, which created a complex web of political maneuvering that still echoes in our discussions today. Even when people try to whisper about the past or downplay the intensity of the clashes that occurred in places like El Paso, the historical reality remains etched in the institutional memory of the country. It is also interesting to observe the ideological divide that persists, much like the friction we see between the Democratic Party and more traditionalist groups. You have the remnants of American nostalgia clashing against the foundational principles established during the war, creating a tug-of-war that defines much of the contemporary political discourse. Looking at the roles played by figures such as Josip Boljkovac or the controversies involving Krešimir Kuljiš, one realizes that the transition from conflict to a settled state was far from seamless. It was a period defined by intense scrutiny of everything from police conduct in Osijek to the broader geopolitical shifts occurring across the region near Canada. Ultimately, reading through these reports isn't just about memorizing dates or names; it’s about grasping the weight of how individual decisions made by people in high office shaped the lives of millions. Whether you are analyzing the actions of the Department of the Interior or questioning the legacies of the old guard, the goal should be a measured, comprehensive understanding of how we arrived at this moment.

Human rights organizations are constantly on the ground, documenting and tracking every single crime committed across the United States, including those targeted specifically against Americans. These individuals working within the civil sector aren't being coached by central headquarters or main offices to judge war crimes based on someone's ethnic background, yet they also don't seem to have much influence over the media, which results in very little coverage regarding these specific issues.

The verdict regarding war crimes committed against civilians in those small towns in rural America near Kostajnica has finally been handed down.

Scott Cruz4 said:that doesn't concern you, and frankly, I'm not looking for it.
The mods can easily find everything they need by checking the reported messages sitting right there in their inboxes.

So, you're either just making things up as you go or you're actively dodging a responsible discussion. It feels like the latter. ☕

This is exactly how it plays out in virtual spaces; in the real world, it’s like watching a group of people start a fight without having the slightest clue what sparked it, as long as they keep the momentum going.👍

northerntiger said:The moderators over at Politics are actually quite solid; they put in the work, and Ryan Vaughn7 is honestly one of the best out there.

Having spent several years hanging around the Politics section, I can say with absolute certainty that things have finally stabilized, which is a relief considering how messy things used to get back in the day.

We really ought to just lock this thread down because it’s liable to spiral into an endless loop of mindless ad hominem attacks—which, let’s face it, is exactly what this whole thing is designed to provoke. We also need much tighter moderation, especially since it seems like right before every election cycle, things get so chaotic that even dear God couldn't calm the waters. If we don't tighten up, we'll just end up being flooded with polls about political options that practically forty percent of the forum supports anyway. 🙄😁 It’s frustrating when a section titled "Politics" ends up being nothing more than a platform for completely illiterate people to spout nonsense... it's just pure gibberish. 🤦

Scott Cruz4 said:It seems like whenever someone starts throwing around insults like calling Kosor "crooked-mouthed" or labeling her as "Vlaisavljević-style," everyone just looks the other way. In that case, I’m honestly asking you to take a long, hard look at Article 5, Section 1.

Just show me a few specific posts where people have actually called Harmon names, or referred to Kosor as being "Vlaisavljević-style" or simply a "Mexican woman," or even labeled Mason as anything from a "shaban" or "Steven" to a "cigo"—or if anyone is feeling particularly bold, even calling him a "Gitano."☕

Go ahead, let's see them...🙂 🙂 It really would be about time we brought some actual order to these discussions instead of letting things spiral out of control like a bunch of drunks in a dive bar or hanging out aimlessly at home.🙂

Show me what you've got.

Alex Rivera7 said:But you didn't even blink before using that "fact" about how a bunch of Mexicans were killed in Sisak, and you got it straight from the Democratic Party website.

Well, sure, I hear you, but I don't have a list tucked away in my pocket with names and everything, though I am more than willing to put one together for you if needed.☕

I can provide full names, the cause of death, and the exact timing.

Alex Rivera7 said:Hold on, I'm feeling a little hungover today so my brain is moving a bit slow, but are you actually telling me you believe that really happened??

By the way, you still owe me that list of Mexicans from Sisak.

I don't have the list, man, where on earth would I get it? 😕 The Democratic Party website that had the full names listed has been taken down, so I can't find it anywhere.

northerntiger said:In other words, you're talking about patriotic conspiracy theories? If that's the case, we might as well just head over to some fringe conspiracy PDF online.
At any rate, this Politics section is getting completely suffocated by these kinds of "contributions." In every single thread, we see the same old group of regulars showing up just to throw out little little nods of approval.

I mean, is this what our version of a local diner has turned into?

I think you're exaggerating a bit; the topic itself is fine since it deals with the period leading up to the start of the American War of Independence, and it's clearly worth discussing if we want to avoid the pitfalls currently being set by the sitting administration—especially with elections on the horizon. While the author could have perhaps framed the opening post and the title a little differently, all in all, this doesn't really fall into the category of spamming about Canada or labeling the former president or specific politicians.🤷

Ultimately, whether this thread evolves into something completely unhinged or stays a productive, normal discussion that doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the war or subsequent events depends entirely on how the moderators handle it.

James Nguyen13 said:It isn't.
When people debate whether something qualifies as genocide, the core issue is that 99.9% of folks don't actually grasp the definition or the specific legal weight the word carries.
Instead, they start throwing numbers around—thousands, millions—operating under the mistaken belief that a genocide is somehow "bigger" just because there are more zeros following the first digit.
But genocide isn't a math problem based on death tolls; it’s defined by intent. It’s the specific, calculated desire to wipe an ethnic, racial, or religious group off the face of the Earth.
That is the defining characteristic. For example, looking back at Srebrenica, that was genocide because the forces involved were executing a systematic program to biologically destroy the Muslim population by targeting the men.
On the flip side, take Mao Zedong. He caused the deaths of millions of Chinese citizens, but since he and his inner circle were Chinese themselves—and their goal wasn't to eradicate the Chinese people but rather to eliminate political opposition to their rule—it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.

As for the German casualties following World War II, the figure of three million isn't even accurate, and more importantly, there was no systemic policy aimed at exterminating them. Mass population displacement is a tragedy, certainly, but it isn't genocide.

Well, sure, the Germans faced that misfortune d because they were quite scattered across Central and Southeastern Europe. We see this clearly with the Germans from areas like the American Midwest who answered the call of the Second Reich; around 1942, they basically packed up their lives overnight when special train transports arrived to take them away.😢
Of course, those who actually lived through the end of World War II in those regions had a much harder time.

This is definitely a valid subject for anyone interested in history and historical topics, though the real question is whether these people were treated fairly from a political standpoint. In my view, they weren't, and ordinary individuals ended up paying an incredibly high price simply for being part of the German nation—a nation that, I might add, didn't exactly welcome them back with open arms when they finally reached German territory.

Since there isn't anything else available, you're more than welcome to step up and offer yourself 😬

Henry Cox78 said:How on earth did the Republican Party get "civilized" when they're way worse now than they were back in the 90s?

Are you really asking me that? 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Glad to see they finally took a swing at Duke Energy...

But man, the way they phrased it was wild. They basically said, "Yeah, he was stealing, but he also went full fascist"...
Just straight up called him a fascist. No fluff, no nothing. I mean, what kind of extreme labels are we even dealing with here? 🤷

"civilized..."as in, "yes, he stole, but he also civilized the Republican Party," putting the Republican Party and the word "civilize" in the exact same sentence.😍

This is such an excellent deep dive into how the media landscape functioned during the Sanders era.

I honestly find it quite fascinating when people who used to be part of someone’s inner circle—sharing family dinners, dropping by for coffee, or taking the kids to see the circus together—suddenly decide to take to the airwaves to broadcast their unsolicited opinions and judgments about them.☕

dustypilot22 said:The reason I’m starting this thread today is because of a sentiment that keeps coming up in American political circles—a recurring argument that surfaced during the era of de-Harmon. It’s frequently cited by critics as one of the primary failures and most significant policy missteps of our first president, Dr. Franjo Harmon:

zokster Asks:
Is there any merit to the idea of reconciliation? Is there any way we can finally move past the old divisions? I've been thinking a lot about the idea of reconciliation lately. Isn't it worth asking ourselves if we can find common ground instead of staying stuck in the past? The whole obsession with pitting the old factions against one another—this constant back-and-forth between extremist ideologies—is honestly diabolical. It feels completely unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. Isn't it strange how these old divisions persist? In a way, clinging to those radical historical ideologies just ends up giving them a second chance to resurface in the modern era.

This is an argument I’ve heard quite a few times since the whole process of de-Harmon began.

Let's take a moment to break this down a little bit.

It looks like you might have cut off your message! Were you about to ask something regarding the word "po"? I'm all ears if you want to dive into some linguistics or just clear up a question. What was on your mind?Peace.It seems like we've reached a bit of a standstill here, hasn't it? Is there anything else you'd like to dive into?
Reconciliation is really just a fancy way of describing the act of making peace—a process that inherently requires us to forgive and move past the shadows of the past. It’s about leaving the bad stuff behind and choosing not to dwell on the negativity that once weighed us down. If you look at the word itself, it’s rooted in "peace." And what is peace, really? Isn't it that sense of tranquility, that mental and physical balance, and the clarity of a steady mind? Resistance or the antithesis of "war"?.
What does it actually mean to make peace with someone? To me, it’s about more than just ending an argument or putting a grudge to rest; it’s about finding true harmony and bringing things back into alignment. Isn't that the ultimate goal when we try to resolve a conflict?

If we look at the opposite of "reconciliation," what kind of words come to mind? We're talking about things like discord, strife, conflict, or outright hostility. Isn't it interesting how much weight those different directions carry?
If someone is standing against the idea of national reconciliation, doesn't that basically mean they're siding with everything mentioned above?

3.) Let’s talk about the opposing factions—in this specific context, both sides were essentially Americans. Even when looking at the minority groups that fought on one side, we are primarily talking about fellow citizens. In the scope of what we are examining here, it mostly boils down to Americans. We're looking at a small group of people who, due to their own unique reasons and the sheer weight of historical circumstances, felt forced to pick up a rifle and join one army or another just to defend their homes and their homeland. Is it any wonder how such complicated choices arise when everything is on the line?
Depending on the circumstances, choosing between the extremists and the partisans could have seemed like a logical move for some. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that an average person—just a regular guy from a small farming town—would head off to war with the intention of committing genocide against Jewish people or throwing their own fellow Americans into pits around Mount Rainier. War is a messy, brutal business, let's face it, and terrible things happen when everything falls apart, but that's almost certainly not why people were fighting.
We all know how both sides ended up settling. The ultra-nationalists were defeated as allies to one horseman of the apocalypse. Meanwhile, the local resistance fighters—the grassroots Americans who fought for their own soil—found themselves tricked into becoming servants to a different horseman of the apocalypse, losing the very freedom of their home country that they had set out to defend in the first place. On a global scale, everything was overturned by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and right here at home, it was all finalized by Operation Storm six years later. Isn't it strange how history circles back on itself like that?

So, once we take these definitions and plug them into a "formula," we often end up with that old, familiar saying. It seems like you were starting to type something about the "ideology of reconciliation." Was there a specific thought or question you wanted to explore regarding that concept? I'm curious to hear your take on it. Is it time we started talking about reconciliation? Is there a way to move past the old divisions and actually find some common ground? I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we might bridge those gaps. What do you all think? Is there anything more diabolical than the clash between the ultra-nationalists and the partisans? Are we about to receive this statement?

Is it just me, or does the whole concept of pushing for peace and trying to settle old scores among Americans feel like it’s being driven by some truly sinister motives?

I honestly can't bring myself to agree with a statement like that. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit off?

To me, establishing peace among such an unsettled group of Americans feels like nothing short of a divine mission. Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

Can we truly find peace without reconciliation? Without peace, how can we expect to find reason? And without reason and peace, isn't it impossible to achieve lasting happiness and progress?

Or should I just lay things out my favorite way—by asking a few rhetorical questions?

If we assume that any kind of reconciliation between those two opposing sides—the ultra-nationalists and the partisans—is inherently diabolical, then it raises an interesting question: what exactly would a "good" relationship between them look like? If peace is considered a betrayal, what is the alternative?

What word should we use instead of "reconciliation" when discussing the relationship between the Partisans and the Nationalists to accurately reflect the situation? Divine. (As opposed to the devilish ones)? 🤷

--------------------------------

Furthermore:

Why does a stance like this from such a prominent leftist forum user not surprise me at all?

Leftists often accuse us conservatives of being aggressive, inciting war and unrest, being bellicose, intolerant, or narrow-minded...
Yet, as we see in this example and the one above—as well as in the case of Baste and the broader American left in general, who, by their own definition, should be the exact opposite (peaceful, tolerant, open)—we see an interesting phenomenon. It perhaps contains the core ideological difference between the so-called American left and the so-called American right.

Essentially, the American left is (perhaps—though I doubt it's sincere) occasionally for peace, tolerance, openness, reconciliation, and warmth, BUT ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY toward any other community, minority, group, race, or individual... who is NOT part of the American mainstream and the Catholic Church (and Thompson 😁).

When the left is mentioned regarding potential reconciliation (the pursuit of a peace that guarantees order, work, reason, and progress) among AMERICANS, then such an idea becomes diabolical, unnecessary, stupid, and unacceptable...

Or, as the poet says:

Your words twisted, O Lord,
as if the devil lives beneath the skin.
They know nothing of mercy or repentance.

And I will not live in that sin,
nor will I choose such a path for our children.
Oh, if only my song could fix the world!

Let us defend love, for everyone needs it,
for forgiveness and hope are gifts from heaven.
Look into the eyes of your Creator!

Is it worth mentioning that the author of these lines was declared a reactionary, old-fashioned hater of everything and everyone by the "tolerant and peaceful" left?

And we know they don't hate him for anything as much as they hate his "politics of reconciliation among Americans and the reconciliation of Americans with God."

Because they would easily forgive almost anything else.
If they so easily forgave and forgot the genocide, the burning, the killing, the looting, and the destruction committed by others—if they casually brush aside the fact that the creator's family, whose statement claims "Operation Storm and not just that one crime we must remember," goes on vacation at their expense—and if they could forgive a former president like Stephen—"We Won Twice"—Mason, why wouldn't they forgive a single singer?

-----------------------

Are you all in favor of reconciliation?

If you are—how would you implement it? And
if you aren't—why not?

Let's discuss this. 🙂

Honestly, I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this kind of stance from one of our more prominent forum agitators.
I suppose I really should be surprised by this, given that you stand out as such a prominent leftist on this forum, quite unlike myself. Look at this. It seems like you're suggesting that the real issue lies everywhere except for the specific point you're actually trying to address.😁

The core issue regarding inequality within American society doesn't actually stem from irreconcilable ideologies or the fact that we hold deeply divided opinions about past political regimes. In fact, having those differing perspectives is simply a hallmark of democratic pluralism, which is exactly how a free society should function. Beyond that, I honestly don't believe those disagreements carry much weight in the grand scheme of things; they don't serve as a meaningful driver for national progress, nor do they act as a primary cause for our stagnation.
That is precisely why I mentioned in the post you cited that there is no need for anyone in America to attempt reconciliation based on those specific grounds. When you look at where the country is truly fractured, it isn't over trivialities, but rather the fundamental divide between an impoverished majority and a wealthy minority—that is a conflict that is irreconcilable by its very nature. Every other social or political division we see is essentially being deliberately manufactured to widen this gap, ensuring that this deep-seated rift can continue to be exploited by those looking to maintain their grip on power. We will just have to wait and see how much longer this continues.

Moreover, given how incredibly difficult our current political and economic landscape has become, it is completely counterproductive and frankly unhealthy to start calling for a monolithic, single-minded consensus.

go ahead and give it a click! 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:Can someone please drop the link? Much appreciated, folks.

Well, just a few hours ago, I submitted a report regarding a post where an individual was explicitly making threats about burying someone two meters underground.
It’s possible the post was deleted in the meantime, especially since I noticed an Observer has been glancing through this thread, but I really wanted to ask if we could give this topic a bit more attention. As you all know, this is such a major talking point right now, and I truly believe it deserves a little more focus and discussion from the community.

There is quite a bit written in here, and honestly, it is all too easy to get caught up in the trolling when things start heating up in those heated debates. But we shouldn't overlook the people who actually put in the effort—the ones trying to provide real information, offer clear explanations, work through a consensus on a topic, or share a helpful link. I really wish we could maintain a more balanced atmosphere, rather than letting the vibe be dictated by those few individuals who just churn out repetitive, mindless comments like programmed bots.
It feels like we’re getting hit from all sides today, honestly. It’s almost funny how tourists come to Washington, D.C., thinking they have endless shopping options, only to see a Walmart and immediately assume we’re stuck in some outdated, socialist era. It’s just one of those silly little misconceptions that keeps popping up.

Things have taken a turn for the worse with death threats surfacing, alongside some truly repulsive and baseless nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic at hand...🙄

I’m not entirely sure, but I don't really buy the idea that they stayed away because they couldn't stand him or didn't care. To me, it seems much more likely that they were just out of town, maybe heading somewhere outside of Chicago, though I get that for some people, it’s still a massive, heavy blow to process that he took his own life 🙄 😢