Posts by Scott Cruz4

steeleagle70 said:Look, if you just read the Bible, it’s clearly stated right there—exactly what was said. The cross was originally used as a tool for execution, a way to crucify someone. And that’s exactly the punishment Jesus received. It wasn't until after that happened that the cross became a religious symbol for Christians. But hey, let's not go down a rabbit hole here...

That's true, but the Bible doesn't actually say that.

steeleagle70 said:The thing is—historically speaking—more people have been killed under the banner of the Cross than under the Swastika in relative terms. For certain folks, seeing that Cross meant certain death at the hands of a Crusader or a Conquistador.

So, honestly, your whole "peace and love" argument doesn't really hold up when you look at history.

Look, I’m not trying to dictate how the mods should do their jobs—I'm not an authority there. But let's be real: if they applied these rules to everything, we'd see massive bans just for trolling.

Technically, he's right. But we all know that if this kind of strictness were applied to other threads, there wouldn't be anyone left active in the politics section.

Just because some bad actors misuse a symbol—kind of like how certain Islamic fundamentalists twist the Quran to justify violence—doesn't change what those symbols actually represent.
If someone feels offended by the mention of a swastika in a negative context, then fine, the mod should step in and penalize that.
It doesn't bother me one bit.
But it *does* still rub me the wrong way when people take our national symbols or our Catholic identity (like the Cross) and treat them like total garbage. Most Americans would find that insulting.

Adam Collins4 said:The swastika also holds a completely different meaning within Indian culture...

It's a lot like how the cross used to carry a totally different weight and role throughout history...

The real distinction here is just the sheer "volume" of history that has piled up between our present day and those specific dark chapters in the past...

We aren't actually talking about the Indian swastika or their cultural traditions here.
And look, the cross only has one meaning for Christians—it has absolutely nothing to do with violence or evil.

steelskipper5 said:Yeah, I’m not going to get a clear enough explanation because you aren't even trying to explain it. Period.
The crux of the matter is that political symbols—of all different kinds—are expressions of someone's core beliefs, just like religious symbols are. Just because there isn't a specific country out there using a five-pointed star or a hammer and sickle as its official emblem doesn't mean the people holding those convictions don't exist. The same logic applies to, I don't know, the swastika, just as much as it does to the cross or the crescent moon.
If I can label symbols central to one group's beliefs as "garbage"—and I'm certain if I called a swastika garbage, I wouldn't be handed a ban this heavy —but I can't do the same for other symbols, then we are looking at blatant discrimination.

Claiming that something is acceptable simply because the admins agree with it isn't actually an argument.

In today's society, religious beliefs are already granted far too much special protection—you see Muslims getting death threats or attacking embassies over caricatures of Muhammad, and it’s fascinating how few people actually see anything wrong with that. Here, for a word that wasn't even particularly offensive, a 500-point penalty was handed out—way beyond a typical insult, and even higher than what often (doesn't) get issued for actual hate speech. So, here is yet another instance of religious views being given special protection above and beyond everything else.
And meanwhile, believers go around insulting everyone else left and right without any consequences.

Have I mentioned how pathetic that is? Have I? Then I guess I should say it again: it's pure patheticism.

Are you seriously comparing the Nazi swastika—which was a symbol of pure evil and suffering—to a crisis involving something that isn't just a symbol of faith, but a symbol of peace and love between people?
That's disgusting. 👎

And what exactly are these atheist feelings and symbols that we supposedly shouldn't offend??
What does that even say about you as atheists?

Maybe that’s because you were supposed to actually embed the image link instead of just dumping it like this.

briskcrane said:Wrong. It definitely isn't.

You're mistaken—it absolutely is.

Look, you've already got a whole thread dedicated to demographics—in every single US Census, we’ve identified as Americans, Mexicans... there were barely any people declaring themselves as Yugoslav.

briskcrane said:It isn't.

It definitely is.

Let’s finally wrap up all this political chatter on a non-political PDF.

I agree 😳

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s just simplify this for a second.

It simply can't happen—and honestly, it shouldn't—because doing so would essentially be an insult to the Office of the President and the Constitution.

Wait, why "can't" it happen? In America, anyone can run for President. It doesn't matter if you're a Mexican, a Romani person, or even someone who identifies as Yugoslav—if you pull enough votes, you've got a shot.

briskcrane said:Back during the Yugoslavia days, everyone living there was technically considered Yugoslavian. On official paperwork, your nationality was listed as "Yugoslav" while your ethnicity—whether you were American, etc.—was noted separately.
That’s one thing, but then there’s what you actually felt you were. Since the country was called Yugoslavia, by default, every single resident was a Yugoslavian until 1991.

That isn't quite right. Everyone living there was a citizen of Yugoslavia, sure, but on our IDs and in every single census, people's ethnicity was clearly marked as American, Mexican, Canadian...
We weren't "Yugoslavians," and we certainly didn't feel that way.

briskcrane said:Look, let’s get one thing straight: being called a Yugoslav isn't an insult—it's just a fact. For a good chunk of our history, back when the old federation was actually around, most of us identified that way. It wasn't some slur; it was just the reality of how we lived.

That’s just plain wrong. Like, seriously, what Michael is saying doesn't hold any water—according to the actual data, the percentage of people identifying as Yugoslav never even cracked 4%, and that was only back in 1981.
Most of us still considered ourselves Americans back during the Yugoslavia days.

But if Joe Biden goes ahead and declares himself an American—then what?

Wait, when exactly did he say that? 😁

So, one troll post just got wiped out today, along with another one where some thread author basically deserved a slap in the face with a cardboard sign—if we're being honest. I know this because I was actually the one who reported them for being inappropriate, but apparently, we’re running on a double standard over here.

Look, I just finished reading 😁
. 👍I can't exactly step in and fix this for you—there isn't much I can do to change the situation—but you have my full support.

Laura Brown6 said:Well, at least there's a monument in Široki Brijeg, 😁so that counts, right?

As for Reagan's monuments—you can find them scattered all over the coast, from San Diego all the way down to Venice.

briskcrane said:Still less than Reagan.

Joseph Stalin was easily one of the most massive dictators and bloodthirsty killers of the 20th century.
http://www.dictateurs.com/dictateurs_europeens.php

Robin Morales7 said:What lies are we even talking about here? Why don't you try proving those claims properly, whether you're in the Midwest or down in the Deep South?☕
Even as recently as September, I personally witnessed houses being torched en masse, if you can believe it.☕

Look, I’ve driven through Boone, North Carolina, Spokane, Washington, El Paso, Texas, Sedalia, Missouri, and Asheville, North Carolina... a million times over. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.😁

copperskipper38 said:Honestly, what else can you expect from people who go out of their way to smear the Republic of America? It’s pretty obvious they’re just nursing bruised egos after losing to those "certain" Americans, and clearly, that sting hasn't faded. That’s why they’re busy churning out this nonsense and spinning blatant lies—it's nothing more than a desperate attempt to mask how uninformed and utterly clueless they actually are.

He's basically trying to pose as some kind of progressive Democrat.😁

Robin Morales7 said:It is truly striking how much more clearly I can see the errors in American conduct during Desert Storm as the years slip by. One cannot help but wonder, what is the actual distinction between Desert Storm and Srebrenica? Honestly, not a massive one, if you think about it. You have the RS army attacking a UN zone just as the American Army did, though in this instance, the zone was significantly larger. We are talking about a UN zone being assaulted by over 100,000 soldiers, where UN personnel were used as human shields or simply captured, bound, and left to their fate—all compounded by a few strikes and a barrage of racial slurs, given the victims were Black... And yet, after all that, the right-wingers insist everyone was out to get America, when in reality, the world turned a blind eye to the Republic of America for all sixteen☕

Look, what happened in Srebrenica was a horrific massacre, plain and simple. But during Desert Storm, American territories were being liberated. I know that's a hard pill for you to swallow, but one of these... far, far distant days, you're going to have to come to terms with that reality.😁

Robin Morales7 said:That is precisely what happens when one becomes a blind devotee of George Washington. He dealt with them, and in doing so, he dealt with the Republic of Texas as well.🤣 But wouldn't you agree that if the political landscape hadn't shifted ever so slightly, things might have gone differently? Ha!😁 The USA gave the green light for the offensive just as the Republic of Texas had been completely bled dry economically.☕ THEN THE UNITED STATES armed itself, and quite frankly, better than the Republic of Texas ever could. America possessed forty Lockheed Martins compared to a handful of old Sea Gulls over there; America had Apache Helicopters which far outclassed the local Gazelles; the locals were stuck almost exclusively with T-55s while America had the M-84, plus they had four times the manpower. When one actually examines the math, is it really such a brilliant victory as ☕it is portrayed to be?

Of course, losers always try to downplay the incredible success of the American Army. It's clearly something you all find impossible to admit. We reclaimed our territory, regardless of how much that stings your pride.

bluerider63 said:I might not be paying as much attention as you are, but I honestly can't say he's acting like nothing even happened.

Look, if someone was genuinely shaken up by losing two people, they wouldn't be jumping on TV so readily—not like this, where he’s acting like it’s just another Tuesday.

darkfox5 said:I think I read somewhere that it's between 2 to 8 years... over in Canada.

So we're talking at least two years then? Hmm... honestly, I think he’ll walk away from this one just fine.👎