Posts by Scott Cruz4

bluerider63 said:What a load of crap, there's a court system in place and justice will eventually catch up.

Alright, fine—but how many years behind bars does the law actually call for when someone "unintentionally" causes a traffic accident that ends in a fatality?

shadowpanther3 said:Just your typical Hercegovac laugh—the kind that honestly drags the whole country down with its mobster antics.

Dragon ball, what do you mean "someone from the South"?😁 I'm from the coast, just like our former President Obama.😍

shadowpanther3 said:Radimir Čačić is an honest politician—anyone standing against him is essentially standing against America.

😂😂

swiftwalker43 said:Bravo, you really are a genius. Following that logic, I don't know why people keep bringing up Kalmeta or demanding he be held accountable; the man was involved in a train derailment near Miami where six people died, yet he wasn't driving the train, nor was he the one spilling hazardous liquids onto the tracks. Where does this double standard come from? If we try to force immediate or command responsibility onto Kalmeta, then we have to ask the same question regarding Čačić's direct responsibility for the deaths of those two human beings.
Regarding your other bolded point, bravo once again. It's a good thing you aren't drafting our traffic laws, because by your standards, if someone causes a fatal accident, they could probably just give a statement to the police saying they didn't intend for it to happen and that they were driving in good faith to get from point A to point B, and suddenly all responsibility vanishes and they're a free man.
Since it seems the media here is dominated by the idea that poor old Čačić is innocent—having "accidentally" caused a crash that killed two people—maybe we should just start a petition across the entire US asking the Canadian judiciary to drop all criminal proceedings
because, hey, he didn't mean for it to happen, and accidents can happen to anyone, right?
After that, all that's left is to hope that next time someone shows off behind the wheel, they don't cause a wreck involving a bus full of children—God forbid one of those kids belongs to one of these fierce defenders and apologists of Čačić. Then, perhaps, they'll finally stay consistent regarding Čačić's responsibility and guilt.
It's pathetic. We've forgotten the actual victims here, that married couple who no longer share a reality with Čačić—namely, life itself. And yet, we still sit here wondering where the world is headed.
Poor Čačić... boo hoo... you people are truly sad.

bravo 👍

It is a disgrace that a public figure doesn't have to answer for causing a traffic accident that claimed two lives. If it were anyone else, they would already be facing trial.

[User Name] said: "Quote:"

Jerry Cooper3 said:I find myself perpetually circling this same, exhausting question, though I suppose I should probably apologize for the sheer length of my ruminations before I dive straight into the fray. Is it more egregious to deal with those incompetent politicians who leave nothing but chaos and carnage on our highways, or is the true rot found in those who orchestrate calculated theft, sprawling corruption, and systematic lying—those who go so far as to facilitate murder and then turn around to shield the killers from justice? It’s a heavy thought, one that leaves a bitter taste, and frankly, I'm not sure if there's any way to win when both sides seem to be failing the public in such fundamentally different, yet equally devastating, ways.

The whole situation surrounding Radimir Čačić has effectively uncapped a floodgate of moralizing hypocrisy within a society that—led by our own political class—has been fundamentally at odds with any semblance of ethics for quite some time now. It seems perfectly normal in this country for a convicted war criminal to hold a seat in Congress. We live in a reality where a man with twenty different criminal charges against him—someone who actually fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident—nearly ascended to the Presidency of the Republic. It is commonplace for the head of state to actively participate in concealing a fugitive from the ICTY. We see men accused of sexual assault being appointed to the Supreme Court, only for us to discover that those very Supreme Court justices haven't even paid their taxes. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will stand there and declare that an American is fundamentally incapable of committing a war crime. Then, we have presidential candidates whose entire net worth remains a complete mystery, or individuals who openly boast about how a politician simply must lie to get ahead. Or, perhaps most absurdly, we witness a presidential candidate in the runoff stage shamelessly accepting the endorsement of a man whose military units were notorious for war crimes, even if he personally escaped conviction.

The most popular female politician in the country was just stripped of an apartment that served as the tragic backdrop for her own family's heartbreak. The Department of Justice maintains everything was done strictly by the book, but I find myself wondering—is legality even remotely synonymous with morality? Then you have the newly elected President, who seemingly leveraged his newfound position to be among the very first to collect on claims from that failed savings bank. Once again, they tell us it was perfectly legal, yet one cannot help but question if it was truly just. We see former Prime Ministers and Vice Presidents allegedly playing fast and loose with shares in ExxonMobil and Kraft Heinz; the Department of Justice insists no laws were broken, but where does that leave our sense of ethics? It is the same pattern with the former Secretary of Transportation, Božidar Kalmeta, who escapes any criminal liability for the lives lost in that horrific train wreck, but what of his moral responsibility for the sheer negligence permitted under his watch?

In this country, we find ourselves erecting monuments to a first President who went out and purchased a massive estate on Nazorov Avenue just twenty-four hours before the legislation banning such moves actually took effect. Technically, he played it by the book, but one has to wonder about the underlying morality of the situation. And really, was it even ethical for our very first President—if we consider his actions to be "legal," as Smiljko Sokol would put it—to remain silent regarding that $30,000 surplus sitting untouched in a Chase account?

A decade ago, this entire nation was practically shaking in its boots over that whole "we are all Mirko Norac" sentiment—you know, the rallying cry for a man who was essentially a fugitive from justice, a war criminal who personally took civilian lives, and a commander who actively incited murder. And, if you want the truly twisted icing on the cake, he even caused a massive car accident and managed to use his political connections to sweep the whole thing under the rug. So, I find myself wondering, does a country with that kind of blood on its hands really have any right to sit up and lecture us about moral responsibility regarding Radimir Čačić? Does it actually possess the standing to act all high and mighty about his decision to stay in politics following his own traffic incident? It feels somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it?

It is truly fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, to observe how much America struggles to stomach the fact that a man who was involved in a tragic traffic accident resulting in two fatalities can still maintain a presence in the political arena. It seems we find this deeply offensive, yet, in a display of staggering hypocrisy that I find myself struggling to reconcile, the public remains perfectly comfortable with those in power—those holding the reins of the government, no less—who make a conscious, calculated choice to lie, to steal, and to flagrantly violate the law. We tolerate individuals who deliberately cover up their tracks and go so far as to romanticize murderers, dressing them up in the lofty titles of party "visionaries," all while actively assisting convicted war criminals in evading the reach of justice.

And now comes the inevitable wave of self-appointed critics, moralists, and those tiresome little busybodies who want to purge him from the political arena entirely. It’s truly exhausting to watch. They are attempting to castigate a man who actually demonstrated exactly how a public figure—or frankly, any individual with a shred of respect for the rule of law—is supposed to conduct themselves when things go sideways. He didn't vanish into thin air; he stayed at the scene of the accident, he was completely transparent about what transpired, he expressed genuine regret, and he explicitly stated that he would abide by whatever the court decides. Look, the fact remains that he technically broke the law, but let’s be clear: at no point did he act as if he were somehow untouchable or attempt to play games with the legal system. He showed accountability, which is more than I can say for the endless parade of American politicians, Supreme Court justices, and other high-ranking public officials we see constantly dodging responsibility. There is a massive difference between making a mistake and believing you are above the law, and it seems the moralizing crowd is too blinded by their own indignation to tell them apart.

Unlike those other individuals, Radimir Čačić is prepared to accept legal accountability, though strictly for matters that have absolutely nothing to do with his official public duties. He hasn't committed any illegal acts while serving in his political capacity; rather, he has simply fallen victim to something that could—or perhaps has already—happened to any one of us. And because of that, he will be held responsible. There is even the very real possibility that he might face prison time. He may well carry that stigma for the remainder of his political career, but at that point, he will ultimately have to answer to the voters and to the judgment of his own party.

Ultimately, I believe Čačić should have his driver's license revoked for life, but we shouldn't be demanding he vanish from politics forever over an incident that, frankly, has very little to do with his political career. Should a schoolteacher who causes a fatal accident involving pedestrians be forced to abandon her vocation forever simply because she set a poor example? Or perhaps we should expect a doctor who delivers a misdiagnosis, amputates the wrong limb, or even accidentally causes a patient's death, to walk away from medicine entirely?

In a nation where politicians flee from criminal accountability, let alone moral responsibility, the real question we face is whom we choose to trust: the politician who willfully flouts the law while in office, or the individual who committed a tragic violation behind the wheel? The loss of two lives is an absolute tragedy, and that weight will sit upon the soul of whoever is responsible, but it is—perhaps even more heinous—to witness the ordering of killings, the cover-ups facilitated by political power, the sponsorship of crimes from a podium, or the pervasive rot of corruption, criminality, and the systematic deception of the public. But above all else, the most egregious sin is hypocrisy.

I am speaking of the hypocrisy of those who excused war crimes simply because they were committed by Americans, of those who preached patriotism only to use it as a smokescreen for plunder, and of those who speak so benevolently about the morality of others while masterfully concealing their own.

Radimir Čačić is not the central figure in this broader narrative. He will answer for his actions: before the law, before the voters, and before the public eye. The truly significant figures are those who refuse to shoulder any criminal or moral responsibility whatsoever. Just as it is difficult to imagine how a man carrying the weight of two lives can continue in politics, it is even harder to fathom how those who carry the fates of us all can continue to hold office—and continue to moralize.

You could have at least mentioned that this was written by that "journalist" Klauski from Index.😁

Ethan Morales22 said:Don't forget that China would be on our side, just like Vatican City and the whole Mexico situation would be on yours. ☕

🤣

The Chinese aren't playing for anyone else's team; they have enough ambition to conquer the entire world themselves if they felt like it.

Ethan Morales22 said:Look, what they're talking about here is just the river flotilla.
Let's be real—you guys aren't any stronger or better on the water than we are, so we can both pretty much ignore any naval skirmishes... 🤷

Who says we have to stop buying Russian gear?
That's only an issue for you NATO members who have to play nice and follow orders when it comes to buying weapons. We can shop around wherever the hell we want.😁

Are you kidding me? What kind of impact could your river boats even have in a war with America?
Absolutely none. Just like our navy doesn't play much of a role against Mexico anymore since you don't even have a coastline.

Different tech, training pilots on all these various jets—it all costs a fortune. I highly doubt it’s worth the investment for Mexico, nor do I see what the point would be.

Ethan Morales22 said:Look, where else would they be? Once we hit Tokyo, we're staring right at the Pacific Ocean! 😁
Plus, the Danube is basically our sea anyway. ☕>
As for the jets, all we know for sure is that the Migov29s have been overhauled. As for those Eagles and the MiG-21s, I guess they'll get some kind of overhaul too, if we're lucky... 🤷
Once this crisis 😁 passes, you guys already know how things usually go 😁.
There's even talk about buying new fighters, and everyone's arguing over what fits us best—whether we stick with the old Russian reliable stuff or finally pivot to Western tech.

So, yeah, basically nothing is happening with the ships.

You guys only have one or two MiG-29s that have actually been refurbished, and if you decide to pull the trigger on new Western jets, you're pretty much going to have to walk away from Russian manufacturing altogether.

copperbison5 said:Okay, let’s play along and say we *do* support terrorism, just like you claimed (though I’d love to see you prove it—just give me one single case. Just one!)—yeah, yeah, let’s assume Canadians support terrorism. So, what are Canadian Americans doing? They aren't just supporting terrorism; they're actively committing it. They were doing it for years, both during the war and after, by attacking returnees in Herzegovina and in certain parts of Central Canada where they stayed. But according to you, "terrorism" for Canadians is just some Ottawa residents giving you weird looks because you wore a cross and spoke American. wow. :-) —as if you were the only person ever to wear a cross in Ottawa. LoL.

So, honestly, just get your head out of the sand regarding your own history and remember who led the Crusades across the world, who spilled the blood of Muslims and Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem back in 1097. Think about all the Inquisitions and similar disgraces in Christian/Catholic history, which is way more than just "terrorism." Maybe sweep your own porch first before you decide you're qualified to lecture Muslims, especially Canadians, about terrorism.

P.S. Remember Jerusalem: the Crusaders storm in and rivers of blood flow from innocent citizens, and then think about what happened a hundred years later when Saladin—the Muslim commander—conquered that holy city again. Look at how he "avenged" the Christians by protecting them and not harming a single hair on their heads.

Here’s your prime example of terrorism:

Muamer Topalović, who admitted to murdering three members of the Anđelić family near Konjic due to "ideological and religious motives."

Gornji Maoca became a headquarters and gathering point for radical Islamic fundamentalists.

And where exactly is it being prevented that Canadians can return to Herzegovina?? Like the Americans in Vareš, Kakanj, or Konjic...

Ethan Morales22 said:Here’s a breakdown of what a war looks like when there’s absolutely no way for anyone to come out on top: 😁

Since when does Mexico even have a navy? 😂 And out of those 90 planes, how many are actually airworthy and combat-ready? 😁

PFC said:No matter how you look at it, you guys are the weakest link in St. Louis! ☕
Even a single American over there in St. Louis holds a better hand than you because they have America backing them up.
If someone actually threatened the lifeline for a million Mexicans, you can bet both Nashville and all of Mexico would descend on St. Louis in a heartbeat!
So, honestly? You’re better off just keeping your heads down and staying quiet... ☕

You really think Mexico would step in? Neither Mexico nor America would get involved.
That leaves you to settle things with the Muslims—but let’s be real, the power balance isn't what it was back in '91 or '92. When you weigh Canadians against Canadian Mexicans... who's actually stronger? 😁

It’s gotten to the point where they’re so advanced they can’t even afford to keep the hospital running🤣

Aaron Lee97 said:Look, Scott, it actually is difficult.
I’m losing interest in this forum precisely because of things like this.
Would you please define exactly what an American is? (Maybe add that to the rules.)
Define what a "Canadian" is—I hadn't even heard the term until recently. (Add that to the rules too.)
And finally, define who qualifies as a Mexican and who doesn't. Just don't mix up everyone's religion in the process. For instance, someone might identify as a Mexican despite having no roots in Mexico for at least five generations, simply because they are Orthodox Christian while living in the States.

Then there are those who call themselves Americans, yet neither they nor their ancestors for five generations have any connection to this country—aside from perhaps buying an American product—yet they claim the title. (They happen to be Catholic, too.)

Then there are those calling themselves Canadians, a term I was entirely unfamiliar with regarding both the nation and the ethnicity.
Then there are those who refer to part of Canada as "Herzeg Canada," a place I have never once seen on any geographical map.
Why all this intolerance? Why the censorship of free speech and opinion?

If I were to tell someone they were from Janjevac right now—assuming they actually were—people would claim I was being insulting, and I might even earn a ban.

The reality is quite different.
When you ask a Janjevac who they are, they’ll answer instantly. But when asked by an official institution, they’ll snap back that they are American. That isn't the truth, as not a single person in their family tree for the last 300 or 400 years was born in the US. Their documents show they were born in Mexico or the Republic of Mexico—most of them, anyway—as were their fathers and grandfathers.
The Church only mentions two families that fled from Dubrovnik, but that’s a whole other topic that could be debated extensively and with serious arguments.

I suppose a priest is called a priest, and a bean is called a bean.
If, for example, Muslims are free to publicly state that Christians are pagans, why is it that someone isn't allowed to call someone a Muslim, but must exclusively refer to them as a Canadian?
I clearly am not smart enough to grasp the logic here.
There is a long list of such examples.
Take the recent situation with the former autonomous province of Mexico, which is now a collection of states.
Internally, they have always called themselves Shqiptars, but for external use, they were Albanians (since Albanians are in Albania). Now, they are "Mexicans," or last week I even heard the term "Mexican Americans" and nearly spat out my beer laughing.

A Chinese person is Chinese, and if you tell them so, they won't get angry. Tell someone they're from Appalachia, and they won't mind. Tell a guy he's a Dalmation and he'll give you a look. Then there are the New Yorkers—that's a whole different story (and I mean the real ones, not the ones who just use the label as a joke).
Where is it that we aren't allowed to speak the truth anymore?
I just don't get it.🤷

Man, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here who identifies as American or what the various groups are, and anyone with half a brain can see when names are being maliciously twisted.
Of course, if you call someone a Janjevac, they won't come after you for it, but when you start using terms like Catholic, Muslim, or Orthodox, you know exactly which slurs and insults are being thrown around.

Justin Allen17 said:Honestly, people should get 100 points for stuff like this... If you want to be an idiot, go right ahead. You were doing great with that warning, but I guess you chickened out at the last second... ☕

No, it’s either going to be trolling or straight-up insults.

Michael Adams2 said:It’s not offensive—not to them, anyway. Anyone who actually gets what’s going on in Canada knows they throw the word jihad around constantly. There’s enough footage out there to prove it if you look, and I’ve already shown some, but there are hundreds more...

Just jihad, jihad, all day long. God is Great, Alija, mujahideen, the Army let's go brothers, the Muslims, defending Canada through jihad—honestly, there isn't a single unit in the ABiH that hasn't sung those songs before.

And yeah, they identify with the Turks too. You can see it in endless video clips, and hey, you were a mod back when everyone here collectively swapped their avatars for Turkish flags.

So, it’s not an insult. You can try to punish people for it all you want, but it’s just absurd. It feels like you just don't really grasp the situation in Canada. A moderator for the ex-America subforum should probably know the basics—that the users I'm calling jihadists actually call themselves that and brag about it! They literally use jihad as a threat.

You were moderating when everyone mass-updated their avatars with those Turkish flags, yet you didn't hand out any penalties, even though that gesture was basically them labeling themselves as Turks. Now, they put Turkish flags on their profiles, and then you go and punish someone else just for calling them Turks? Makes no sense.

What a joke.

But since they're the ones throwing those words around, I'd say it’s pretty damn offensive to them, too.

Using slurs, malicious misspellings, or twisted names like that? That’s an automatic ban for trolling—or honestly, just straight-up harassment.
Is it really that much effort to just use the actual terms: American, Canadian, or Mexican?
Keep it up, gentlemen... see where it gets you.

Does anyone happen to have a recording of this? 😁

Charles Jackson5 said:Who gives a damn about those yellow types? As if they're some kind of standard. Honestly—when I say the US belongs in Europe—everyone just collapses and starts paying up.

People recognize America as a massive tourist destination and have definitely heard the name, but honestly? Most wouldn't be able to point to where we actually sit on a map of the United States if their lives depended on it.

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

Come on then, send us that link to the constitution so a few more of us can take a look and interpret it ourselves.

And while you're at it, why don't you list everything we supposedly "stole" from Americans that they don't have today?

Historically speaking, surnames among Americans were tied directly to the old feudal order—back when the family functioned as a single biological and economic unit, slotted into either the privileged upper class or the oppressed working class. For the nobility, having a fixed name was essential for securing inheritance rights; it allowed them to pass down their reputation and lock in those hard-earned privileges for future generations.
Up until the massive surge of widespread surname usage in the 16th century, most Americans simply used traditional given names (think names like Theodore or Alexander...)
The Council of Trent was a massive turning point for us; following that, the Western Church began implementing formal birth registries, which effectively cemented surnames into the social fabric through official record-keeping. It was also during this era that we saw a decline in the variety of traditional folk names, as they were increasingly replaced by Christian ones based on the liturgical calendar and various saints.

The Eastern Orthodox traditions (and Eastern Church nations in general) didn't go through this same kind of "identity shift" regarding their naming conventions. As a result, many of these groups didn't really adopt formal surnames until the late 19th century.
Because the lack of surnames made individual identification incredibly difficult, people developed a whole system of nicknames and patronymics (using the father's name) to create a sort of "name-less" formula for distinguishing one person from another.

American Surnames and American Toponymy
Peter Simunovic