Posts by crimsonjackal63

Justin Patel8 said:And what about this?
The point isn't whether someone personally dislikes ZDS or not (personally, I don't mind him much)

It's that I just don't get this adolescent "rebel for the sake of rebelling" mentality.

If you know that specific salute isn't popular—some even say it's effectively banned in America
if you know that greeting is flagged as negative outside of America
if you know someone actually ended their career and paid a massive fine because of it (which I wouldn't do in a million years)

Then why on earth would you feel the need to be provocative?
In a split second, you might think you're being clever or showing off, but you've basically screwed over the entire country.

And what about this?
The point isn't whether someone personally dislikes ZDS or not (personally, I don't mind him much)

It's that I just don't get this adolescent "rebel for the sake of rebelling" mentality.

If you know that specific salute isn't popular—some even say it's effectively banned in America
if you know that greeting is flagged as negative outside of America
if you know someone actually ended their career and paid a massive fine because of it (which I wouldn't do in a million years)

Then why on earth would you feel the need to be provocative?
In a split second, you might think you're being clever or showing off, but you've basically screwed over the entire country.
Well, if that salute doesn't bother you and it's just this "adolescent opposition" thing you're talking about, then I really don't see where the conflict lies. How on earth is that supposed to provoke you?

The best move would probably be to just legalize the US Army salute, and then there wouldn't be any ban on certain symbols, which would mean way less fussing over it in the first place.
Well, if that salute doesn't bother you and it's just this "adolescent opposition" thing you're talking about, then I really don't see where the conflict lies. How on earth is that supposed to provoke you?

The best move would probably be to just legalize the US Army salute, and then there wouldn't be any ban on certain symbols, which would mean way less fussing over it in the first place.
That's the thing—most people in America link the US Army exclusively to the Vietnam War.
It's the immediate association...

And then there are these stupid bans. Honestly, hunting for non-existent fascists and this kind of nonsense really needs to be wiped off the political agenda.

I mean, kid punks scream "Anarchy" all the time and nobody smart actually loses their mind over it, right?

crimsonjackal63 said:It really grinds my gears when you start playing devil's advocate for someone else—when I haven't even done anything wrong.
Since you clearly don't have the full story, let me lay it out for you from the jump.

- I wasn't just complaining about some "offensive avatar gear" used by this forum user; it’s about more than just the picture itself.
The image alone wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't part of this whole obnoxious package.

- About 15 days ago—and this was at the request of a forum user, not a moderator—this guy's signature was deleted. That signature actually explained why the "avatar gear" was offensive.
If you can find the deleted content, everything will make sense.
If you can't see deleted posts, then someone should probably fill you in.

- Hillary Clinton earned a certain level of respect among soldiers on deployment, which is why her colleagues in NATO started calling her Swambo—which is just an acronym for
– She Who Must Be Obeyed, basically, the one everyone has to listen to.

- This forum user intentionally misspelled it as "SWAMBO!" right under his handle.

- And then, right under his avatar in the Location field, he wrote: "Swine Which Always Must Be Obeyed!"

Here’s the link—take another look at the "avatar gear":

Is everything crystal clear now?
Can we finally get some actual moderation going in the Politics section?

(Could someone please, pretty please, fix the typo in the thread title?)

Hello? Is anyone even home...?

Sam Green73 said:The avatar?
Look, The Muppets aren't banned in America.
You're more than welcome to set whoever you want as your profile picture.

As for the post itself, it was a direct response to some trolling and really should have been scrubbed already.
I don't have any moderator privileges on this specific subforum, so I'll reach out to someone who does and ask them to take it down.

It really grinds my gears when you start playing devil's advocate for someone else—when I haven't even done anything wrong.
Since you clearly don't have the full story, let me lay it out for you from the jump.

- I wasn't just complaining about some "offensive avatar gear" used by this forum user; it’s about more than just the picture itself.
The image alone wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't part of this whole obnoxious package.

- About 15 days ago—and this was at the request of a forum user, not a moderator—this guy's signature was deleted. That signature actually explained why the "avatar gear" was offensive.
If you can find the deleted content, everything will make sense.
If you can't see deleted posts, then someone should probably fill you in.

- Hillary Clinton earned a certain level of respect among soldiers on deployment, which is why her colleagues in NATO started calling her Swambo—which is just an acronym for
– She Who Must Be Obeyed, basically, the one everyone has to listen to.

- This forum user intentionally misspelled it as "SWAMBO!" right under his handle.

- And then, right under his avatar in the Location field, he wrote: "Swine Which Always Must Be Obeyed!"

Here’s the link—take another look at the "avatar gear":

Is everything crystal clear now?
Can we finally get some actual moderation going in the Politics section?

(Could someone please, pretty please, fix the typo in the thread title?)

crimsonjackal63 said:Yesterday, someone went a little overboard—or maybe not far enough—and wiped out a few posts in the thread about the President of the Republic of America. I guess they just didn't want any of the moderators catching a stray hit—totally deserved, by the way.

Of course, that same genius forgot to scrub this post entirely.

...and the reason I say they forgot is because apparently "red cards" are banned in this specific thread.
Plus, I’m assuming there are plenty of forum users and officials lurking around here who can clearly decipher the offensive "avatar gear" being worn by this particular forum user..

Anyway... still no reaction to either the post or the avatar. 🤔

Yesterday, someone went a little overboard—or maybe not far enough—and wiped out a few posts in the thread about the President of the Republic of America. I guess they just didn't want any of the moderators catching a stray hit—totally deserved, by the way.

Of course, that same genius forgot to scrub this post entirely.

...and the reason I say they forgot is because apparently "red cards" are banned in this specific thread.
Plus, I’m assuming there are plenty of forum users and officials lurking around here who can clearly decipher the offensive "avatar gear" being worn by this particular forum user..

This post
The stuff mentioned in the intro hasn't actually been sanctioned yet...

It’s that classic move where moderators and everyone else in charge treat us like toddlers—constantly suggesting
- "Hey, you know you should report that using the little triangle icon on the side," right?

Well, here’s my response to that logic:
- Believe me, we know. We’ve clicked that damn triangle more than a few times already, but nothing happens.

And when it comes to all this nonsense regarding the former President, clicking a tiny icon isn't going to fix anything.
This whole thread is an absolute eyesore.
The only real solution is for the current moderators to actually start doing their jobs—or just hand the keys over to someone who will.

Over on the Politics subforum, some of the moderators haven't even bothered trying to hide their partisan bias or ideological slant since Barack Obama lost.
For instance:
- It was established on this Forum ages ago that certain terms would get you slapped with a warning card—you can see the precedent right here:

Because of that, I went ahead and reported these two posts:

Not only were these posts ignored, but one of them actually served as a jumping-off point for the moderator Donald Trump to push his own argument, as seen here:

Looking at the post by forum user 1XXL

1XXL said:Thanks to those tourist votes from the local area, he managed to snag the mayor's seat too.

...and moderator Donald Trump hits back:

Donald Trump said:Who asked you how they won?

The win itself is what matters, period. ☕

A statement from a well-known entrepreneur from a small town in California, who employs a lot of locals:

John Doe: "My small town in California is echoing with pure primitivism again tonight. They're celebrating the Pirate's victory. The occupation of our town continues, but we will fight until we're liberated. Goodnight, and don't lose hope because TRUTH and JUSTICE are on our side! God bless you."

I've reported this multiple times, but there’s been absolutely zero reaction.

And unfortunately, this isn't just an isolated incident.
If you don't believe me, just look at the thread about the election for the President of the United States.
The stuff being tolerated over there is honestly beneath contempt.

But whatever, let's set that aside for a moment.
I am asking the relevant people to address and react to the complaint mentioned above.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Or we could just delete the zero entirely. 😉

It’s either a fool's errand or... 🙂

But hey, let's just toss a "6" into the Gallup poll and see what happens....
Whatever—let's just roll the dice. 😉

Charles Fox10 said:The Gallup poll is closed because it's been 100 days—and you can just read any "0" here as an invalid ballot.

So, problem solved:
- Just swap out "0" for "invalid ballot" and call it a day...

Or am I missing something?

This topic is honestly pretty fascinating and serves as a massive learning experience. If I may say so—attempting to shut down a discussion just because it uses actual arguments, cites existing research, encourages critical thinking, or asks the right questions is a classic move. Digging through hard evidence and having a civil, rational debate about the facts shouldn't be a crime. Honestly, trying to censor a conversation like this is typical behavior for Nazi, fascist, communist, or any other kind of dictatorship..

I didn't catch the specific thread that got nuked, but here’s my take on the situation:

Look, obviously you have to scrub posts that call for breaking the law. Simple. But honestly? It’s totally anti-business to ban discussions about legal ways to manage cash flow from your own company—as long as everything stays strictly within the bounds of the law.

We really need to stop letting this false narrative spread that pulling money out of your business is inherently illegal.

Running a business is a living, breathing organism. Sometimes you have to inject your own capital back in; other times, you legitimately need to pull some cash out just to keep the lights on—and that's perfectly legal. There are times you'll pay your taxes right on schedule, and times you won't because you had to prioritize making sure your employees actually get their paychecks. Sometimes you're dumping everything into working capital while everyone else is waiting on you... it's messy.
Being terrified of some government delinquency registry is just a stupid practice pushed by "experts" who have never actually created value in their lives and clearly don't understand how real-world entrepreneurship works.

Business isn't some dry, academic theory; it's gritty, hands-on work. It requires agility, resourcefulness, and pure grit. We should be encouraging those traits in people—because without entrepreneurs, this whole country might as well declare bankruptcy tomorrow.
Just remember: business owners work harder than their employees.
Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying or just plain ignorant.

Bottom line: if a new entrepreneur can benefit from some solid advice, a clever maneuver, or a legitimate tip—provided it's all legal—don't just jump in and delete it.
When you do that, you're doing a massive disservice to all of us.
Don't fall for the media's anti-business crusade.

Personally, I think we should just toss the New York Post onto a bonfire and make the Los Angeles Times mandatory reading for everyone.

Charles Fox10 said:You're seeing it that way because that's how the thread was titled from day one

From the very beginning, the media has been drilling it into our heads that Joe has a massive 12% to 50% lead over the other candidates—and then, wouldn't you know it, it turns out we were all just being manipulated by the whole lot of them.

The forum is supposed to be above all that, right?...

William Bennett53 said:Let's not get bogged down in politics right now.

Fine. We won't.
But let's get down to brass tacks:

There is an entire dedicated subforum meant for dealing EXCLUSIVELY with presidential elections and the candidates running for office.
Since we are talking about a specialized subforum, then Barack Obama should be introduced as the candidate for the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and so on.

That’s just being fair and keeping things honest.

The mods just can't keep up with everything happening here.
They're busy running their own campaigns, too. 😁

Casey White13 said:And you're just a clone of a user who got permanently banned.

Look, I don't really care to get dragged into whether someone is a clone or not—that's a waste of time—but I have to point out that the actual question is being completely dodged here:

"Is this just a glitch, or is it actually a rule?"

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=826188&page=91

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=826188&page=90

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=1807

Thanks, Nica.

rustydrifter10 said:The threads linked in these posts are being scrubbed. We ran into some major issues with Google—so, yeah, those massive locked threads have been pulled temporarily while we audit everything. There’s a mountain of work to go through, so this won't be a quick fix, but most will eventually come back. As for these specific ones, I expect they'll all return.

We already got an answer basically like this for a similar question.

So, how long are we talking here?
A month? A couple of months? An entire year...?

Jamie Nelson90 said:She’s just a high-society leftist,
all she talks about is bumping up benefits for veterans, large families, the unemployed, daycare subsidies...

Real leftists actually organize community service projects for veterans instead of just drugging them up with Zoloft.

Where does she even get this stuff?
When you're stuck choosing between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, you basically just pick how you want to be ruined... 😍

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, communism as a religion is such a perfect way to put it! It’s like Marshall was basically the Pope Pius I 🤦 and Dolanc was probably some high-ranking archbishop from somewhere like Chicago or something. 👏

If you’re going to insist on being literal—fine—then don't let anyone get in your way.
Just in case you need it, here’s the link:

The connection between political ideology and faith isn't just a theory—it’s a documented reality. When you look at how certain movements operate, it becomes clear that we aren't just talking about policy; we're talking about communism as a religion. It functions with the same fervor, the same dogmatic devotion, and the same ritualistic adherence to a central doctrine. It’s easy to dismiss these things as mere politics, but once you peel back the layers, you see the structural similarities to organized faith. The devotion to the party, the absolute rejection of dissent, and the way followers cling to the ideology like a lifeline—it all points to something deeper than just economics or social organization. It’s a spiritualized version of control. Whether it's through the lens of history or modern sociology, the overlap is hard to ignore if you're actually paying attention.

Mihail Riklin is presenting his new book—it’s finally happening.Communism as a religion.'

One of Russia's most prominent modern intellectuals, Mihail Riklin, is headed to a local subversive film festival—and honestly, it should be an interesting one. He’ll be sitting down for a chat with his American publisher, Seid Serdarević from Fracture, to dive into his latest book, "communism as a religion."

Lenin isn no exception to the rule.
Every single communist dictator out there has tried to turn their tyranny into a full-blown religion—and then worked overtime to make sure their successors could run the cult.
Even Marshall wasn't an exception to the rule—just look at all those parades, the youth organizations, the cult of personality... and then after he died? You had the mausoleums, the pilgrimages, the endless ceremonies, and all that nonsense.