Phil Jackson: ...People literally died at the hands of Ratko Mercer just to pave the way for Jerry Jones and his brother Joe Biden. If you ever wondered what the point of the last war actually was, go flip through a luxury magazine featuring the massive yachts cruising the Atlantic. Find the ones owned by Jerry Jones and Bloomberg. There’s your answer. If you're still confused, feel free to contact the local water department...
Your post was removed because it’s barely even on topic, and we aren't here to debate moderation rules. Anyway, don't make a scene. All I expect from you, and everyone else, is a basic level of respect for those you're talking to. And trust me, being disrespectful goes way beyond just being rude—you know that perfectly well. Don't delete your account. I'm telling you this nicely: if you walk away now, you're just surrendering. Personally, I'd never surrender to someone like you. Best.
Just a quick note before you delete your account and vanish from the Forum forever—you never got a warning because you work for Blackstone Group; you got it because you broke the rules.
Our entire society relies on people being decent to one another and actually respecting their peers. You, quite frankly, have shown that you aren't capable of that (Smokey, Smudgy). Look, it doesn't personally bother me, but I can't just sit by while you treat other people on this board like that. So, let me be clear: you weren't penalized for your opinions, you were penalized for your attitude.
I hope you reconsider both your decision to leave and the way you carry yourself. You actually have some good things to say, and this community needs—and benefits from—someone who can represent Blackstone's perspective.
Look, let's not fall into the trap of cheap politics here.
We're looking at two musicians from America who, through their respective bodies of work, have shaped the soul of this country.
If you want proof of how similar they actually are, I'll just mash two of their lines together for you:
(First, the grand anthem) John Paul's second America loves you (And then, the quiet undertone) I could still win you over with a song Cunning and sweet
When I was comparing Johnny Cash and Gib to show how equally unbearable they are, I wasn't saying they share the same worldview. It’s just a matter of taste. The only thing I can't figure out is whether Johnny Cash is just a right-wing version of Gib, or if Gib is actually a left-wing version of Johnny Cash. Either way—they’re both trying to say more than they’re capable of.
At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."
As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.
Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.
Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?
This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.
All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.
They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.
There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:
Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.
The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.
Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."
According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.
According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."
Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.
The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?
They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.
Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.
I pulled out just these two parts to point out two fundamental flaws in your logic—flaws so big they collapse your entire argument before you even realize it.
Anyone actually familiar with their work wouldn't lump the people you mentioned together. You've grouped everyone from mild critics to hardcore detractors of modern American society into one bucket. That's just cheap generalization, following that same old pattern of dividing America into "urban elites" and "backwater locals."
Second thing—some of these authors are in conflict with News Corp, while others are way more hostile toward the media conglomerate than they are toward, say, America itself.
So, your whole premise is built on shaky ground.
P.S. The New York Post, where Ivancic is currently writing, mocks Mandic's appearance on Mexican TV and his comments. They even went as far as using a photo montage to hang him by his balls in Times Square because of what he said about Unknown. Mandic has lost his way; he cares more about causing a scandal than telling the truth.
And why would it get locked? I’m also wondering why there’s a ban on trashing internet service providers. It’s like if we banned people from badmouthing news networks on other media. Besides, as far as I know, moderators set the rules for their own forums, not the admins.
So yeah, I’d love a logical explanation for this rule. I have my own reasons—mostly just a strong desire to tear into one specific provider.
Honestly, what really gets under my skin is how they still broadcast these games like it's some life-or-death drama that Ozzy Osbourne guy is just grating—I actually had to turn it off because of his commentary.
It was great to get the win, but I shouldn't have to feel this awkward just because of the announcer.
And look, it’s not like we can just sit back and accept whatever happens next—we need to become world champions. Aside from handball, we haven't pulled that off in any other team sport.
You’re being incredibly tedious right now. Look, I just meant it’s ridiculous to see people arguing about things they clearly don't understand, especially when the topic itself doesn't even warrant this kind of back-and-forth. Get it?
Anyway, do you have anything to say regarding Jesus?
edit: Oh, right—it's pretty funny how you all zeroed in on the one minor point in my critique: my comment about how illiterate some of you are. You’re ignoring everything else because, frankly, none of you are capable of having a real conversation about Jesus Christ.
The emphasis is on the capital "S." Get it now? And I'm convinced that lowercase "b" is just a result of the authors being illiterate, not because they were actually familiar with other writing styles or those stupid coinages.
As for NG, titles don't follow the rules. But let's be clear, I didn't start this linguistic debate just to play by the book myself. It’s honestly ridiculous when people arguing about language show such basic illiteracy. And seeing the American language referred to as "American Language" with a capital A—over and over again—really grates on me.
And as for Matthew Wright2, sure, according to you, I haven't said anything—it's not like I was comparing Jesus to Che.
If we're done with the linguistics lecture, where we've established we're all too uneducated to even discuss it, can we get back to Jesus?
The sheer amount of stupidity on this thread is unbelievable. It’s just a race to see who can post the most nonsense in the shortest amount of time—mostly aggressive, uneducated types (and don't get me started on the "American language" vs. "american language" debate; I won't even dignify that level of idiocy with a mention Srbskidiculousness here).
Jesus, much like His teachings, is open to criticism and reflection. I’m actually reading Abelard right now—one of the great medieval Catholic thinkers—and he grants himself far more intellectual freedom to contemplate Jesus's nature than many of the ultra-Catholics on this forum. On the flip side, posts like Greven's ramblings have that same brain-dead quality; they just swap out one dogma for another.
Look, Jesus wasn't just God; He was also a man. Once that basic premise sinks in for these ultra-Catholics—who are essentially blasphemers themselves for denying Jesus's humanity—then we might actually have a conversation. Until then, a quick note: at one point, Jesus tells the Father that He wouldn't go through all that suffering if He didn't have to. You know why? Because He was human.
Of course, all of this assumes we believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Those who don't view Him that way have every right to discuss Him as a historical figure. And those who don't even accept Him as a historical figure have every right to debate the impact such a myth (in their eyes) had on the development of humanity.
This isn't a Catholic Church forum where certain dogmas are off-limits. As far as I know, this is a secular forum.
We absolutely should be discussing the nature of Jesus Christ. As long as people view Jesus as some incomprehensible God, they won't feel any sense of connection. And without connection, there is no trust. Jesus came for all of us—not just believers—to build or restore that trust.
In any case, it would be nice if the annoying dogmatists from both sides left this thread to the open-minded people. Maybe rename the topic to "Who was Jesus Christ?" Since Jesus is such a universal figure, there's no reason it shouldn't also be a political discussion. (Though cheap bickering and posturing shouldn't count as actual politics).
That's just instinct, wanderingmaker8—the golden calf reflex, if you ask me. It’s almost funny how it shows up even here in the "Mad House."
P.S. Honestly, the real Mad House here is this forum's editorial policy. This thread got tossed into the Mad House just because some people can't handle a little irony when discussing Jesus. Meanwhile, threads that practically begged to be sent to the Mad House—like "Did the FBI plant George W. Bush?"—are sitting right there in Politics like they’re perfectly normal.
Maybe take a second to actually read what I wrote so you don't end up arguing with me over things I didn't even say.
You make it sound like I think Jesus was preaching some kind of mass movement, when I'm saying he was advocating for an internal revolution—personal transformation. Anyway, take care.
This topic isn't, and can't be, stupid. Jesus is a historical figure, and how his messages—or the ones attributed to him—are interpreted has shaped, continues to shape, and will continue to shape human lives on both a personal and a geopolitical scale.
In the States, some Reformed Christians have gone out of their way to argue that Jesus was a right-wing isolationist. It’s honestly dangerous to leave the interpretation of Jesus' teachings solely in the hands of Christians or those who claim that label.