It is truly disheartening that, even after three days, not a single one of the "authorities" has seen fit to grace this thread with a response. Whether it’s an explanation of what went wrong, a statement that they are working on a fix, or even just a blunt warning that things will remain this way and we should simply deal with it—anything would suffice. At this point, I am genuinely tempted to walk away from a forum that treats its community with such blatant indifference.
Helloooooo !!!!!!! Is there anyone out there capable of providing an explanation? 😠 Better yet—just restore the menu immediately and you can skip the trouble of explaining yourselves altogether. 🤷
The idea that discussing the motives behind crimes—or even speculating on potential culprits and sanctions regarding offenses committed sixty years ago—is somehow off-limits is, quite frankly, absurd... What they call an "unnecessary broadening of the topic" is really just a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of the exact same subject matter(which is what naturally happens in any high-traffic discussion thread)!
Furthermore, this "ban" sets a troubling precedent; we have navigated numerous discussions regarding criminal activity before—even contemporary matters, such as the Hodak case, for instance—and never once were we prohibited from debating the underlying causes, whether proven or merely suspected!
I have to admit, I’m really not a fan of this new layout for the Politics section.
There are just too many sub-sections now; I find myself wandering through the site wondering where specific topics went or why they were tucked away in such odd corners. If I click over to a different thread or an external link and then want to jump back to Politics to check for updates, it turns into a five-minute scavenger hunt through various sub-folders just to find my way home.
In my view, this new structure isn't an improvement at all—it's just more cluttered and needlessly complex than what we had before.🤷
I realize there was plenty of pushback previously—and yes, I was one of those voices calling for change myself...😁—but those complaints were largely directed at how moderators were moving threads around without much explanation. It was a critique of the "human element" and inconsistent moderation, rather than a fundamental issue with the actual organization of the boards.
I have a certain appreciation for Rose, yet I find myself growing increasingly skeptical when I see her most devoted supporters, like Steven Allen9 and MC Hammer... It makes me wonder if they aren't simply terrified of a potentially more radical right-wing alternative, leading them to lobby so heavily in favor of Rose instead.😉
Richard Wilson4 said:Are you really going to defend the USA so hard that you’re claiming it’s totally fine that not a single one of those 43 directors was an American?
You seem to have missed his point entirely. He’s suggesting that Americans essentially shunned leadership roles and had little interest in settling down in Sioux, even though I pointed out that Mexicans only made up about 20% of the population back then. Apparently, in his logic, the remaining 80% must have been Martians or something equally absurd.🤷):
Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.
So, he says:
Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.
It seems you’ve hit the nail on the head with that assessment: the Mexicans gravitated toward leadership roles while the Americans tended to favor manual labor. 🤷
It was essentially the same scenario we witnessed in San Francisco as we saw back in Sioux: Mexicans make up about 22% of the workforce, yet the upper management is dominated by a collection of half-witted "big shots" hailing from Appalachia. It’s a predictable cycle; they secure director roles only to fill the ranks with illiterate relatives and neighbors to serve as porters or secretaries. These positions aren't exactly demanding—they provide cozy, climate-controlled offices where one can simply sit around, twiddle their thumbs, and sip a cup of coffee while the clock ticks away.
It seemed as though many Americans were content simply playing the role of the corporate climber, or perhaps, as I’ve noted before, opting for manual labor contracts abroad. There was a distinct preference for wandering the globe, chasing work only to return home during Christmas or Easter to see family—provided they actually managed to make it back at all. It was hardly the kind of place one would choose for a quiet, settled family life, if you catch my drift.🤷
dustypuma5 said:While those broad topics work fine for certain things, they often serve as little more than a way to "bury the truth under a mountain of noise." It’s curious how Jadranka Kosor isn't afforded such a convenient hiding spot—much like how someone like Seks, or perhaps any other politician, isn't given one—leaving us instead with our dear old Ivo Josipović. I am certainly not advocating for covering up Seks's mistakes; rather, I am in favor of exposing everyone's. I wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret my position. 😉 (In my view, Seks should only be permitted to state his final wishes. 🙂)
Precisely. And it goes deeper than that. Consider how the thread regarding the former president is positively (or at least "neutrally") titled: "Ivo Josipović - President of the United States" (even though more than half the posts are quite critical of him!). Meanwhile, the collective thread for Jadranka Kosor carries a "negative" headline: "J.K. - Queen of Lies!" (despite containing posts that actually support her). If this is meant to be an all-encompassing topic for everything concerning her, why isn't it simply titled "J.K. - Former Prime Minister"?
It seems we are seeing some minor "cleverness" and manipulation from the moderators and admins—tactics they likely know aren't going unnoticed by the community—but perhaps their impulses outweigh the need for the very impartiality and correctness we expect...😉 Once again: "power is power," and if anyone is searching for absolute integrity on this forum, they might be better served looking elsewhere... 🤷
Charles Fox10 said:The topic is officially closed, strictly for the reasons I laid out in my previous comment. Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding that journalist—you can agree with him or you can disagree—but that’s where the discussion ends. Opening a thread solely to provide a platform for repetitive criticism isn't exactly the height of fair play.
The topic at hand is Investigative journalism., Not Matija Babić.Based on that, The point of this discussion isn't to provide an open platform for anyone looking to just vent or take cheap shots at him. Even the opening post about him is nothing more than a mere introduction....nor are there any of the subsequent posts regarding him. Babić only comes into the conversation later on, but I don't find it particularly surprising that the subsequent posts focus so heavily on him; it’s quite common for a discussion here to evolve this way. In almost any thread, you'll see participants eventually zero in on a specific individual or phenomenon that fits within the broader scope of the topic, unfolding through a series of more detailed, concentrated posts.
To me, that explanation falls completely short of the mark, but I suppose when you're dealing with the powers that be, you eventually learn to just accept that the establishment is the establishment. ☕
It simply isn't right, especially considering the sheer volume of rather indecent posts directed at that particular journalist within a thread that was, at that very moment, incredibly active.
So, what happens now? Are we just supposed to grant him total immunity and pretend he doesn't exist whenever a different topic comes up? 🙄 This is the first time I've ever heard that being used as a justification, and frankly, the actual precedent established here on this forum completely contradicts it.
I’m looking for some clarification regarding Charles Fox10's warning on this thread:
The discussion touches upon M. Babić (largely in a negative light), yet these comments aren't any more aggressive or disrespectful than the myriad of other scathing critiques directed at public figures on this forum—be they politicians, journalists, or celebrities. They don't deviate in the slightest from the standard way people vent their frustrations or opinions about public figures here!
By what logic does this suddenly transform into an "personal vendetta"against a journalist!?! 🙄
Under what specific criteria are the 10,000 existing negative (and frankly, far more vitriolic) comments targeting various public figures considered perfectly acceptable ways to express an opinion, while this—which is arguably less intense—is suddenly flagged as problematic, a "personal vendetta," and subject to a moderator's warning????
Forgive me, but this seems to have nothing to do with objective moderation. This feels like textbook censorship, poorly justified at that. (I can only assume it is motivated by the moderator's personal relationship with the individual being criticized. I truly see no other explanation for such a move...🤷 Unless, of course, there is some unspoken agreement among site owners to provide mutual "protection" for colleagues across different media outlets...🤔)
steeleagle70 said:Furthermore, I should point out that a private forum functions much like any other private establishment; the owner sets the rules, and those rules are absolute. If someone finds the terms unacceptable, they are more than welcome to find the exit.
That’s certainly true. However, if that's the case, there ought to be a clear sign posted on the front door stating that entry is prohibited for certain groups—be it Jews, Mexicans, dogs, or whatever else one might choose to list or omit—or perhaps just a polite note saying they are "less than welcome," since they’ll likely face discrimination even if they do manage to get through the door anyway.😉
As long as the criteria for what qualifies as Politics remain this fluid and dependent on the subjective whims—or rather, the personal leanings—of moderators, friction and perceived unfairness are inevitable. In my view, the guidelines should be stripped down to the absolute basics: follow the title of the PDF thread to the letter!
Politics is defined as: commentary regarding current events or general observationson political actions, including legislation, executive decisions, official activities, and any news tied tothe President, the Government, Congress, all political parties, elected officials, and even public figures (provided the discussion centers on their political involvement or commentary on state affairs)
Politics is not: anything with a tenuous or indirect connection to governance—much like the current discourse surrounding grocery prices here in the States—or topics that require a heavy stretch to be categorized as such. Currently, at least a third of the content in the Politics section falls into this gray area... (I considered posting links to these questionable threads, but I gave up; there are simply too many, and I’d likely face pushback for even suggesting they belong in Politics! Some belong in the Politics section, while others don't even merit that much attention and should move to specialized threads...) "Pure politics" does not include even if the President, the Prime Minister, or a party leader acts outside their official capacity, regardless of how gripping the story might be...
Essentially: as long as the Politics section remains cluttered with threads about food inflation, tourism, Chris Cvic (RIP!), Latina, the HTV Business Club, prison conditions, Branka Primuzak (who even is that...?), News Corp, the Morning Post, the Keys, some striker from Canton, Mercer, or the defense of generals... I am well within my rights to askwhy an absolutely stellar political topic is being relegated to the "Politics section"!
The true weight of a political issue—or any subject for that matter—is determined by the community itself through engagement or indifference. Marginalized topics will, driven by the users (not the moderators!), find themselves buried on page two by tomorrow morning.
One individual's personal assessment of a topic's "significance" or "scale"—and certainly not their personal political biases—should never dictate where a thread is placed. The sole criterion should, and must be, the subject matter (strictly: politics!) presented in the opening post.
It didn't take long for the inevitable... For quite some time now, the debates over on Politics !!! have been circling topics that belong squarely in the Mad House. Those peculiar "criteria"...👎
I find myself wondering: what specific benchmarks must be met before a serious political party—and by serious, I mean one led by legitimate founders and established figures rather than mere charlatans and clowns—is granted a seat at the table on Politics !!! instead of being relegated to the chaos of the Mad House?
Morgan Cook10 said:The whole thing is definitely a stretch. What Franjo was really getting at was the need for America to build up its own capitalist class to act as the engine for national growth. I mean, let’s be real—what’s the harm in having 200 versions of someone like Warren Buffett? If we had even 20 of them, unemployment would basically be a myth in this country.
But then, look at what actually happened afterward... and that's where the idea gets ugly. Those "200 families" didn't just turn out to be your typical white-collar crooks; if we're being honest, they were just plain old incompetent amateurs.
True, and one could argue that Franjo Harmon was expected to oversee and regulate all of that simultaneously while he was commanding a war, managing two-thirds of the country under occupation, negotiating with the most cunning heavyweights in global politics, signing treaties, building an entire government and its institutions from the ground up, and securing entry into the UN...
I’m watching this series about Franjo Harmon... and I am trying—unsuccessfully—to imagine Stjepan Mason (dripping with that hindsight bias and a level of resentment that the original leader could never have shared) or anyone else attempting to juggle all these parallel "games." Certainly, any of them would have found themselves with plenty of spare time amidst that avalanche of cascading, increasingly consequential events to sit down and meticulously engineer the most optimal, long-term solutions for the economy and privatization... 🙄
I wouldn't call myself an economist, but I can't help but feel that having 200 wealthy families who actually "know the ropes"—meaning 200 powerhouse corporations—would be a massive boon to the American economy. The focus here isn't really on the wealth itself (certainly not the kind of wealth held by mere opportunists), but rather on the fact that such prosperity is simply the byproduct of running a successful business. I realize people might find the idea of concentrated success unsettling, but I suspect most would eventually realize that these pillars of industry represent nothing but a net gain for the United States. It’s the kind of vision I believe Harmon was aiming for; I am quite certain he wasn't envisioning 200 wealthy individuals just speeding around in luxury cars, posing at pretentious galas, and cluttering up the tabloids and crime blotters...
Austin Gonzalez13 said:Linking a traffic violation—which, unfortunately, carries the worst possible consequences for both a career and personal life—to political standing is, at the very least, a biased way to look at things.
I mean, let’s say Radimir Čačić was the CEO of some private bank; would he be expected to step down then, too? Or does this rule only apply when someone is a politician?
And honestly, you can't even compare this to a Cabinet Secretary resigning just because something went sideways within their specific sector...
You’re either brilliantly funny or inhumanly cynical.
shadowbison15 said:Brilliant post. Seriously, this applies to almost every country in the region. Bravo. I think there's a mistake in the bolded section, though. In my opinion, mistakes like that result in losing a medical license. At least they should. Otherwise,👍
That isn't a post; it’s just transcription.
An honest person, if they lack the technical skill to include a link or simply intend to share a snippet of text here, will always make sure to credit the author or the source.
As it stands, the text itself is nothing more than pure, unadulterated demagoguery.
The Democratic Party is basically set up as his own private little operation—he essentially built it himself...
As for those spots in HTS and HOO, he didn't earn them through merit; he was simply appointed...
Adam Collins4 said:So, let me get this straight—if you had a private business and sat on various boards, would you just abandon everything? Both your job and your board seats?
Actually, after being pulled over, Bandić refused the breathalyzer, kept driving, and the cop didn't lose his job...
Why are you so hell-bent on pushing these lies?
Čačić is the president of the Democratic Party; he isn't holding a public office like Bandić was back when he served as Mayor...
And Čačić *is* stepping down from public duties... you're completely mixing up apples and oranges here.
To suggest that serving as a party chairman is merely a "private business" or a "private function" is quite a stretch. 😂 (Though, given how Čačić operates, it certainly feels like a private enterprise... 😉)
Please, spare us the nonsense; either present a credible source that supports this bizarre "classification of functions," or let's move on. 🤣
You really shouldn't delete or remove that initial large QUOTE positioned next to your username... If this attempt doesn't yield the result you're looking for, I'll sit down and write out the entire process for you tomorrow, step by step from start to finish... I know how frustrating these technical hiccups can be.😉
Keith Rodriguez27 said:That’s because they stay trapped in that giant quote box since you forget to delete the original big quote you get when you first hit the quote icon at the bottom of the post. You gotta wipe that first quote out before you start adding your own commentary. But if you do that, you lose the person's name and the link back to their original post. So, here's the move: do what I always do—just grab that
tag from the very end of the post and paste it right after the specific section you actually want to reply to, then use the "highlight and quote" method for the rest of your stuff. Let me try...
The trick is to wipe that initial quote clean before you start adding your own commentary. If you don't, you lose the attribution to the user you're replying to and the direct link to their original post; instead, you can follow my usual workflow,
Moving along...
which involves cutting the end of the post and pasting it onto the conclusion of the first segment you intend to address, then applying the "highlight and quote" method to the rest of the content.
I believe that should work...
Edit: there we go! Thanks a million! 🙂 (It wasn't that I neglected to delete the main quote, but rather that no one had pointed out that step was necessary; I suppose I failed to engage my own brain, assuming everything here would be served to me on a silver platter...)🤷
redhawk76 said:No, that wouldn't quite work the way you're thinking... Where am I missing the mark? If you could provide some more specific guidance, I’d appreciate it.
My current process is a bit of a cumbersome workaround—I tend to hit Quote, copy the entire block, strip out the parts I don't need, write my response, then paste the whole thing back in just to prune it again, and repeat the cycle indefinitely.
PPPPP
redhawk76 said:No, that wouldn't quite work the way you're thinking... Where am I missing the mark? If you could provide some more specific guidance, I’d appreciate it.
My current process is a bit of a cumbersome workaround—I tend to hit Quote, copy the entire block, strip out the parts I don't need, write my response, then paste the whole thing back in just to prune it again, and repeat the cycle indefinitely.
PPPPP
redhawk76 said:No, that wouldn't quite work the way you're thinking... Where am I missing the mark? If you could provide some more specific guidance, I’d appreciate it.
My current process is a bit of a cumbersome workaround—I tend to hit Quote, copy the entire block, strip out the parts I don't need, write my response, then paste the whole thing back in just to prune it again, and repeat the cycle indefinitely.
Look, I know there's a much cruder way to handle this—essentially brute-forcing it by copying the whole post and manually deleting what isn't required—but I have a genuine desire to master this more streamlined method...