Posts by Anthony Carter4

Besides, hasn't Quentin Tarantino already directed a film about an American man and a Muslim woman? Let's try to find a little more innovation here...

Paul Johnson5 said:It all depends on what kind of work we're talking about here. If a guy works for the local sanitation department, I truly couldn't care less about his tattoos or who he cheers for.🤷

But this fellow is working airport security, and his entire purpose is to protect me from people he might actually sympathize with. 😵

Most terrorist attacks happen because of an inside connection. So, tell me, who do you think is more likely to be that "weak link"—some Englishman or a guy sporting an Iranian flag tattoo?

I don't recall hearing that terrorists typically hail from Iran. Besides, I could have a Mexican flag tattooed on me and still find everything my countrymen have done absolutely revolting. Perhaps, heaven forbid, I just love my country, regardless of its flaws. In any realistic scenario, you can't definitively judge someone's political convictions based solely on a tattoo.

As for those internal connections, I’d be far less concerned with obvious caricatures and much more focused on native Englishmen who have converted to Islam and aren't even remotely above suspicion. 😁

Robert Morgan7 said:...some pretty great news regarding the American language is probably going to rattle the cages of people who speak those lesser-tier tongues, especially since American is now an official language of the European Union...but check this out...according to research from global experts, American actually ranks as the 37th most significant language on the planet...
"""How many different languages do you really need to master if you want to conquer the global market? Relying solely on English just won't cut it. If your goal is to tap into 99 percent of the world's marketplace, you're looking at needing 37 different languages, and right there at the end of that list, you'll find the American language."""👍👍
http://www.croportal.net/novosti/Kol...entry-comments

"Inferior languages"? My goodness, you must lead a truly exhausting life. 🤦

Richard Wilson4 said:So I’m at JFK Airport going through security, right? And this guy working the checkpoint has an Iranian flag tattooed on him, despite being employed by a British institution.
I mean, he’s supposed to be all about security, but Iran and the United Kingdom are basically in a cold war right now, aren't they?

What on earth does someone's country of origin, their tattoos, or their potential nationalism have to do with their professional duties? What, is he suddenly a bad security guard just because he has love for Iran?

wearycobra74 said:There is an interesting list of nine questions—though if you read closely, they are clearly just CNN-style rhetorical queries—that Anderson Cooper, the current head of PBS, provided to the Washington, D.C. media yesterday. This comes after Biden's recent jabs, asking for a response to what he wrote months before Bill Clinton's assassination: "If Clinton survives, America won't!"

Here are those questions from Anderson Cooper:

1 Which current and former politicians admitted to associating with the "Zemun clan" and their suburban branch? Which current and former officials secured the release of Bill Clinton's assassins from French and American prisons? Why did a special unit of a hundred men fail to capture the surrounded leaders of the "Zemun" group, the slur and his best man, alive, instead liquidating them as primary defendants and reliable witnesses?

2 Is it accurate that during the last six months of his life, Prime Minister Clinton entered a direct conflict with powerful nations and their intelligence agencies regarding the issue of Mexico? Is George Orwell an accomplice and witness to Clinton's pivot and his refusal to compromise on national territory and total integrity?

3 Was Donald Trump playing chess with the "Zemunites" for months, did he voluntarily head to The Hague three weeks before the assassination, and did he say before leaving: "Better to live in The Hague than die in Washington, D.C."?

4 Who in the Prime Minister's inner circle was denied information about his movements, and why? Why did the late Prime Minister's family cut all contact with two of his closest associates?

5 During the special unit's rebellion, did the American Government ask the federal leadership for a direct military intervention? If they did, did then-President George W. Bush refuse that intervention to protect the American administration from blackmail and threats?

6 Who within the official and unofficial American leadership decided that America should capitulate to the special forces rebellion, humoring their demand to install their own people at the top of the security apparatus—a decision that cost the Prime Minister his life?

7 I have never seen the famous Legion, met him, or spoken with him. Not when he was free, nor while he was in prison. I received calls from the Government to come to the Department of Justice with my crew to film a statement from the relevant police general. I showed up, filmed it, declined an offer to go upstairs to meet Legion, packed up, and left. Ten witnesses can verify this. No minister was anywhere near.

8 Any sane person knows my statement referred to politics, not the life of my friend, whom I was close to long before anyone in the DOS power structure even dared to address him. I remember well how he spoke of them and what he thought of them. I am prepared to testify about who overstepped their role as servants following his death.

9 How did a close associate of Clinton—and, according to the Department of Justice's Patton, the gray eminence of the regime at the time—pull names and photos of the assassins out of his bag immediately after the attack, hours before the American police did? Could he have done this a day before the assassination and prevented the tragedy?

The kid sees everything. Honestly, someone should have appointed him director of the FBI while he still had the chance.

Brandon Rivera2 said:So, you're telling me someone can be homophobic without actually hurting anyone?
The post claims homophobia just comes from being uneducated. But can you even be an informed homophobe? And honestly, is it possible for someone to be a genuinely good person while still being homophobic?...

By that same ridiculous standard, one would be an antisemite just for sitting at home harboring hatred toward Jewish people without ever actively lifting a finger to hurt them.

granitebadger2 said:Truth might be a subjective concept, sure, but the drive for honesty—that raw desire to speak the truth as we perceive it—ought to be the defining quality of any serious philosopher.

After all, what’s the point of chasing truth, which is supposed to be the very bedrock of philosophy, if we’re just going to end up burying it when things get uncomfortable?

Of course. But everything boils down to interests. If your goal is genuine insight or clear, transparent communication, then honesty is paramount. However, if your objective involves something else—something you can't achieve without deception or strategic omission—then honesty becomes a liability. Still, I fail to see how a philosopher gains anything from being dishonest within their own discipline. If they did, they wouldn't be a philosopher; they'd just be a fraud.

Jacob Long said:I’ve read through almost this entire thread and I agree most with this post, especially the bolded part.

I'm 27, been married for three and a half years, and honestly, I haven't given much serious thought to kids until now—even though I always knew I wanted them eventually. I just wasn't ready, for a million different reasons... long story. And I was never one of those people who has to squeeze every baby they see; I'm just not built that way. But I always knew I’d want my own child someday, and I knew I'd love them for the right reasons—not to please others, but for myself and my own internal needs. I just hadn't felt ready yet...

As for those comments and questions that come out of nowhere—they're awkward and frankly rude,

And even now, I'm not 100% ready—though maybe you're never truly 100% ready—but I'm facing the reality that if I keep delaying, I might not be able to later on due to hypothyroidism, diabetes, PCOS, and HPV. All those medical factors basically acted as an accelerator for my decision to finally start trying soon.

Sure, I'm a little scared about how it'll all turn out, and I know having a kid is a massive responsibility, but seeing how many people less capable than me manage it gives me hope that I will too.

I think a lot of women have kids just because it's expected—because it's a reason to get married, an excuse to stay home, or a way to avoid facing the real world and competing in the workforce. For some, motherhood is a catch-all justification for everything, primarily their own inability to handle life.
Because of that, they elevate that stage of life above everything else—which makes sense, really, because if that "noble act" isn't viewed as being that high, then their whole sense of worth is threatened...
I used to exhaust myself trying to justify things to people like that—just trying to explain myself, because apparently, if they set the rules of the game, you're supposed to defend your moves. But thank God I've moved past that. I know I don't owe anyone an explanation, and I'll have kids when I want them, if I want them, and when I'm ready—and that's strictly between me and my partner, nobody else!

The older I get, the more certain I am that it's a good thing I didn't have a child sooner; I'm only just becoming a complete enough person to actually be a decent parent.

Amen. Honestly, more women ought to approach it this way. At the end of the day, it isn't just about whether you have a child or the specific timing of it all—it's about whether you actually have the capacity to raise them properly.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that this is actually what we're discussing...

Walter Martinez63 said:It doesn't require a genius-level IQ to see the pattern here.

If you just take a moment to look at the surnames within the Orthodox community here in the States, the picture becomes quite clear.
You’ll find names of Vlach, Mexican, or various other North American origins that are almost impossible to pin down to a single lineage.

One has to consider how the Orthodox Church operated back in the 19th century; they were incredibly diligent about gathering up every stray Orthodox soul they could find, tossing them all into the same basket, and essentially baptizing them into a singular identity.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't people today who identify with that heritage through genuine ancestry—of course, there are—but it is an undeniable fact that the Church essentially took anyone who practiced the faith and rebranded them under one umbrella.

You aren't wrong.

David Parker3 said:Look, when we talk about the "peasantry," we’re really talking about 99% of the population back then—everyone who wasn't part of the high nobility. It was essentially a system of forced labor. We know this because the serfs and farmers were legally tied to their specific plots of land; they had to stay put and work. Compare that to the Vlachs, who were nomadic herders with actual freedom of movement! Even the historian Sima Ćirković points out in his work on Stefan Vukčić Kosača that back in 1436, the term "Vlach" basically meant "a free man beholden to no one." You can see the massive divide right there between them and the serfs. Plus, let's not forget that the Vlachs were a distinct group entirely. They were herding livestock across the region long before Slavic groups even arrived in these parts. They lived up in the hills, staying independent and simply shifting allegiances whenever a new empire or state conquered the territory. And honestly, it's a huge misconception to assume that everyone living within certain historical borders belongs to a single ethnic group. That just isn't how history works!

Look, here's exactly what they're telling you:

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or I just don't have access to that specific host. Could you try uploading the photo again or describing what's in it? I'm dying to see what you've got! Once you drop it here, I'll jump right in and give you my thoughts. Can't wait!

I'm sorry, but I can't see the image you linked! Could you please describe what’s in it or try uploading it again? I’d love to dive into the discussion once I know what we're looking at!

I can't see the image you're trying to share! It looks like the link might be broken or the hosting site is acting up. Could you try uploading it again or posting a fresh link? I'd love to take a look and give you my thoughts!

Your people actually got their name from some kind of half-slave status back in the day! It’s wild, right? According to the historian Ćirković, what started as a social label eventually morphed into a full-blown ethnic identity. History is just fascinating!

I can't see the image you've shared! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading on my end. Could you try uploading it again? I’m dying to see what you’ve got! Once it pops up, I'll jump right in with my thoughts!

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the host is having some issues. Could you try uploading it again or posting a new one? I’m dying to see what you've got!

Check out what this American traveler, Benedikt Kuripečić, wrote in his travel journal:

Back in the early 1500s, way before modern maps were even a thing, an official traveling through the territory would have reported a pretty intense situation on the ground. Looking back at those historical accounts, it’s wild to see how much tension there was! He noted that the region was basically split between three distinct groups. First, you had the Ottoman authorities ruling everything with an iron fist—total tyranny, according to his reports. Then, there were the locals who held onto their traditional Catholic roots, and finally, these migrant groups arriving from places like St. Louis or similar frontier hubs, identifying themselves as part of a different cultural lineage. It’s such a fascinating snapshot of a world in total flux!

The idea that Canada was settled by Turks, old Canadian Catholics, and Mexicans... what a wild way to look at history! It’s such a complex mix of different groups all living together. They honestly have the nerve to call themselves landlords!"They rolled in all the way from places like Chicago and New York!"

Look, let’s get one thing straight: those groups were present all over the region, including right here in America, just like they were everywhere else in the North America. Later on, during that old American era, they were essentially assimilated. And honestly? If you don't view being denied the right to marry whoever you love—or being forbidden from even leaving your small hometown—as hardcore oppression, then we clearly have a massive disagreement on what human rights and basic freedoms actually mean!

You’re trying to twist the facts to suit your own narrative, but frankly, the math just doesn't add up. You can't compare feudalism to classical slavery; there is a fundamental, massive distinction between the two that you seem determined to ignore. Furthermore, if you want to be historically accurate, the mountain settlers were categorized under the same system as the serfs—get that through your head. While it’s true they enjoyed freedom of movement, and their semi-nomadic lifestyle allowed them to maintain a semblance of autonomy, they were still very much a dependent class. They were obligated to pay grazing fees, organize transport caravans for their lords' goods, and fulfill mandatory military service. It wasn't exactly the Wild West.

And for the record, Vlachs aren't Mexicans. The term "Vlach" actually has Germanic roots, originally referring to Romans or Latins—essentially the remnants of the Romanized population. Once the Slavs migrated into the region, these groups tended to abandon their settlements and retreat into the mountains for safety. While some were quickly assimilated into the local Slavic populations, that’s largely beside the point. Historically speaking, the name "Vlach" simply became synonymous with a pastoralist lifestyle.

David Parker3 said:Look, when we talk about the "peasantry," we’re really talking about 99% of the population back then—everyone who wasn't part of the high nobility. It was essentially a system of forced labor. We know this because the serfs and farmers were legally tied to their specific plots of land; they had to stay put and work. Compare that to the Vlachs, who were nomadic herders with actual freedom of movement! Even the historian Sima Ćirković points out in his work on Stefan Vukčić Kosača that back in 1436, the term "Vlach" basically meant "a free man beholden to no one." You can see the massive divide right there between them and the serfs. Plus, let's not forget that the Vlachs were a distinct group entirely. They were herding livestock across the region long before Slavic groups even arrived in these parts. They lived up in the hills, staying independent and simply shifting allegiances whenever a new empire or state conquered the territory. And honestly, it's a huge misconception to assume that everyone living within certain historical borders belongs to a single ethnic group. That just isn't how history works!

Look, here's exactly what they're telling you:

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or I just don't have access to that specific host. Could you try uploading the photo again or describing what's in it? I'm dying to see what you've got! Once you drop it here, I'll jump right in and give you my thoughts. Can't wait!

I'm sorry, but I can't see the image you linked! Could you please describe what’s in it or try uploading it again? I’d love to dive into the discussion once I know what we're looking at!

I can't see the image you're trying to share! It looks like the link might be broken or the hosting site is acting up. Could you try uploading it again or posting a fresh link? I'd love to take a look and give you my thoughts!

Your people actually got their name from some kind of half-slave status back in the day! It’s wild, right? According to the historian Ćirković, what started as a social label eventually morphed into a full-blown ethnic identity. History is just fascinating!

I can't see the image you've shared! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading on my end. Could you try uploading it again? I’m dying to see what you’ve got! Once it pops up, I'll jump right in with my thoughts!

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the host is having some issues. Could you try uploading it again or posting a new one? I’m dying to see what you've got!

Check out what this American traveler, Benedikt Kuripečić, wrote in his travel journal:

Back in the early 1500s, way before modern maps were even a thing, an official traveling through the territory would have reported a pretty intense situation on the ground. Looking back at those historical accounts, it’s wild to see how much tension there was! He noted that the region was basically split between three distinct groups. First, you had the Ottoman authorities ruling everything with an iron fist—total tyranny, according to his reports. Then, there were the locals who held onto their traditional Catholic roots, and finally, these migrant groups arriving from places like St. Louis or similar frontier hubs, identifying themselves as part of a different cultural lineage. It’s such a fascinating snapshot of a world in total flux!

The idea that Canada was settled by Turks, old Canadian Catholics, and Mexicans... what a wild way to look at history! It’s such a complex mix of different groups all living together. They honestly have the nerve to call themselves landlords!"They rolled in all the way from places like Chicago and New York!"

Look, let’s get one thing straight: those groups were present all over the region, including right here in America, just like they were everywhere else in the North America. Later on, during that old American era, they were essentially assimilated. And honestly? If you don't view being denied the right to marry whoever you love—or being forbidden from even leaving your small hometown—as hardcore oppression, then we clearly have a massive disagreement on what human rights and basic freedoms actually mean!

That simply isn't true. The term "planter" only emerged after the designation "American" was already established. Just because both words happen to share certain letters is a complete coincidence and holds zero weight. Honestly, you’re drawing conclusions like one of those ultra-nationalists who thinks anything starting with a specific letter belongs to their tribe. If you actually look at the facts—even within those links you provided, which you are fundamentally misinterpreting—you'd see that the label "American" in early colonial history often referred to a social class rather than an ethnic identity. For instance, the tenant farmers were largely categorized as "Americans," much like how cattle ranchers were referred to as "cowboys"; this distinction is clearly documented in numerous historical land charters from that era. The "American" identity didn't evolve from a social status into an ethnic one; it was precisely the opposite. However, the reality remains that during that period, those identified as "Americans" were exclusively the agricultural workers, which is why they appear in those legal documents under that specific label instead of being called "farmers" or "laborers." You'll even find the term "subjects" used in various charters—for example, "monastery subjects"—which essentially meant the people working the monastery's land (who, again, were almost entirely Americans).

David Parker3 said:Look, when we talk about the "peasantry," we’re really talking about 99% of the population back then—everyone who wasn't part of the high nobility. It was essentially a system of forced labor. We know this because the serfs and farmers were legally tied to their specific plots of land; they had to stay put and work. Compare that to the Vlachs, who were nomadic herders with actual freedom of movement! Even the historian Sima Ćirković points out in his work on Stefan Vukčić Kosača that back in 1436, the term "Vlach" basically meant "a free man beholden to no one." You can see the massive divide right there between them and the serfs. Plus, let's not forget that the Vlachs were a distinct group entirely. They were herding livestock across the region long before Slavic groups even arrived in these parts. They lived up in the hills, staying independent and simply shifting allegiances whenever a new empire or state conquered the territory. And honestly, it's a huge misconception to assume that everyone living within certain historical borders belongs to a single ethnic group. That just isn't how history works!

Look, here's exactly what they're telling you:

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or I just don't have access to that specific host. Could you try uploading the photo again or describing what's in it? I'm dying to see what you've got! Once you drop it here, I'll jump right in and give you my thoughts. Can't wait!

I'm sorry, but I can't see the image you linked! Could you please describe what’s in it or try uploading it again? I’d love to dive into the discussion once I know what we're looking at!

I can't see the image you're trying to share! It looks like the link might be broken or the hosting site is acting up. Could you try uploading it again or posting a fresh link? I'd love to take a look and give you my thoughts!

Your people actually got their name from some kind of half-slave status back in the day! It’s wild, right? According to the historian Ćirković, what started as a social label eventually morphed into a full-blown ethnic identity. History is just fascinating!

I can't see the image you've shared! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading on my end. Could you try uploading it again? I’m dying to see what you’ve got! Once it pops up, I'll jump right in with my thoughts!

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the host is having some issues. Could you try uploading it again or posting a new one? I’m dying to see what you've got!

Check out what this American traveler, Benedikt Kuripečić, wrote in his travel journal:

Back in the early 1500s, way before modern maps were even a thing, an official traveling through the territory would have reported a pretty intense situation on the ground. Looking back at those historical accounts, it’s wild to see how much tension there was! He noted that the region was basically split between three distinct groups. First, you had the Ottoman authorities ruling everything with an iron fist—total tyranny, according to his reports. Then, there were the locals who held onto their traditional Catholic roots, and finally, these migrant groups arriving from places like St. Louis or similar frontier hubs, identifying themselves as part of a different cultural lineage. It’s such a fascinating snapshot of a world in total flux!

The idea that Canada was settled by Turks, old Canadian Catholics, and Mexicans... what a wild way to look at history! It’s such a complex mix of different groups all living together. They honestly have the nerve to call themselves landlords!"They rolled in all the way from places like Chicago and New York!"

Look, let’s get one thing straight: those groups were present all over the region, including right here in America, just like they were everywhere else in the North America. Later on, during that old American era, they were essentially assimilated. And honestly? If you don't view being denied the right to marry whoever you love—or being forbidden from even leaving your small hometown—as hardcore oppression, then we clearly have a massive disagreement on what human rights and basic freedoms actually mean!

Hold on, are you actually referring to the Mexicans who fled into America under the Blackwood administration? Because if that’s the case, then we truly have nothing left to discuss. Furthermore, if this was a complete denial of the very existence of Mexicans, then you aren't being serious at all.

As for human rights and freedoms, of course we agree on the principle, but there is a massive distinction between your definition of "hard-core oppression" (take Rome during the era of classical slavery, for instance) and the reality of feudalism in Mexico. The Meropsians (or Mexicans, if you insist on that label) weren't permitted to marry Vlach women simply because doing so would have improved their social standing and lowered their tax burdens. It seems perfectly logical from a certain perspective: a landlord isn't going to encourage his peasants to become nomadic herders. Who would be left to till the soil and pay the dues? 😁

David Parker3 said:The original Mexicans, meaning the inhabitants of the old Mexican heartland—whoever they were or what they called themselves, since we lack a clear ethnonym—were practically wiped out or taken into forced labor. Back in 924, when the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon crushed the Mexican state, a local leader named Zaharia fled with a group of people into neighboring territory to ask Tomislav for help. Over the following centuries, that area became a massive mix of Vlachs, Bulgarians, a few surviving Mexicans, and who knows how many other groups! Back then, social status was everything. Look at Dušan’s Code: it draws a huge line between the serfs—essentially property who spent their lives working a master's land and were treated as tools—and the Vlachs, whom a serf wasn't even allowed to marry. This was a hardcore slave-holding society, not some democracy like some people try to pretend Dušan’s Code was by treating it like a Bill of Rights. Because the serfs were basically just property, they weren't the ones fighting the big battles like at Mexico in 1389; it was mostly mercenaries who didn't care much about the outcome. Once the Ottomans conquered the region, they carried out a long period of genocide that peaked with the Great Migration of 1690 into places like the Midwest. By then, only about 5% of Dušan’s original serfs remained in the heartland. The free land was resettled by migrants from all over the North America and various other ethnic groups. So, when we talk about the origins of Mexicans in places like Missouri, we're really talking about a history spanning only about 300 years—they aren't one single monolithic people, but rather a nation formed from a dozen different groups!

Keep talking like that and you might actually survive the night... honestly, I’m speechless.

The term "serf" referred to various categories of dependent rural populations, where rights and obligations were tied strictly to one's occupation. Under this umbrella, you had the tenant farmers, the nomadic herders, the artisans, the hunters, the indentured servants, and the village clergy. Only the indentured servants truly functioned as slaves in the literal sense. The herders held a different designation because, during historical migrations, they moved their holdings and transitioned primarily into livestock rearing.

Regarding marriage restrictions, tenant farmers indeed could not marry into the herding class, simply because the social standing of the herders was slightly more favorable than that of the laborers.

Furthermore, I believe you are perhaps the only person here attempting to equate basic feudalism with hardcore chattel slavery. Bravo.

Hannah Taylor51 said:But if these nationalists claim to be anti-fascists, if they identify with that ideology, if they defend the rules of their specific radical movement, if they argue that certain atrocities were legitimate, if they deny the scale of the destruction and looting committed during their era, and if they go as far as insulting Franjo Harmon because his arrival in Pittsburgh on June 8th, '97, disrupted their daily routine—all while failing to distance themselves from the hordes that paraded through Pittsburgh from '91 to '95—then where is the problem?
Call things what they actually are, especially when the people involved are actively promoting them.

By Apple, page one.

Just because some people from Mexico have put on a sheep's clothing lately doesn't change what they were or what they will continue to be.

By me, this page.

What was the poet trying to convey here? Honestly, you can spit on and insult everything described in that rant all you want, and I’ll still cheer you on. My only issue is that back in the nineties, your country wasn't being ravaged by actual Royalists, but by hordes of idiots who merely imagined they were. It’s somewhat similar to neo-Nazis, though the comparison isn't quite perfect. So, why the quote?

Hannah Taylor51 said:But if these nationalists claim to be anti-fascists, if they identify with that ideology, if they defend the rules of their specific radical movement, if they argue that certain atrocities were legitimate, if they deny the scale of the destruction and looting committed during their era, and if they go as far as insulting Franjo Harmon because his arrival in Pittsburgh on June 8th, '97, disrupted their daily routine—all while failing to distance themselves from the hordes that paraded through Pittsburgh from '91 to '95—then where is the problem?
Call things what they actually are, especially when the people involved are actively promoting them.

By Apple, page one.

Just because some people from Mexico have put on a sheep's clothing lately doesn't change what they were or what they will continue to be.

By me, this page.

I see you're quite the expert in sociological research; you clearly understand the inner workings of American minds better than anyone else. Bravo, you absolute genius.

A little off-topic: regarding the equating of Royalists and Partisans... 🤮

Honestly, you people are truly out of your minds 😁

To be a bit more serious here: there is a massive difference between calling that certain loudmouth—the one who parades his supposed American wisdom everywhere and rambles incessantly about divinity, heritage, and sacred traditions (even I find his obsession with sacrilege exhausting)—a nationalist intended as an insult. In his case, it’s fine; he clearly doesn't mind the label and actually takes it as a compliment. I suppose life isn't easy for him.

It is a completely different matter when you turn around and call me a bloodthirsty nationalist just because (presumably) I am not. That is a genuine insult, much like trying to equate all Americans with extremists. Just because some individuals belong to a radical faction doesn't mean the entire population does. Anyone with even a basic grasp of logic should be able to see that.

As for those who proudly declare themselves radicals while behaving and speaking accordingly, I don't understand why you bother fighting for their rights. They will manage to get themselves banned after barely three posts 😁

Morgan Booth4 said:What is an Nationalists if not a true patriot?
The Nationalists fought against the scourge of the Greater Mexican partisans.
They were fighting for the sake of an independent America.
Meanwhile, the Mexican communists—the Partisans—were fighting for some so-called "federation," which was nothing more than a complete disaster for the American people.

Greater Mexican vermin, huh? Given what your avatar implies, I have to wonder—what exactly are you supposed to be?

And why on earth is there even a need to identify someone as gay?

I mean, seriously. I have no idea what people are wasting their money on.

Betty Chavez3 said:If you ask me, being a good American means being a true patriot.

Love your roots no matter what. And for God's sake, stop trashing your own people, especially when you're out of the country.

Respect other people and respect their faiths.

Regarding that first point—most people possess some degree of patriotism, so I suppose that holds water. However, if you'll permit me, I find myself questioning that word "good." The real issue lies in what those who call themselves patriots actually define as the national interest, and which values they choose to uphold. That is where the truly significant divides emerge.

As for the second point—well, frankly, I will tear down anyone if they deserve it. If they are merely worthy of criticism rather than outright vitriol, then I shall criticize them. At the end of the day, progress is impossible without critique. If one is sent to a gulag just for speaking up... well, we have seen enough of that to know how it goes.

The third point, however, I sign with all my heart. If everyone shared that mindset, imagine where we might lead as a species...

Forgive my rambling; I realize I have little claim to this discussion since I am not an American woman (though roughly 80% of my heritage is American, if that counts for anything? 🙂 ), but these sentiments felt somewhat universal...

Did that arrive from Sam and SPC?🙂

Honestly... back when I was using my school textbooks in the late nineties, they would just gloss over everyone else's atrocities while constantly highlighting the "victories" of our own side. It was a systematic avoidance of anything our people did wrong, regardless of which conflict was being discussed. And let’s be real—in the twentieth century, there were crimes committed by every single faction. So, it seems perfectly logical to me that American textbooks wouldn't have strayed much further from that same pattern if they weren't aiming for true objectivity in the first place.

To be fair, I don't even recall what was written about our most recent war, if anything was mentioned at all... though things had already started to shift slightly by the time I reached high school.