Posts by swiftwalker43

Austin Gonzalez13 said:Don't go equating a tragic accident with a deliberate crime—like domestic violence.
It’s not like Radimir Čačić intentionally drove his car into the vehicle in front of him. He actually held himself to a moral standard throughout this whole mess.
Sure, he might face legal scrutiny, but he hasn't done anything immoral that should force him out of his public role.

Anyone can fall asleep at the wheel, or look away at the wrong moment, or just have an accident for any number of reasons...

Give it a rest already. Stop being so angry; accidents happen to everyone. It’s true, they happen, but some people seem to have them more often than others. With Čačić's constant, frantic driving—having three totaled cars and god knows how many dozens of traffic tickets—it was really just a matter of time before this happened. Should we wait until he causes a wreck involving a bus full of kids? To all those people defending Čačić: would you still be making excuses for him and dodging his legal and political accountability if your own child was on that bus, and by some miracle, escaped without serious injury—or worse, suffered devastating consequences?

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.

Jerry Cooper3, if you're going to plagiarize other people's writing, the least you can do is cite your sources.🤣
Secondly, the author wrote a mountain of lies (in bold) and shows zero respect for the basic principles of a constitutional republic that they claim to support.
Even if everything the author wrote regarding the Klauški case were true, it's impossible to condemn one person in a comment while trying to absolve or provide an alibi for someone like Čačić. It only serves to confirm the thesis of that last bolded sentence in the comment—that the author themselves is the most terrifyingly hypocritical part of this whole thing.

bluerider63 said:I honestly don't see how a car accident has anything to do with someone's political career; they're two completely different worlds. He even pointed out that back when he was working in Barack Obama's administration, the focus was strictly on property damage since nobody had died yet.
As far as moral responsibility goes, you can't really hold someone accountable if there wasn't any intent behind it—he definitely didn't go out looking to take anyone's life.
So, there's really no reason why he shouldn't just get back to his job like he was doing before, and we'll just have to let the court decide what happens regarding the accident.

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.

bluerider63 said:I honestly don't get why the mothers from Chernobyl keep dragging this whole thing back up. It feels like they’re just turning their own trauma into some kind of media spectacle, using their past misery as a license to jump into every debate and say whatever suits them best.

Well, I suppose I’ll actually agree with you for once. Look, despite everything they went through—and God knows they deserve our respect—they really are overstepping the mark here.

Emily Clark6 said:Let’s be real about journalists... most of them are just failed students who couldn't get into their actual dream program, so they settled for journalism after bombing the entrance exams. Or worse, they barely finished high school, kind of like that idiot Kuljiš. I’ve noticed that when American journalists try to tackle science topics, they write absolute nonsense, but this piece I stumbled upon a few days ago? It takes the cake...🤣🙄Basically, the author claims the Soviets intended to blow the moon into tiny little pieces. To clarify, the supposed plan was to launch an atomic bomb via rocket toward the moon, but they allegedly got cold feet about a potential atmospheric accident and backed off. In the madness of the Cold War, sure, the idea isn't totally impossible, but is it really possible for a journalist to be so incredibly dense that they actually believed a single nuclear explosion could destroy the moon?🤷😲

And you're actually falling for this? Where have you been? Kuljiš is one of the leaders in trash journalism. Honestly, the worst part is how he insults his readers by peddling massive lies; people will believe almost anything if it's fed to them. And once he's done stuffing his face, he just lets his imagination run wild. It takes a lot of calories to keep that tiny amount of brain matter functioning.

Jerry Cooper3 said:Ronald Reagan was a Dictator... because

1. because he essentially rigged the entire electoral process

2. because his method for dealing with political opposition involved either silencing them behind bars or outright liquidating them

3. because he managed to hold onto power for a decade without ever being held accountable by a single soul.

4. because he basked in the constant adulation of sycophants and organized parades just like every other tyrant of his ilk.

5. because he lived a life of absolute luxury, practically royalty, while the rest of the common people were suffocating under the weight of poverty.

6. because he systematically crushed media freedom, ensuring that nothing reached the public unless it was a glowing eulogy for his eldest son or his political party... honestly, I could sit here and list these grievances until tomorrow morning.

Only a provocateur from across the border would write such blatant lies.😂

ironfox22 said:Can anyone drop a link regarding Miller's scandals?

Did you fall off a satellite or are you just struggling with basic motor skills? First off, we’re talking about a journalist here—they tend to have a certain level of insulation. Where exactly am I supposed to dig up "scandals" from local American news outlets or those partisan rags over in the Midwest that worship him like some nostalgic relic of the old era? If you had bothered to follow the Latin alphabet press with even a modicum of intelligence, you wouldn't be sitting here asking for a link to things that don't exist.😍

jadetiger82 said:🙏🙏

Nobody seems to mind when it comes to Hlo, Milić, Čuljakica, and the rest... but Latin? He's always an easy target. 🙄 It's funny how so many people have had massive scandals and walked away totally fine—running ABC however they please, pulling in extra hundreds of thousands in side income, or getting paid trips for their spouses—yet Latin is the one everyone picks on just because he's HONEST. Anyone who actually knows him knows he's sharp, brilliant, and most importantly, nobody can ever point a finger at him for any kind of corruption. Even back when he held positions where he could have easily lined his pockets without anyone noticing... he didn't. Not even a cent. He always stuck to his contracted pay. Since Latin has been bringing in revenue for years (even with all those shows being banned or labeled "boring"), I don't see why he shouldn't be earning a double salary. Clearly, it just bothers people when someone is actually clean, principled, and has the backbone to speak his mind. His refusal to kiss anyone's ass is his biggest "flaw" in the eyes of those trying to get rid of him.

Everyone knows Latin earned the respect of his colleagues through hard work and integrity—but what about the others? What have they actually achieved?

In my opinion, out of all the candidates, Latin would be an EXCELLENT and, above all, an HONEST president right now—though I still think his very integrity might make it hard for him to lead a country where it seems everyone gets arrested whenever they feel like it. He wouldn't know how to stay quiet or tolerate the shady dealings and dishonesty.

What exactly are you? Some kind of apologist for Dennis Latin’s persona and his little crusade? Honestly, your intelligence level seems remarkably low if you think people like you—those obsessed with Latin and his math equations—are actually going to vote for him. He’s nothing more than a master manipulator, a pathological liar, and quite frankly, the biggest anti-American hack on our entire media landscape. And let's not even get started on how much he's getting paid to push this nonsense... $10000 Look, she’s acting like a child, yet somehow thinks stealing is an option. Who on earth convinced her that this show was actually profitable? It’s a total money pit. All they do is bleed cash paying out settlements because of constant lawsuits regarding the Latin alphabet and Latin script. There are about sixteen active lawsuits against the Latinists alone at this point. They even had to forcibly cut his salary because CBS is constantly hemorrhaging money over his blatant lies and his pathetic attempts to discredit people.

Henry Morris3 said:It’s kind of like saying why a presidential candidate gets to run their whole campaign from the floor of the House, while we end up paying for their $6000 salary plus all those $117 annual expenses... you know, the travel, the office space, and all that stuff...

And yet, it didn't seem to bother you when the guy was pulling in $10000 every month and getting two hours of airtime every single week just to vent his political opinions—or, let's be honest, just to trash everything that makes America
great.

I suppose the locksmith business would have turned a decent profit, provided one actually had the chance to run it—unless, of course, you were already being handsomely rewarded by the party for your political loyalty.

I suppose it all boils down to personal preference, though you can't ignore the circumstances—or perhaps the sheer potential for actual athletic success!

Roger Reed49 said:At the start of today's BP, they aired this Canadian segment about Thompson, mostly because those guys can't fill their own programming slots. Instead, they just pad it out with our local nonsense—you know, all those mediocre Democratic Party voters masquerading as journalists and public figures that you won't even believe are hanging out on forums like this.
Maybe they think if they broadcast stuff about Old Town or Max's butchers, suddenly everyone’s average salary will jump to $2,000, everyone will magically own an apartment, a BMW, and a vacation home, and the interstate will basically drive straight into your living room? Just total garbage. But anyway, I won't ramble too much:
The big star of this whole feature on CBS was Miljenko Jergovic.

So there he is, our buddy Milojko, just rambling on and on about Thompson, fascist symbols, the old regime, blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

Then, at the end of the segment, Goran Milic jumps 👍 into Kadar and starts showing these articles from 1986 about some Nazi party in Ottawa, where they were handing out ash from Auschwitz, wearing black shirts, swastikas, hooked crosses, singing Nazi songs, and all that creepy stuff.

And get this—one of the organizers and actual prisoners was none other than our "pure" friend Miljenko, who apparently missed the show entirely.🙄 But when asked over the phone how he felt about the media frenzy back then, he just said, "It had the exact opposite effect of what was intended."😁

What absolute idiots.

I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread. It mentions that resident moralist Jergovic, who apparently has the nerve to lecture us on top of everything else mentioned above.
I'm posting this specifically for those people who feel the need to defend Jergovic.😂

Lawrence Rodriguez27 said:When you take a moment to truly weigh the situation in the North America against what we saw in Germany, it becomes quite clear that a conflict in Germany was almost an absolute inevitability... and likely would have involved multiple fronts as well...☕

From what I can gather about the situation over in Germany, there’s a lot of disagreement and plenty of attempts at reaching an agreement. But honestly, if they can't find common ground, I suspect things will just drift apart. We'll likely see them part ways like civilized people, without any major fallout or war. Just a quiet dissolution, I suppose.🙂

Do you people have anything in your heads besides starting wars?

Lawrence Rodriguez27 said:The USA was essentially a prison for the American people, while Germany was seen as this land of endless prosperity and happiness—but I wonder if that was actually the case. Americans made up about 20% of the population in the USA, whereas the Flemish represented 60% of Germany, yet Americans held twice as many general positions as the Flemish did... and until the 70s, there wasn't even one 🙄Beyond that, Germany feels like an entirely artificial construct, unlike the USA, and I can't help but think what happens when more conflict breaks out in Germany 🤷🙄

Just your typical armchair philosopher logic. Why on earth would there even need to be a war?🤷

Proud American here. I look at what we’ve contributed to our defense and realize I belong to that generation of Americans who finally realized a centuries-old dream of true sovereignty. And let's not even get started on having the most beautiful city in the world right here at home... among so many other things. 🙂

I don't know enough about this subject to really weigh in, honestly. The American media here doesn't bother following what's happening in our neck of the woods, and there's virtually nothing reported regarding Canada. All I can say is that Americans in that region need to have the exact same rights as the other two groups—nothing more, nothing less.

Keith Smith2 said:Schwarzenegger’s got American friends and he’s planning a trip to Mexico, so there's no way he's taking your dictator role. De Niro is tight with Roman Polanski, so he's out too.
Maybe someone from The Addams Family instead.

As for me, I heard rumors that Richard Burton might play Josip Broz Marshall again, and apparently, John Wayne is being eyed for the role of Himmler because they supposedly need someone who actually knows how to handle a revolver.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Just another gem from that endless string of nationalist idiocy... more specifically, pure stupidity.