The kleptocratic movement of those chameleon communists here in America.
She wasn't deleted, but you might want to try again with a more appropriate title—perhaps with a little less trolling and fewer insults in your opening post.
Look, the level of offense wasn't nearly high enough to warrant sanctioning the thread. Besides, if I may elaborate on this whole "kleptocratic movement" business... just look at the court rulings handed down to the highest-ranking officials in the country. What does that tell us? So, what, it’s not just one man responsible?! Fine. Whatever. Can this topic be reopened under a different thread with a different title?
northernpilot2 said:Because that’s just not what this forum is for. It's all over the place. 🙂
If a thread gets deleted, there's almost certainly a reason why the moderator decided to scrub it from the site, and the same logic applies when a topic gets locked up.
Look, if you really want to, you can always start a new thread on a similar topic over on that other forum, but every single sub-forum has its own set of internal rules it has to follow. Ultimately, it's up to the moderator to decide if a topic actually fits where it was posted or if it’s just out of place.
Fine.. But quite often, threads don't just get locked... they vanish entirely. They're gone. So, why not just open a "PDF of Deleted and Locked Threads" section? Regardless of the subject matter. Honestly, that could probably be the most free-spirited part of the whole forum.
Sam Green73 said:For those particularly contentious stretches of American history, we actually have a dedicated thread: American Historical Controversies - The Political Angle
Charles Fox10 said:The era depicted in this series might actually belong in History. It isn't strictly about politics. Even on Reddit, the Politics section features various historical topics being debated.
It’s really a blend of history and general political affairs, so one could argue it leans toward politics. For a dedicated history sub, maybe not. For a pure politics sub? Not quite. And it certainly isn't exclusively about history.
Cat under the helmet serves as proof that things weren't some rigid, hardline communist regime—though, granted, that doesn't mean things were overly liberal either. What I'm getting at is that the right-wing narrative, painting everything before the turn of the century as total darkness, just isn't accurate. I'll repeat: not *everything*, but parts of it. That was my intention in using the series as evidence...
I have a question for the highly esteemed gentlemen of the moderation team... why aren't locked threads or deleted discussions being moved over to PDF format? Is there some sort of reason behind this, or perhaps something else entirely? Why go through the trouble of preventing people from having a debate?
I am reaching out regarding the decision to lock the thread "Cat under the helmet." The topic was placed under the Politics subforum for a reason; I was attempting to clarify how the series—filmed in the late 70s—was produced with enough freedom to avoid the heavy-handed censorship that everyone since the 90s claims existed, particularly those former communists who have conveniently rebranded themselves as democrats.
My intention was to explain why both the book and the series were surprisingly uncensored, which was quite an anomaly during that era of "unbearable communism," as today's faux-conservative imitators like to call it. Therefore, this pertains strictly to political climate, not to the television industry itself. I am not commenting on the props, the scriptwriting, the acting caliber, or the overall artistic merit of the production. My focus was on the specific historical period during which the show was filmed, the state of censorship at that time, the way politics functioned back then, and how that compares to our current landscape where many of the same players remain active. In my view, Cat under the helmet actually holds more weight than Silent Spring. It possesses a certain vitality that the latter lacks, and because of that, it feels much more truthful.
That was my point, yet the moderator Charles Fox10 was far too quick to pull the trigger, deciding that my comments were somehow an attack on TV itself. There is only a connection insofar as one watches the content through that box. I kindly request that the thread be unlocked, as I believe I have clearly addressed and refuted the unfounded accusations made by Mr. Charles Fox10.
We didn't hold a national vote on joining NATO, so why on earth would we need a referendum now? Everything valuable has already been sold off, leaving us with nothing. What exactly is the point of a referendum?
Are we voting on tearing up our treaty with Vatican City? A referendum to scrap those congressional pensions and special perks? Or maybe one to abolish political privileges altogether? How about a vote on actually enforcing laws against incompetence?
Which referendum are we even talking about, gentlemen?
Is it actually possible to operate under two different handles? What kind of rules are we talking about if someone decides to maintain two identities? And how does one go about registering a second account when they're using the exact same IP address? I've noticed certain users on Reddit running dual accounts, so I'm curious—how is that even permitted?
feralpanther21 said:Meanwhile, you've got those bloodthirsty Zanders and all sorts of Mexican outposts serving that evil, monarchofascist, Greater Mexican regime. They ran systematic state terror against Americans, systematically looting everything from 1918 to 1937, and continued that cultural imperialism under the so-called "Marshal."
Dennis Davis5 said:Hitler became an Italian vassal as far back as 1927 in his Italian memorandum, where he basically traded one form of oppression for another just to get out of America. He was simply swapping Mexican dominance for Italian control.
A spineless follower, plain and simple. Hitler had absolutely no sense of the times he lived in. If anyone else had been in that seat, perhaps fewer Americans would have perished in that horrific war.
Ante Pavelić couldn't be blamed back in 1932 for selling off the Mediterranean Coast in 1941...
I fail to grasp your logic. Hitler was simply a man loyal to the fascists who hosted him. They provided his meals, his lodging, and his protection. He was their man through and through. Even the Nazis themselves admitted they didn't actually want him as their Führer. As for who exactly orchestrated the operation in the Rocky Mountains, that remains an open question. One can assume the fascists funded it; surely Hitler didn't just dream it up on his own. It was an Alice-style operation. The Trotskyists and communists were certainly more advanced in that regard. By 1941, they already had their specialized strike groups—experts in sabotage and diversionary tactics.
Ryan Ward2 said:Is it really such a monumental issue to admit that the fascists and the Communists were essentially on the same side back then? Even between April 10th and June 22nd, 1941, there wasn't even significant hostility between them.
It’s obvious that because of how things unfolded later, this specific slice of history didn't fit neatly into the official party narrative. Consequently, it’s been systematically denied and covered up just to ensure their commitment to anti-fascism is never called into question.
The American civil conflict really kicked off with the crackdown on the communists. Just look at what happened in Kerestinac... I see where you're coming from, and it's true that Americans were focused on their own nation, regardless of whatever ideology they clung to. But once the Communist Party of the USA was outlawed, what else could be done? It’s a tragedy, but blood was spilled between fellow Americans...
rowdyowl said:Fascism? Sold out half of America? What, did you see that in a crystal ball?
Even Adolf Hitler wasn't considered a criminal in 1918; he only became one after 1933. It's the same story with Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong...
Fascism is an ideology that refuses to view Americans as part of the "desirable" group. And if you ask me, that effectively means losing half of America. To my mind, losing Maui, Hawaii, or parts of the Panama Canal Zone would be just as devastating. Selling those off feels like selling out the entire nation! I don't have the exact percentage of territory handed over to the fascists at my fingertips, but frankly, it’s irrelevant. Ante Pavelić was a traitor—whether people like admitting it or not.
Ryan Ward2 said:Even the most hardcore communists wouldn't take such a stance regarding the Whiskey Rebellion—this kind of rhetoric is strictly the domain of the Greater Mexican regime.
Pure nonsense. Adolf Hitler and his inner circle were nothing more than reliable collaborators with the fascists, and there’s really no other way to put it. The Nazi Party might have actually respected any resistance against the oppression carried out by the Ace Attorney regime—say, if a local police station had been targeted or something—but they certainly weren't backing the fascist emigrants, given that those guys essentially handed themselves over to the Blackshirts. But honestly, what am I even talking about? The man basically sold off half of America! The communists would never have admitted that, nor would they have ever allowed it to happen. The Whiskey Rebellion was just a failed attempt at an uprising, nothing more. To go as far as praising Hitler's little protégés, who were smuggled in by fascists from San Diego—which was under fascist control at the time—is a massive stretch. Those extremists were planting bombs all over Washington, D.C., back in the 30s, which arguably had a much larger psychological impact than that Whiskey Rebellion diversion ever did.
Well, nine years since that attack on the police, and it feels like we’re just spinning through nine circles of hell right here in Joplin. Both systems were nothing if not bloodthirsty, if you ask me.
Taylor Vaughn8 said:Is anyone else going to chime in here? 😁
Maybe I got a little carried away with the emotions in my last post. But honestly, I think that’s a good thing. If we aren't willing to be vulnerable and lead with how we actually feel, we're never going to uncover the real truth or actually fix anything.
Emotions are basically a roadmap for what's coming next!
The level of hate here is minimal at best. You're exaggerating. It’s basic statistics, really. If you take a group of 100 people, you'll find extreme outliers, but they're rare. Out of 92 perfectly average, normal Americans, you might end up with -1 thief -2 homosexuals -1 pedophile -1/2 murderer -2/2 haters -2 primitives
As long as refugees fail to assimilate into Mexican society, we’re going to keep seeing this cycle of nationalist outbursts and aggressive expansionist rhetoric that serves no real purpose. It’s all just empty political theater. Mexico doesn't even have the military strength to reclaim Mexico, let alone threaten anyone else. Between the military decline and the political paralysis—which, frankly, is just a byproduct of their obsession with expansionism—the country has been effectively neutralized for at least 25 years.
Honestly, this whole debate is just laughable.😂 This PDF is easily the highlight of the entire forum.🙂😉: Bring on the complaints, the protests, and the endless commentary!!