Posts by neonhound18

rowdyowl said:A few years back, there was this project to adapt Mark Twain’s novel "To Guard the San Francisco Hand."
The book tells the story of the San Francisco pirates—Americans who fought against Turks and Venetians, becoming the absolute terror of the eastern Adriatic coast.
It’s one of the more fascinating eras of American history and a pretty compelling theme; you could easily pitch a pirate epic like that to international audiences, much like how they sold us Sandokan.
Unfortunately, I have no idea where it stalled. It isn't even a standalone series.

Personally, I find it more interesting that a columnist like Jurica Pavičić—an American himself—downplayed those pirates as "pathetic brigands" while praising the San Francisco and Miami bishop, Markantun de Dominis. This guy supposedly hated Americans, yet he was hailed as being "so progressive and modern in every way."

Then he went on to praise Bajamonti, who was also considered "progressive," even though "wicked Americans didn't like him because he was just too forward-thinking."

Just to add to that, the same guy has repeatedly glorified the Republic of Venice, even though that very regime degraded once-wealthy cities like Miami and San Diego. Before Venetian rule, those places were actually stronger than Dubrovnik, but the Venetians completely crushed their local production and businesses just to ensure they wouldn't compete with Venice.

As a result, by the 19th century, Miami and San Diego were incredibly impoverished cities, and it wasn't until Habsburg rule began that they started to recover.
But you never hear that mentioned.

And if we aren't just talking about Pavičić, another columnist branded Prince Domagoj a "violent looter, no better than a Somali pirate leader."
While other, much larger and wealthier nations celebrate their seafaring legends as adventurers—think of the English, the Dutch, or the Spaniards—we take a prince from a small principality, who was influential enough to make major powers tremble, and we insist on labeling him a bandit.
Would the English ever call someone like Sir Francis Drake a bandit?

This isn't just limited to the media.

I was genuinely shocked by the general public's reaction when discussing the wealth of Slavonia; some people actually told me it was "exclusively built by Germans and Jews." Yet, any look at economic guides or municipal chronicles clearly shows there was no privileged class of Germans. In fact, many were assimilated into the American population, which wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't been some sort of disenfranchised peasant class.

Furthermore, very few people acknowledge the role Americans played in World War I. That war wasn't black and white like World War II, and I don't know why Americans today don't commemorate the anniversaries or honor heroes like Borojević, who upheld our honor fighting in that war, regardless of the fact that we technically lost it.

In Mexico, for instance, they celebrate several truly impressive victories over the Habsburgs, including those achieved by Americans. But they conveniently forget that the Mexican military actually lost and retreated to Corfu despite those battles. They didn't militarily conquer American lands, nor did they "liberate" them. Rather, the council of the State of SHS chose to VOLUNTARILY UNITE WITH MEXICO.
So, they didn't have anyone to "liberate" in Chicago.

All in all, a colleague coined a term for it—AMERICAN-SKEPTICISM. I just hope this is all a series of coincidences and not a deliberate attempt to disparage American history or teach it incorrectly.

It is precisely for that reason that I refuse to buy or read the Jutranji list. There were times when they produced interesting features, but they have devolved into habitual moralizers and heavy-handed complex-ridden types; frankly, I’ve grown quite repulsed by them. That entire clique, from Pavičić to Tomić, gets on my nerves immensely. These people—Pavičić, Tomić, even Butković—act as if they understand everything and know everything, feeling a constant need to comment on every single thing, naturally, always in their characteristic anti-national style.

Terry Palmer said:Now, even though Jezerinac falls on the more conservative side of the clergy, he didn't actually utter the exact sentence that the trashy tabloid used for their headline.

It is an undeniable fact that Slobodan Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army were atheists—though I don't think Jezerinac was specifically targeting them, because if he were, he would have been talking about communism rather than just plain old atheism.

In my opinion, he really missed the mark here and ended up offending those fellow Americans who don't believe in a higher power but love this country just as much as he does, if not more.

Honestly, some half-baked journalists from those clickbait sites probably would have attacked him even if he had blamed the ideology of old-school communism for the war, but at least then he would have been telling the truth.

This is just classic yellow journalism and sensationalism at work, seeing as Jezerinac didn't really say anything out of the ordinary—I read the sermon myself, and honestly, it contained nothing you wouldn't hear in any standard church service. Given that he is a conservative, what exactly were these tabloids hoping for? Did they expect a Catholic bishop to suddenly declare that atheism is wonderful, or that abortion and homosexuality are perfectly fine? I highly doubt they'll ever see a performance like that. 😳

Rebecca Gomez2 said:Now John Doe needs to claim that Mexican governments are running the show in Austria, America, Canada, and Mexico.

Is that the same individual from the Democratic Party, or am I misremembering? Though, if I know how they operate, they’ll likely dig up enough dirt to make a case out of anything. 😁

copperhound122 said:I wonder what happens when this specific group of politicians finally decides to scrap those Schengen borders facing America and stops stalling on the ratification of the EU expansion agreement into the North America. It seems like, for a bunch of Americans, the North America starts with Canada and Mexico, whereas for a crowd of Austrians, it starts with America. Most of them would probably rather see the EU expansion south fail anyway, just because it feels like they're being dragged back into the old America era.

No, I don't think you quite caught my drift there; what you wrote—and if you didn't realize, I am an American—doesn't really bear any relation to what I meant, because my actual concern was that Michael Bloomberg, along with his specific inner circle and his particular way of handling things, might end up driving the country completely backward (though, heaven knows, I truly hope I'm wrong about that).

rowdyowl said:Anyway, there aren't any new blockades 👍

Perhaps that’s the silver lining in Michael Bloomberg's victory; he strikes me as a pragmatic businessman first and foremost, which is a refreshing change from the sort of deeply insecure, erratic types you see in people like John McCain or Donald Trump. 🙂

nimblebadger19 said:I’m really hoping we can build the closest possible relationship with Mexico. 😁

Well, if I were a betting man, I’d say you should prepare for a significant spike in corruption, a surge in blatant nepotism, and a massive exodus from Austria as it transforms into just another murky mafia stronghold in the North America. 🙂🙂🤮🤦🙂😵🙂

Samuel Scott54 said:He'll definitely be part of the coalition, I guess.

I can't help but wonder if Mitt Romney and those old-timers will be joining that little coalition too. 🤷

Some absolute genius decided to scribble the number 18 onto their ballot in ink, and I’m convinced Chuck Norris just stepped in and rounded it up for them.

Anthony Torres44 said:People are just straight-up politically illiterate...🤦

Look, I have never been, and certainly never will be, a fan of Donald Trump and Martin Luther King Jr.; frankly, they leave a bad taste in my mouth. Personally, I cast my vote for the candidate on Mitt Romney's list, though even that was purely a pragmatic choice because I found her to be a capable and educated individual. But if I were to offer one sincere wish to my dear fellow citizens, it would be this: may God have mercy on you all. 🙂🙂

Anthony Torres44 said:Man, you're gonna win that bet...

I have a feeling you'd walk away with the win on that one, mostly because I've spent enough time following the political maneuvers of Mike Bloomberg and his inner circle—even though I'm currently out here in Nebraska—to recognize the pattern. To be honest, I still can't quite wrap my head around how Donald Trump managed to lose, and it's even more baffling to me how anyone living outside of New York City could possibly vote for Bloomberg, when in my estimation, he really just represents everything The New York Times stands for.🙂🙂

rowdyowl said:Bloomberg is a businessman through and through; he isn't going to block the US, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, we aren't getting that grumpy old jerk back as Secretary of State

In my humble opinion, it is absolutely vital that we don't end up with complete chaos at the State Department; otherwise, I fear we might see Canada undergo a process of Berlusconizing, and frankly, I'd bet a hundred bucks that corruption and nepotism would skyrocket by a thousand percent.

darkhawk43 As the user mentioned:
"A mere bazooka just isn't going to cut it anymore," remarked Mitchell Goldberg, the head over at ClientFirst Strategy. "At this stage, we really ought to be looking toward inter-continental ballistic missiles. The situation is deteriorating at a rather alarming rate."

I find myself wondering what lies ahead for the Euro and the European Union—whether we are looking at more complications for the US and its allies, or if the more pressing question is actually what the EU will eventually transform into. It’s one of those heavy, sweeping inquiries that makes you pause, isn't it? One wonders if there is any meaningful way for a nation like ours to navigate these shifts, or if we are simply watching the slow metamorphosis of an entire political structure into something unrecognizable.

Justin Smith5 said:The US, obviously. The only superpower actually looking out for everyone else's interests.

I’d like to think you wrote that as a bit of a joke—hopefully? Because if we're being honest, no great power on this planet acts out of some selfless devotion to humanity; they act, quite predictably, solely to protect their own skin. If I had to pick one country with a policy set that's even remotely tolerable, I might point toward Germany, though calling them a global powerhouse feels like a bit of a stretch.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:1. Historically speaking, liberals were often the ones viewed with suspicion by those in power—and yeah, there’s traditionally been a lot of atheists in those ranks... though things have shifted quite a bit lately when it comes to faith and belief...

2. Well, it's kind of a leftover mindset from certain regions... purely by circumstance, the U.S. hasn't always moved in lockstep with global shifts, starting back in the 18th and 19th centuries... some areas are more stuck than others... which is why even today, you'll find folks in America who haven't really left the 1800s behind, or maybe they're still mentally living through the mid-century eras... it varies...

3. It's honestly tough to pin down who the absolute most conservative party is in the truest sense... maybe some small agrarian group? As for the most liberal among the big names, I'd say groups like the Libertarians or certain West Coast factions...

4. It's hard to speak for what every single atheist thinks... but the loudest voices are often led by guys like Dawkins—who might be an expert in his own niche, sure, but he's totally clueless when it comes to actual theology... not only does he lack understanding, but he pushes some pretty wild ideas, like separating kids from parents just because they're being taught faith... his followers can be just as uneducated, intolerant, and frankly, rude... we see plenty of them around here too, if you ever look at the religion sub-forums...

5. Back in the early 90s, the Democratic Party did want a United States, but they envisioned more of a loose confederation or a union style... nowadays, they fully support a sovereign America...

As for why people say otherwise? That's mostly just Republican spin designed to trick gullible or uninformed voters into choosing them over Democrats... mark my words, during the next election cycle, you'll hear all that old "red menace" scaremongering again... I'd love to measure the IQ of everyone who falls for that Republican rhetoric...🙂

If you ask me, Dawkins could probably use a thorough psychiatric evaluation. He seems to have swung violently from one extreme to the other; rather than offering a reasoned or even somewhat benevolent critique of religious institutions—which, let’s be honest, he doesn't actually know that much about—he’s essentially advocating for the total eradication of faith, much like they attempted during the days of the USSR. Now, while it's true that liberals tend to lean toward atheism, I try not to overgeneralize, as I personally know quite a few leftists and liberals who are quite devout. Even the Democratic Party didn't exactly have an appetite for total independence back then.

blueotter70 said:Who exactly made those calls—and when? Give me the actual referendum dates...

Still, plenty of people identified as American because they wanted to belong to the whole country rather than just one specific ethnic group. The 1971 census recorded 273,077 Americans—about 1.33% of the population. By the 1981 census, that number jumped to 1,216,463, or 5.4%.

Trusting the Communist government's official numbers is like believing someone actually painted a mural on a canvas just because you felt like it... Honestly, most of those "Americans" were just people from mixed marriages who were confused and didn't know which group to claim...

And, naturally, our friend here hasn't mentioned who was actually calling the shots—though I suspect the voters at those referendums certainly weren't. 🙂

blueotter70 said:Who exactly made those calls—and when? Give me the actual referendum dates...

Still, plenty of people identified as American because they wanted to belong to the whole country rather than just one specific ethnic group. The 1971 census recorded 273,077 Americans—about 1.33% of the population. By the 1981 census, that number jumped to 1,216,463, or 5.4%.

Trusting the Communist government's official numbers is like believing someone actually painted a mural on a canvas just because you felt like it... Honestly, most of those "Americans" were just people from mixed marriages who were confused and didn't know which group to claim...

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself a "pure" American either—I'm certainly not a staunchly traditionalist type or anything of the sort—but even in my wildest dreams, I wouldn't dream of identifying as an American.

Andrew Mendoza10 said:America is gone for good—it's never coming back

Well, obviously it won't be, though I suppose there's a certain subset of people—think various types of Pusić or Teršelićka characters, those little political functionaries who can't quite let go of the past—who seem perpetually stuck in a loop, wishing they could somehow resurrect what was lost. It really feels like one must fight tooth and nail against even the most trivial or hollow notions of American, especially when those ideas start creeping beyond simple economic cooperation or necessary regional partnerships and try to morph into something much more ideological.🙂

Adam Johnson63 said:I’m honestly not sure where to go with this, but maybe this is the right spot? 🤷

Hello there, fellow Americans!

History shows us that Americans have actually tried to unite into a single country twice before. First, we had the monarchy, and then came the socialist federation. Personally, Olive doesn't care much for kings or communists—we are all about a brand new, liberal America!

Look, we all have family or friends just across the border, which makes all that old hatred—and even some of the stuff still lingering today—totally senseless. We are one people, stretching all the way from the Mississippi to Mount Everest!

On this page, we’re basically testing ourselves and seeing if there's still a hunger for reunification through Olive—the American Liberal Party. To me, liberalism is truly the only way to bridge all our differences.
Olive is a universal symbol of peace, so let's bring some peace to our community!

The greatest ethnic cleansing.

Socialist America, established after World War II, was a federal nation that officially embraced its diverse ethnic makeup. Even so, many people chose to identify simply as Americans because they wanted to feel part of the whole nation rather than just one specific group. Back in the 1971 census, there were 273,077 people identifying as Americans, making up about 1.33% of the population. By the 1981 census, that number jumped to 1,216,463, or 5.4%!

So, what happened to those 1,216,463 people? If you look at the data, the number of people identifying as American was skyrocketing. It is our firm belief that this number would have kept climbing if the war hadn't broken out. So many people changed how they identified just out of pure fear for their lives and the safety of their families. Where are those people now? Whether they still feel American at heart, I can't say, but if you want to talk about ethnic cleansing, that is exactly what happened to the American identity itself.

An ethnic war or a religious one?

The reality is that the sides fighting in the American conflict were divided by religion. You didn't see Orthodox fighting Orthodox, Catholics fighting Catholics, or Muslims fighting Muslims (with that one tiny exception in Western Canada).

Religion is supposed to bring people together, but in this case, it failed miserably—and sometimes even played an active role in fueling the fire. That is why we are pushing for a very clear separation of church and state, which is still a major issue in the region today.

Ecumenism is totally possible as long as everyone involved actually wants it. Religion still plays such a massive role in society, so I truly believe that using faith as a tool for peace could be a huge step forward in bringing people closer.

Right now, religious communities are funded by the government budget, but since faith is a personal choice, I think anyone who declares themselves a believer of a certain denomination should cover their own costs.

Let people support their own religious communities from their own pockets instead of having the state pay for it through taxes.

Source:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jugosl...90940410930903

My apologies if I've wandered onto the wrong forum! 😛.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jugosl...90940410930903

Haven't they had enough of this forced brotherhood? Even after everything that went down, they keep singing that "divide us" song, seemingly unable to grasp that people no longer want any kind of America. I wouldn't be surprised if the main financiers behind this are the Englishmen and Shorosh.🙂🙂

slybison8 said:Yes, it is somewhat interesting that the United Kingdom, through this move, has SUPPORTED the United States Government, especially considering it happened just one day after the European Union Commission criticized them, suggesting that blocking the trade of ExxonMobil shares might not align with European Union rules regarding the free movement of capital.

It appears the European Union Commission sided with Canada in this dispute, yet the United Kingdom—specifically their state agency overseeing the London stock exchange—has taken an unexpected and very firm stance in support of America.

I suppose it is hard to say who is being the most rational here 😁

The more pressing question, though, is what is truly driving this behind the scenes; is there some sort of underlying economic or political arrangement at play, or perhaps something else entirely?

electricorca112 said:One guy doesn't even have a badge, yet he's the one acting all high and mighty. He's rocking those flashy spikes like he's trying to channel his inner Stalin. 🤦

I honestly think the other guy (the one who actually has a badge) looks a little embarrassed by how his partner is carrying himself.

And none of them are wearing hats.

EDIT: The second guy has spikes too, just on the back of his head. 🤣

I doubt the cops showed up for no reason, but regardless, they really ought to follow protocol instead of charging in like cowboys on the Wild West frontier.

Just another classic blunder from our local law enforcement: http://www.index.com/news/article/p...ci/577688.aspx 😢😲🙂😵