Posts by ruggedpanther13

Honestly, I think they should just rename the association to something like THE MILKMAN or maybe just COW JUICE.

placidlynx36 said:What exactly defines the concept of a "salon leftist" in your eyes? It seems to be a label tossed around primarily to discredit anyone leaning toward a left-liberal ideology. How does this particular archetype differ from a true activist or any other political faction? Who would you point to, either here in the States or abroad, as the quintessential example of such a figure?

If you ask me, the true salon leftists are that whole crowd at gong led by Zelić. They’re basically just deeply entrenched bureaucrats who back leftist administrations and live off donations from people like us—and if that dries up, they turn to Soros.
I honestly think this sudden push for some preferential voting initiative is just a desperate move. You have to realize he got absolutely crushed by the University of California, so now he's trying to act like he's actually doing something.
Where on earth has he been all this time?
Probably sitting in some fancy lounge, sipping coffees that we all end up paying for, while debating "crucial" topics like gender ideology with his buddies.

Take a site like MUF.HR, for instance—it's a perfect example of salon leftists. We all chipped in about $33333 last year, and for that money, they sit there rambling about masturbation, smut, porn, feminism, and gender transitions...

Meanwhile, the workers over at Boeing, who are pulling in $667 a month, are essentially funding these endless debates about smut, feminism, and gender ideology. I highly doubt any of that actually matters to them in their daily lives.

Richard Wilson4 said:The issue isn't even about amnesty; it’s just how little people in this country actually care when crimes are committed against Americans.

I feel like I'm missing a lot of context here. I don't know the exact timeline of when everything went down. But, I suppose there might be some truth to the idea that veterans could have pushed back much harder back during the Bush and Clinton eras. From what I've gathered, Condoleezza Rice allegedly installed her own loyalists to lead various veteran organizations, which basically just kept the rank-and-file quiet. At least, that's the word on the street.
If Joe Biden hadn't made such a huge deal out of things like the Cyrillic script controversy, I honestly fear we wouldn't even be having this conversation today.

It always makes me think of how those veteran groups mostly just sat there quietly while the generals faced those first major court rulings, and nobody even bothered to show up at the Clinton-Jud residence to make a peep.

🤷

loneraven25 said:

Protocol Summary

This year marks the 23rd anniversary of the massacre involving 12 American police officers,
The ceremony began with wreaths being laid by representatives from the President’s office, US Congress, the US Cabinet, the FBI, and various other institutions,
all while a procession of veterans marched from the entrance toward the heart of the Small town in the Midwest.

Back in the early 90s, about 50 individuals identified as participants
in that massacre of American police officers were sentenced to 20 years each,
but they were ultimately covered by an amnesty, and the justice system just dropped the prosecutions entirely.
Only John Doe was convicted two years ago, receiving a 3.5-year sentence,
specifically because his role as a "militia man" involved the capture and abuse of two officers.
Yet, the perpetrators of that massacre remain protected by amnesty,
even though the Geneva Convention is supposed to protect prisoners and the wounded.

So, I have to wonder, is Robert McNamara justified in his claim
that he intends to take matters into his own hands and start hunting down those criminals himself?

I honestly don't get how they could be granted amnesty if they committed war crimes that aren't even eligible for it. 😕

Kenneth Perez15 said:This all went down on May 2nd. 1991. It’s been twenty-three years already—time really flies when you aren't paying attention. In the meantime, the Republican Party has basically been running the show. Seventeen years. That's it. Just seventeen years down the road....not even a full... nine So, we’re talking about a crime that happened ages ago, and yet you’re bringing up two and a half Democrats who only started running things twenty years after the fact? Seriously? Sure, the Democratic Party could have stepped up back then—maybe—but looking at how the judges and the general public reacted when there was an attempt to update judicial cooperation laws to actually protect American citizens, it would’ve just been another suicidal move.

Yeah? We don't answer to any political parties—nobody runs us. Honestly, what a joke. They’re meeting with the Republican Party right before the local elections, they’re marching shoulder-to-shoulder with Republicans in the second column during the Warsaw memorial, and they’ve stayed suspiciously quiet about the whole mess where the Republicans dissolved the city council—and now, here we go again, marching right alongside them. Why all this denial? Are they just doing this for their own peace of mind? For once, I wish they'd just say it clearly and loudly. We’re Republicans—we don't do shame. And that’s basically it. Done.

It’s honestly surreal—it feels like this whole situation is just hanging in mid-air, completely disconnected from reality. You’ve got the police out of nowhere cracking skulls, and now they're pushing to bring back that Cyrillic script in a city that serves as a massive symbol for the movement. If I hadn't been following the news since yesterday, I wouldn't have had any clue that people were actually smashing windows at federal buildings, or that all the legal requirements to implement that script—based on laws over a decade old and the city charter from 2009—had actually been met. It's wild.

I can't believe I actually have to address this—it’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone involved is too busy arguing about the scenery to notice the tracks are missing. Honestly, if you look at the sheer level of incompetence being displayed here, it's almost impressive in its consistency. It’s one thing to be wrong, but to be confidently, loudly, and repeatedly incorrect while acting like you've got some kind of moral high ground? That’s a different kind of talent altogether. Just my two cents, though. Kenneth Perez15 says:
If I had the chance, I’d ask every single American— Seriously though, people—what is it that you actually want?

Operation Dove of Warsaw was ready to go.
Franjo Harmon backed down the second he saw the projected casualty counts for the US Armed Forces. We’re talking about potentially over a thousand dead—he wasn't about to gamble with that kind of loss.
Back then, the whole strategy was centered around peaceful reintegration—which naturally meant we had to follow through with an amnesty law.

First off, I want to lay out the actual facts here. The convicts were released and the proceedings were halted—all strictly according to the general amnesty laws passed back in 1996. Now, twenty-three years after the crimes occurred, the apologists for the current ruling party are spinning this tragedy, manipulating the narrative, leaving out key details, and trying to force this conclusion that someone else—the Democrats, naturally—is either responsible for the lack of prosecution and the release of murderers, or that they themselves are the criminals.

The FT made those moves because he was a wise statesman. If he had lived longer, there wouldn't be some cheap monument standing there today, and no pardoned terrorist would have ever dared to even think about putting one up.
Reintegration kicked off in '98, Frank passed away in '99, Stjepan Mason took over, and that’s pretty much how the whole thing wrapped up.

And for the record, those police officers in that Small town in the Midwest didn't just throw their lives away for nothing. After that incident, a lot of things finally became clear, and America started preparing for war as much as it possibly could.

That small rural town is basically a textbook example of what people call "creeping aggression," which is exactly what America was facing back in 1991. If you look at the playbook they used—it started with local insurgencies, followed by an intervention from the Department of Justice, then the US Army swoops in under the guise of "preventing unrest," and finally, they just stay put in the seized territory.
They managed to grab about 25% of the country that way, and honestly, things were going pretty smoothly for them right up until the Battle for the city.

The officers who were taken prisoner were later subjected to absolutely horrific torture and abuse until they died.

To make matters worse, there’s actually a monument dedicated to paramilitaries in that small rural town today. It was put up during Stjepan Mason's administration.

Kenneth Perez15 said:We really have to ask ourselves how many more years we’re expected to sit through these exhausting retellings of what happened in that Small town in the Midwest—especially when you consider the fact that the killers are still walking free thanks to the Amnesty Law.
If Robert McNamara actually decides to take some kind of action, he’ll have my full support.
And honestly, when I see an article in the Los Angeles Times claiming that members of the El Paso Defense Command American were once again marching in formation alongside the leader of the very party that pushed through the Amnesty Law, it just makes me sick to my stomach—both of them, if that’s even possible.

If I had the chance, I’d probably pull every single American aside and ask them— Honestly, I have to ask... what is it that you people actually want?

The whole El Paso Dove operation was ready to go.
I guess if you look at the actual numbers, it becomes pretty clear that Franjo Harmon backed down once he saw the projected casualties for the US Armed Forces. We're talking about the potential loss of over a thousand soldiers. It was just too high a price to pay.
Back then, the whole strategy was focused on peaceful reintegration, which naturally meant we had to lean heavily on the Amnesty Law.

People have lost count of how many times they’ve criticized Franjo Harmon for lacking tact. You always hear the same argument—that he should have been more diplomatic, or that he could have smoothed things over through quiet negotiation instead of letting things escalate into a conflict. I guess there's always that perspective that a bit more subtlety might have avoided the friction we saw.
Now that we’ve finally managed to bring the Midwest back into the fold without any major bloodshed, people have started complaining, asking why there wasn't more conflict in the first place. It's funny how that works, isn't it?

If the Financial Times had been the one calling for an attack, people would probably be tearing into them today, criticizing them for not just settling everything through peaceful diplomacy instead.

The OP is leaning hard into that dark, atmospheric Norwegian black metal vibe.
That’s pretty much the whole story.
I reckon I’ll probably stop spinning this stuff once I settle down with a serious girlfriend and finally get my career on track. 😁

I see we're talking about Metallica here. And that whole dark, heavy metal scene they come from. 😁 What's the issue? Is it because of Stormcrow? 😁
I used to listen to that stuff all the time back in my college days, before I finally grew out of it.

Honestly, I’d probably suggest moving away from the Stormcrow and World of Warcraft vibes. 😁

Go for more Elvis Presley instead.

Anyway, take it easy everyone, catch you later. 🙂

Gregory Peterson2 said:First, you need to explain to me why you think the "sanctity" of unprotected sex is the only righteous way to make babies, while things like IVF—whether it's donor sperm used in a surrogate or an artificial womb—are somehow wrong.

Cloning isn't really about family or procreation; it's a matter of legal regulation to ensure we don't end up with a dystopian underclass of worker-clones, like you see in those sci-fi movies. Plus, we have to consider the massive benefits regarding genetic diseases and mutations.
Strictly speaking, I don't have anything against cloning itself.

And the Germans were great at regulating things with their laws, too. From engineering the "Aryan race" to the whole eugenics movement targeting the disabled.
What, are you one of those Norwegian black metal fans? Into Black Sabbath? 😉

Gregory Peterson2 said:The family wasn't the fundamental unit of society. What are you even on about?
In tribal societies, they actually had communal wet nurses who would nurse all the children in the group. It's similar to how lion prides operate. Obviously, biology dictates that a mother and father produce a child—it's not like a dad goes out and finds a sheep! But there was no monogamy, no "family" as a structured unit, and certainly no scenario where mom, dad, and the kids lived in a suburban house while Mom flipped pancakes for breakfast.

I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉

Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

That’s actually my point. This brand of liberalism is steering us toward some pretty dark, national-socialist style solutions. You’re actually, maybe without even realizing it, hovering right on the edge of that. Of course, your goal isn't building some perfect American nation; your goal is total individual freedom, completely stripped of any boundaries, obligations, or constraints.
The most significant milestone in the life of two adults is bringing children into this world and actually raising them. That’s what we call motherhood and fatherhood—not just "manufacturing" people. Mass-producing humans was a concept pushed by Nazis and liberal technocrats, and I think liberals are dangerously close to drifting that way too. I really hope you guys don't cross that line. Mostly, if only for your own sake.

Let me flesh this out a bit so it’s not just abstract theory.

The issue of disability:

Modern tech makes it easy to screen for disabilities, and if a condition is found, the pregnancy is often terminated. A buddy of mine who works at a hospital told me about a woman who chose an abortion simply because she found out her child would have a malformed arm. So, that poor kid—who would have lived with a disability—wasn't even born; they were eliminated before birth just because of it. The Nazis eliminated them after birth. The underlying justifications are essentially the same.

The issue of "baby factories":

A version of the Lebensborn program is resurfacing in the United Kingdom. The main drivers here are these liberal associations, excitedly announcing to the world that we'll have the first artificial womb within a few years.
It’s a tiny leap from an artificial womb to actual baby factories.

Your tendency to relativize everything is exactly what leads to the questions you're asking.

First off, you have to realize that the Church isn't really talking to you—it's talking to the faithful. You're being invited to reconsider your views.
As for government institutions, they gave up on promoting the traditional family ages ago, so you don't have to worry about that. The Church will do its own thing, and the people who follow it will follow. That doesn't impose anything on you whatsoever.

It’s pretty wild how the Americans and Britons actually decided to just let him slip away to the USA. There’s been talk that they could have easily nabbed him during the raids in Geneva, but instead, they just let him walk...
There are just so many unanswered questions here. Personally, I suspect their determination to arrest him kind of evaporated once they realized the Communists weren't any better once they actually grabbed hold of power.
On another note, the whole situation with the Black Legion is equally fascinating. It was more or less a similar story. They managed to break through at Bleiburg and surrendered to the Americans, then successfully made their way down to South America. Boban was right there at Bleiburg, and after that, he basically vanished. He’s probably buried somewhere in Argentina.

quietdrifter3 said:America is my true home, but right now it feels like it's being occupied by nationalists. I can't call this current version of the US my homeland because it was built on a foundation of lies, theft, and outright corruption... it was all just a setup by Franjo Harmon to benefit himself and his circle of elites, stripping everything away from the people, who seem too misguided and fundamentally dishonest to stop it. They cheat the very country they claim to love, fueled by deep-seated hatred, and most Americans are just hypocritical believers who have handed themselves over to darkness, leaving them to face certain ruin from God, though they refuse to see it... they pray to God, but their prayers go unanswered because they're praying for all the wrong things... a nation like this simply can't be my home. I lost it back in '91, when the old republic was still my home...

That's the way to do it. Just let it all out; it'll probably help take the edge off the anger. Just try not to throw your lunch across the room while you're at it. 😉

Chloe Sullivan88 said:The America of the nineties definitely wasn't my home.
As for America today? There’s just too much negativity. I find myself drifting further and further away from this country and its people, honestly.
Thankfully, I’m moving abroad again for good, and I don't see any chance of ever coming back.
To be fair, the US isn't my only home anyway. ☕

That’s a pretty tough thing to hear, though I suppose it's an honest take.
But you might want to ask yourself: is the situation in those countries you feel so connected to actually as bad as you think, or would their entire propaganda machine fall apart if the citizens started asking real questions?
I mean, I suspect you might be living under a bit of an illusion.

Richard Wilson4 said:Anyone else remember the era between 2000 and 2011?

Did you guys actually follow our news back then? All those political statements and the massive legal headaches our country had to deal with—not just the endless grind of negotiating with the European Union, but also the huge mess with the International Criminal Court and those border disputes with neighbors, especially Canada?

I remember that whole stretch pretty clearly. Honestly, what sticks out more is how the people in power today acted back then, and even more so how the media they rely on now used to treat them.

I recall the entire border dispute with Canada being treated like some big joke. People were basically pushing for us to just split the difference on the line and acting like "who cares, anyway."

And I remember everyone questioning why we were even footing the bill for defense costs for generals at the International Criminal Court. They even mocked the idea of the Republic of America trying to be a "friend of the court."

The phrase "because the European Union demands it" was basically gospel. You couldn't argue with it. Whether it was making concessions to the Republic of Mexico or getting rid of ZERP, or just blindly following every single demand from the lowest-level officials in The Hague or Brussels, that phrase basically meant "this is happening, end of story."
The media would just label anyone who dared to ask questions as some kind of "reactionary, hillbilly, right-winger."

Then, suddenly, it’s 2013.
I’m not even going to get into the whole Lex Perković thing. That's not really the point. What surprises me is how the media and politicians have suddenly started throwing around these phrases I rarely heard before—stuff like SUVERENITE, PATRIOTISM, or even PROTECTING NATIONAL INTERESTS 😲

Wow. Just, wow...

"Because the European Union demands it" isn't the golden rule anymore. Now we're actually clashing with the EC, and the minister is out there thundering about "equality" for our country.

So, here’s the question: For those thirteen years, were we just pretending we’d hand over everything, only to suddenly start acting like a "real state" once we joined? Or is this all just a spin job—using fairy tales about "sovereignty" to hide decisions that just happen to bother certain people for the first time?

How is this going to affect American policy and public opinion? Especially since we used to justify everything with Mexico by saying, "Oh, well, the European Union wants it." How is that policy going to work now that "PROTECTING NATIONAL INTERESTS" isn't just some dark slogan from the 90s when we were "isolated."

Can someone a bit smarter than me explain these weird contradictions? 😁

The Party is an anomaly in its own right, so this kind of behavior isn't exactly out of character for them.
Here's an example.
In every single election they’ve ever entered, the Party has consistently faced total disaster.
Yet, despite that, the Party ruled for nearly half a century, and some of its structures still hold sway today.
Even though their "progressive" predictions from '45—about states collapsing, power structures dissolving, and the disappearance of churches and religion—turned out to be complete failures, they still keep making "progressive" predictions about the future. The fact that they've been wrong time and again doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

The Party itself is quite illogical and an anomaly, because there was never really any genuine communist potential within our people, yet the Party still managed to rule.

Daniel Palmer22 said:Well, it actually happened—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have formed a coalition in Venice. Sure, you see weird alliances like this in some tiny rural towns, but this is the first time we've seen it happen in a major city.
The Summer Olympics are kicking off, and the political "actors" finally dropped the act. United by a single (and already paid-for) interest—turning the Manhattan skyline into a sea of vacation rentals under Aaron Frenkel’s management—and with plenty of backing from Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, they hammered out a deal last night. As of this morning, the coalition is official: Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, and the Labor Party. This unnatural freak show managed to elect a City Council president, which clears the way to start discussions on the Pebble Beach development project—basically removing the final hurdle standing in front of the bulldozers.
During the campaign, the Republicans were screaming that "a vote for Labor is a vote for the Democrats," scaring people with posters of communist zombies, but it turns out a vote for the GOP is also a vote for the Democrats. And vice versa. All those campaign slogans, promises, and the supposed opposition to the Liberal mayor just vanished into a black hole the second the phones started ringing and the envelopes full of cash arrived.
Political ideology clearly doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. Real debate and actual conflict of opinion just get buried under a mountain of cash. It's all just "everyone gets a piece of the pie."

So, a question for the Republicans, the Democrats, and their fanboys: how does it feel to watch your leaders embrace "brotherhood and unity" with the very people they claim to hate?

Well, the Republican Party was founded by one faction of the Communist Party, while the other faction stayed to form the Democratic Party.
The Republicans eventually transformed into a decent Christian Democratic party following the war and merging with the diaspora, whereas the Democrats are still searching for an identity today. Social democrats aren't quite what they claim to be, if you ask me. They aren't even patriots, which makes them perfectly suited to embracing all sorts of foreign ideas.
On a local level, though, those "old buddies" can function together quite smoothly, although it isn't the same everywhere. For instance, in my neck of the woods, I doubt the Republicans would ever go into business with The Party. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

Benjamin Reyes52 said:This is getting out of hand. Seriously. It’s just one thing after another—generational shifts, "historic opportunities," constant brainwashing coming at us from every single angle. The news networks have lost their minds, and the papers are in a total state of delirium. Even local towns are gearing up for festivals and celebrations to push this agenda. I am beyond tired of this relentless pressure to join the club; I honestly can't wait for this whole ordeal to be over. I'm completely fed up with these people obsessed with forcing the US integration on everyone.

ENOUGH WITH THE TERROR🙂

In my hometown (Savannah), which has basically bowed its head to every leader that came along (back in 1927 they put up a statue of Tomislav Karađorđević on the main Boardwalk, then in 1941 they tore it down to erect a statue of Ante Pavelić, then in '45 they knocked that down and renamed the square after National Heroes, even naming the main street after Brozov's nickname), yesterday was supposed to be this big, dignified affair.
But, honestly, the whole thing went down without the people. The square was more than half empty, and at midnight we were woken up by fireworks that, from what I heard, maybe a hundred people actually watched.

Welcome to Europe!

As far as I'm concerned, joining the union might actually do us some good because we'll probably steal less, and it'll force us to make some much-needed structural changes.

We'll end up in the second tier, but I guess that's just our fate. Hebga, it is what it is and there isn't much we can do about it. Better the second league than the tenth.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Since you brought up that specific field, let me be clear: we don't hold that position just because we're looking for a win. It’s actually based on some pretty bad experiences with these kinds of arguments. To be blunt, we haven't had a situation in our political discussions where someone tried to use psychiatric diagnoses of homosexuality as a way to label people as "normal." We simply have no interest in debates where one side gets branded as pathological. That path honestly leads nowhere except to flame wars, trolling, and straight-up insults. The mod team has, unfortunately, seen far too much of that to fall for it.

I've left it there for you. And like I mentioned before, maybe that kind of talk would fly on a different subforum, but here in Politics, it doesn't.

Go ahead and ask the owner of this PUBLIC forum.

If you posted about physical nearsightedness in Politics, it would get wiped too, since we aren't a medical forum.

Thanks for the well wishes.

In that case, my colleague can just move over there without any trouble.

The simple truth is, you aren't really doing your job properly.
Because at the exact same time you claim:
"We simply have no interest in debates where one side gets branded as pathological."
you're letting any random user call anyone they want a homophobe.
And in medicine, a phobia is classified as a psychological disorder in the DSM-5.

So, it's completely wrong to say you don't allow users to label certain conditions, thoughts, or inclinations as pathological.
What's true is that you shut down moderates when homosexuals call it a disorder, yet you promote the same behavior from anarcho-liberals, because you never actually step in when someone gets labeled a homophobe.

😳

I’m posting this because I want to know why the marriage referendum thread was shut down spontaneously, without any actual arguments being presented.

The topic itself is incredibly relevant and very much alive right now.

When the thread was closed, the moderator, The Edge, basically insulted everyone on the forum who believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman by labeling us all "homophobes."

To me, there’s a hint of religious intolerance in that behavior, since he indirectly branded anyone who practices Christianity or Islam—including those who identify as Catholic or Muslim—as homophobic.

He also violated Article 4 of the Politics subforum’s General Rules of Conduct by insulting people based on their religious beliefs. He failed the principles of tolerance and fairness, essentially deciding on his own to ban discussion while simultaneously labeling dissenters as "homophobes."

I suspect this move might have been driven by his frustration over the historic success of the "Defend Family Values" initiative, but his personal dissatisfaction and disagreement shouldn't give anyone the right to stifle public debate or resort to insults.

So, here is what I’m proposing:
- That the aforementioned topic be reopened,
- And that this specific moderator, given his inability to moderate impartially and with a "cool head," be reassigned to a different topic.

I’m hoping for a positive resolution to this complaint.
If this goes unaddressed, I reserve the right to take further necessary steps and escalate this to the appropriate authorities.

Respectfully,

ruggedpanther13.