Posts by Susan Price30

Timothy Castillo6 said:The people are starving, barely even able to afford basic clothes, while Josip Broz Marshall is cruising around in a black Rolls-Royce, looking all sharp in a white Brion Department suit and a crisp fedora.


I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of idiots are still peddling this nonsense!!!??? 🤮

Don't you realize where they actually recruited those former communists from in the old US?

Back then, most of them were just bottom-feeders. You don't exactly see "urban elites" mass-recruiting themselves into resistance movement ranks—they usually just robbed them or kicked them out, right?

The same goes for intellectuals, artists, the wealthy, clergy, and so on.

That is the "cultural and spiritual legacy" we have to deal with... and honestly, carrying around that kind of baggage isn't easy, I guess.

neonhound18 said:The real issue is that this group—I tend to refer to them as the Kozarac bourgeoisie—has become far too comfortable acting exactly as they did back during the America days, carrying those old habits straight into our independent nation (and honestly, the same applies to places like Canada), operating under the delusion that the state belongs to them and that they alone hold the right to dictate its future from behind the scenes. They seem to have completely forgotten that socialism is essentially dead and buried, that we don't have those endless, bottomless credit lines we used to enjoy back in the America era, and that in any functioning, healthy country, politics is supposed to serve the economy and the people, rather than the other way around. 🙂

I suppose, but that’s exactly why some places label themselves as "transitioning nations." It's all just a process—something that takes time to play out.

neonhound18 said:Sure, take it to court, but we'd be facing those old-school "people's courts," the kind where their ancestors used to "judge the enemies of the state," and honestly, you'd love to see how much those old-guard communists would whine if the tables were turned. 😉

But then they'd just be no better than the people they're fighting. 😁

Charles Lopez3 said:absolute devils.
not one single one of them even mentions the Pope 😁

Tighten those knots up, man.☕ It’s all just nonsense, really—just more of the same, if you want to put it in a haiku.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, there’s no point in sweeping this under the rug—that’s exactly where the rot sets in. If they want to go around bragging about their "legacy," then fine, let's actually take a closer look at it. It’s almost funny, isn't it? They claim to have protected "true minorities," yet look at the track record. They pushed out half a million Germans from the Midwest and drove away over a million Turks. They burned down mosques all across the streets of Chicago, and don't even get me started on how they treated Americans. Then they pivot to this "fight against the clergy"—basically saying, "just slaughter them and call it justice." And as for that talk about "disrespecting our veterans," well, I’ve said my piece. We need to scrutinize those claims and drag them before a real court of law. Crimes like those don't just expire with time.

Should we just ask the U.S. Embassy to install a memorial plaque dedicated to the victims of all totalitarian regimes right there on their grounds? It’s a bit like what Ambassador Musomeli did back in Canada. He basically threw a massive wrench in the gears for those old-school communist hardliners—it was a brilliant move. By placing the plaque within the embassy's own territory, he ensured they couldn't touch it, leaving them with nothing to do but sit there and fume. 😁)

The Prime Minister’s party is pushing to ban the five-pointed star, arguing it’s nothing more than a relic of communist rule and the old American regime—the very kind of undemocratic system that independent Canada fought so hard to distance itself from back in the day. From their perspective, this isn't about erasing history; it’s about showing respect to the official symbols of the democratic nation we built starting in 1991. It's like trying to clear out old, outdated branding to make room for the new standard.

Well, excuse me, I had no idea these animals had risen from the dead to start up their old games again.
🙏

If that's the case, then you're right; they all belong in court. Let them tell their stories there to whoever wants to listen.
😁

Brenda Cook4 said:

=Grazia;49587247

Everyone else seems to think the past should just stay buried in the rearview mirror. They say we need to look ahead, move forward, and stop obsessing over what happened decades ago...

But I don't see it that way at all. We shouldn't let that history rest in peace—not when it clearly hasn't found any peace yet. We need to drag it all out into the light of day so we can take a hard, honest look at what actually went down. We need to identify the culprits, figure out how many were involved, and pinpoint exactly who was working to tear the fabric of this nation apart versus those who stood up for what was right. You can't just sweep the villains under the rug. I refuse to look past it. It’s not just me feeling this way; others feel it too, even if they aren't speaking up.

Most of those people from the old criminal regime are either long gone or one foot in the grave anyway.🤷

Maybe the only thing worth doing is finally declaring that disgusting Josip Broz Marshall and his self-appointed 'marshal' title a criminal, much like what they did to their former dictator in Romania. That would actually be something.😁

America needs to reclaim the same spirit that built the AFL-CIO

Who actually buys into those loser stories?

Well, losers, I guess that's who.😁 (And some nagging old lady, which is probably whoever wrote that quote—just a bitter soul.)

Everyone else knows the past belongs in the past. We move forward, we progress, we don't drive in reverse...

Link

That’s because San Francisco was never quite the urban center that Washington, D.C. was, nor did it possess that level of established city culture.

San Francisco was just a small coastal town, nothing more. Despite its charms and its flaws—like that insular, small-town mentality that still lingers today, masked by an arrogance that says, "nobody has what we have"—it simply couldn't absorb newcomers because it lacked the infrastructure. Even when the government essentially forced rapid urbanization by building entire neighborhoods overnight, it wasn't enough. People were moving from rural life—where they often lived without basic utilities and kept livestock right in the house—directly into city apartments.

You can't expect people to abandon lifelong habits overnight. Until fairly recently—I heard an instance of this just ten years ago—it wasn't uncommon to see livestock being processed right on the street or vegetable gardens growing in apartment courtyards. The city underwent a massive cultural shift toward rural sensibilities during the nineties due to external pressures. It will eventually balance itself out. It takes a generation or two. At its core, the city is a melting pot; it absorbs outside influences, filters them, keeps the good parts, and digests or rejects the rest.

I say let's bring in another half million Chinese people, Malay people, or selected groups from South America. It might be just what San Francisco needs to refresh its bloodline. 😁😁😁
__________________

Is the commentary above just some crude, malicious trolling, or am I right in thinking it borders on hate speech? Maybe I'm just being subjective here. 😳😁

Is this kind of behavior grounds for a ban, or is it the usual scenario: the innocent bystanders get punished by having the thread closed, while the "problematic forum user"—which is his standard style anyway—just talks to himself, as if he doesn't care?

Thanks for listening.

silentridge3 said:I’m pointing to a highly active feminist troll who just trashes any topic she touches—she even showed up right here—Ginger. She dropped these two posts yesterday evening; our moderator Chuck saw them (he posted right after her) and didn't say a word:

....

Meanwhile, you were clearly seen by everyone commenting on this fake propaganda—basically hateful, anti-woman rhetoric on this site—and you actually wrote (on that thread once it was merged) that you have no intention of stopping.

False quotes, fake statistics that lack proof, and when anyone asks for actual data or solid arguments, the response is just "Google it if you care" or "It's not my job to prove anything."

Isn't that the definition of trolling? Or constantly reopening the same inflammatory threads where "innocent" people get caught in the crossfire while the supposed "source of the problem" remains untouched?

(Though, whether you're doing this intentionally to provoke or if you genuinely believe what you write, it seems that to you, legitimate women's protests are actually discrimination against men, based on everything you've written about it.)

So, there's the real issue: how do we protect other users from this, or where exactly do we draw the line for "freedom of speech" regarding this kind of behavior from users in a public space?

stormyraven14 said:Even if we start an identical debate about two different types of discrimination (or at least they are perceived differently), the topic of male discrimination will attract a different crowd—say, divorced fathers—compared to discussions on female discrimination, like pregnant employees or job seekers. Therefore, the debate won't be the same in tone or content. Forcing "one type" of discrimination into the other during discussions should simply be called what it is: trolling. Like when someone tries to push their own brand of pathos onto a discussion about safe houses, or when anti-feminists jump into a "male-centric" topic just to bash efforts by decent guys trying to be good fathers despite the mental toll.
Find a moderator who knows how to handle this instead of being condescending toward both sides.
By merging them like this, you've killed any chance for either group to vent or find actual advice.

And how exactly do you know that?😉

Because... they already vented (meaning the thread author lost ground by constantly opening the exact same topics on the Politics board). Constantly.

He (Chuck) didn't do anything wrong; he seemingly made a diplomatic move to keep all parties satisfied and then left room for dialogue (just look at the combined thread title and the context).

To claim that discriminating against men consists of women's advocacy groups protesting for women's rights in Washington, D.C. is such an absurd idea, I don't even know where to begin.😉 A legitimate protest for a legitimate cause isn't discrimination against anyone else. Or is it? On the surface, that's what the author claims.

Gregory Turner71 said:Religion isn't some sacred cow here, nor does it get any special protection,

When you say "special protection," do you mean being treated like a "sacred cow" in some niche sub-forum? Or do you mean providing basic respect through tolerance and mutual consideration—the kind of openness needed for people to coexist peacefully on a religious sub-forum?🤣 In an ideal world, which of those two would anyone actually want?

... yet you keep chanting these same old, meaningless slogans for another ten or fifty years. Who cares.

Do you actually possess these qualities—openness, respect, or basic tolerance—toward those different from yourself, specifically religious individuals? Please, just answer that. Even if it's only to yourself rather than publicly. If you don't, then are you even fit to moderate anything in a mainstream public medium, especially a platform as sensitive as this one? That seems to be the crux of everything. It feels like everything always circles back to these same recurring themes...

bluemason3 said:this heated debate

are acceptable

It is, though perhaps Steven Clark isn't referring to that, but rather this:

- if this is considered the "general message" or the "standard tone" of the subforum, is such behavior actually okay?

- if the moderator's stance is distinctly negative toward all established religions in America (meaning we can assume there is no neutral or open perspective from the start)—is that still acceptable?

- and thirdly; how can someone who is overtly anti-theist or active in anti-religion organizations in the US be in charge of a subforum dedicated to theistic questions?

These have always been the same eternal, unanswered questions that Steven Clark might be circling back to. Last year, there was a complaint that this mod indirectly insulted or provoked believers regarding the "Merry Christmas" topic on the Religion subforum, 🙂when no one else was even doing or saying anything similar except for the person for whom the thread actually had a purpose.

I suppose you still find this kind of thing OK—since you were a moderator yourself, you probably know how it works and where the lines are drawn. But imagine if, about ten years ago at the very beginning of this site, they had appointed a moderator to this subforum who held an openly negative or dismissive attitude toward the very subject matter the forum exists to discuss 😁. Wouldn't that seem completely illogical to everyone? Especially since things were different over a decade ago; it's not the same now, nor are the active users the same (mostly, anyway). Even the administration isn't what it used to be. We should be moving forward, not backward into reverse...

And perhaps even more pathetic is that people like that lie to the owner (who was present back then and handled it) and lie to the local government agency admins by claiming, "We asked the believers if they wanted to moderate this religious subforum, but nobody 'accepted the offer' or wanted to 'take on the job'"—never ever lol. Not a single soul [it's been exactly ten years lol]. It seems like nothing more than a blatant lie and a false excuse.

And all this happens while this one user (who identifies as a Vukovar resident and speaks in the plural—as if he represents everyone from there) keeps attacking Americans and especially Washington, D.C. on this exact thread, all while "defending" Mexicans. He’s even pushing for things like bringing back old borders and territories...

And why did he ask to shut the thread down? Just because someone ran out of things to say and someone else hit them with a counter-argument?

I'm talking about the whole Midwest region and the surrounding areas.

At least with Mexicans, we know where we stand.

Quote:
Who's even bothering you? Like the Italians say, just stay busy and keep grinding.

Well, we are working, but we're sick and tired of sending everything we earn straight to the damn big city.

We're looking into other options too, don't you worry.

Hey there

Because of this?

Quote:

Thanks, but honestly, just let us be. The less politics involved, the better... Exactly. This thread is more than ready to be locked. Moderators, please lock it.

You're right, I guess. Apparently, certain people get a monopoly on this topic—or any topic involving a political advisor—and your "job" is just to cater to the whims of one or two random users who haven't even contributed much to the discussion, while the rest of the community follows the actual forum rules. All on this same thread, right?

Yeah, you must be right if that's how it works... great.

Charles Fox10 said:My moderator's post regarding why I closed this thread still stands.

Try to find a different way to approach this without resorting to labels..

Way to go, Chuck. You really nailed it.🤣

The only real issue seems to be... It isn't forbidden. On Politics, you're allowed to "tag" public figures; the only thing that actually breaks the rules is tagging other users or forum members.

This topic has been debated endlessly on FEMA. The last time Edge called some bishop a "fool"—or used any other label for American politicians and public figures—the conclusion was always the same: there's no apology coming, and nobody's going to defend it.

What are you even doing here? Only God knows, I suppose...

Thanks, but I'm locking this one down.

Why? 🤷

Did someone start an argument in the thread?

Was anyone being insulted, or did the board just get flooded with reports until everything turned red?

Clearly not, because based on what the other moderator did, they moved the thread from the main forum over to Political Advisor just so they could lock it a day later without saying a word.

It feels like they just move threads under the guise of "moderation duties" all the time, almost like they're doing it specifically to shut things down for some reason...

Honestly, it's just pure stupidity...

Elizabeth Davis said:I'm with Hannah Thomas18 on this—I don't see any reason to move the thread. I don't post constantly, but I'd much rather discuss this here on ZK than over in Politics. ZK is basically a melting pot for everything anyway; if you moved half these topics to other subforums, there wouldn't be much left worth reading.

Wait, didn't the mods just recently post on PZK saying there was already an old, standing rule against discussing politics on ZK? That was back when they were setting up some of the newer guidelines, right?😉

Maybe that's why...

Sam Green73 said:In this specific instance, my colleague was actually laying out a reasoned argument.

There’s no way he’d be getting a red card for an approach like that.

Actually, no.

If someone disagrees with the Bishop (or anyone else who makes their views public), the criticism should be aimed at those specific stances and ideas—not, obviously, at belittling or insulting the individual themselves.

But thanks anyway; I think I'd much rather hear an official clarification from the moderator in charge of the Politics subforum.

Harold Walker44 said:Or perhaps I should mention reading a complaint from a user who was slapped with a warning—the same old story—simply for questioning whether being "against" certain lifestyles while being "for" traditional family values is a contradiction.

Once again, Moderator Edge was quick to jump in and provide a prompt response.

It’s quite a sight to see a moderator so eager to lecture others on proper decorum; I suspect it’s the very same individual who previously lectured a user about not "insulting a cabinet member"—which is enough to make anyone's head spin—and warned against using certain terms, yet somehow finds absolutely nothing wrong with labeling people as "digitally illiterate zombies heading to the polls after Sunday service."

Look, you are more than welcome to run this as a liberal forum—call it "leftist" if you must, even if that isn't quite accurate—but at least have the integrity to admit you are merely a political mouthpiece. Just don't go claiming to be "America's premier forum," because once you start deleting posts and handing out sanctions, it stops looking like a genuine reflection of American opinion.
In the end, you can't be this brazen, pretending a post wasn't even reported while simultaneously rushing to punish much smaller infractions...

It isn't the forum's fault; he's likely the one responsible for his own actions. (I did have a quick chat with Nick about this via DM, but I'll post it here too just so everyone knows exactly who they're dealing with.)

He knows perfectly well that something like this is against the subforum rules and won't be tolerated in Politics at all—it’s exactly what others get warned about.

The rule:

The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to the use of derogatory nicknames directed at both forum members and third parties. We will not tolerate the malicious distortion of names, such as Fran Harmon, Vladimir, or Ivo, nor will we permit the intentional misrepresentation of any user's handle.
To foster a healthy cultural dialogue, please refrain from using offensive language when discussing public figures. Posts containing such remarks will not be tolerated.The moderators also reserve the right to sanction any posts that are particularly uncivil.

post

Edge said:The Bishop has stepped down, having last compared the administration to Nazis. Anyway, the guy just proved he was a complete fool.

So, zero integrity. If even one person lacks it, the whole thing falls apart. I mean, who would actually be willing to hand out warnings or bans for something someone wrote themselves, knowing full well it clearly violates the rules?