Posts by Paul Chase95

brightpilot6 said:I have to hand it to them; it’s a rare thing to find two outsiders who cover such an expansive range of topics while still being deeply embedded enough to offer any real substance to the debate. We're talking everything from high-level mathematics and fine art to the nuances of chess defenses, foreign policy, and history...

Not really; if we’re looking for something slightly outside those bounds, maybe topology? Art and history are just part of a general culture that most people touch upon (though how much you debate them is another story), and foreign policy is basically woven into daily life now—especially with stuff like immigration—so it’s hard not to pay attention to those shifts and decisions. I'm sure you've been keeping an eye on Brexit, or the recent elections in France and the US, and so on; that's just standard viewing. As for chess, well, chess is chess—people have their hobbies. ☕

Justin James10 said:Oh, sure, because we are clearly the smartest people in the entire universe, right? Just look at our "stellar" results! 🙏

Americans seem to have such a deep love for government overreach, so really, who are they to complain about taxes? Everything is just spiraling out of control! ☕

Neither the smartest nor the most clueless. ☕

William Gomez5 said:Nimčič's defense is totally overrated anyway

Now that’s a brave statement. ☕

Is that you, Aloysius, or maybe Davorin? ☕

Actually, it's not Aloysius—he would never say something like that. ☕

brightpilot6 said:So, you're the expert who gets to decide that he's knowledgeable in all those fields and holds such smart views? Well, good for you.

What can I even say to you at this point? You’ve always had this constant argumentative edge. And yeah, it’s me—who else would it be? I'm not exactly going to call my neighbor over to settle the debate. Look, honestly, I think a lot of your takes are actually pretty sharp and decent. Believe it or not, we probably only disagree on one or two specific things out of everything we’ve ever discussed on this forum—and since I love to mess with people (guilty as charged)—we end up bickering over those tiny slivers while ignoring the rest.

Take wine, for instance. I know absolutely nothing about it, so I have no way of judging if someone is well-read or an expert in that area. All I know is that there's red and there's white, and that's where my expertise ends.

Then there's the matter of that HOS monument. While I personally feel that having Zdeněk Zeman's name on it is totally inappropriate and should be removed, seeing you or Anthony Jackson2 comment on it might tempt me to troll a little and claim it's some old-school salute or whatever, just to be petty. 😁 In real life, though, I'd tell you straight: that greeting on the plaque is strictly there to provoke.

Justin James10 said:The public is so caught up in statism that they've lost sight of the big picture; at this rate, we might as well start taxing the very air we breathe and the simple act of existing! ☕

Why all the whining about taxes when every single attempt to privatize industries or trim the fat from bloated government bureaucracies is met with such massive, coordinated outrage? 🤷

Idiots, sheep, honestly... they don't get it—even the slow ones. ☕

brightpilot6 said:Of course, since I’m criticizing Bandić and the Republican Party, I must automatically be a supporter of the Democratic Party by default. 🙏

Goodness, won't someone please organize my thoughts into something simple and clear just so I can get a moment of peace?

How can you claim that 99% of people attending Mass haven't experienced this? Are you just pulling that number out of thin air? I have experienced it, as has my entire parish—and we are a large congregation. We likely make up that remaining 1% who actually have. I’ve seen it myself—not just during Mass, but at public rallies too, where things feel even more aggressive along our coast. The Church steps into the public eye and provides very specific instructions on who to vote for. But then again, you’ve never heard a word about it, have you?

Look, if we're going to argue, let's not be rude about it. I didn't actually say that—as you can see, I only mentioned that I have the impression the reaction would be different if the pressure were coming from the other side. That doesn't necessarily mean I wrote that you're for the Democratic Party, though I'm sure you know that perfectly well. It just seems like a convenient way for you to troll and do practically the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

brightpilot6 said:Of course, since I’m criticizing Bandić and the Republican Party, I must automatically be a supporter of the Democratic Party by default. 🙏

Goodness, won't someone please organize my thoughts into something simple and clear just so I can get a moment of peace?

How can you claim that 99% of people attending Mass haven't experienced this? Are you just pulling that number out of thin air? I have experienced it, as has my entire parish—and we are a large congregation. We likely make up that remaining 1% who actually have. I’ve seen it myself—not just during Mass, but at public rallies too, where things feel even more aggressive along our coast. The Church steps into the public eye and provides very specific instructions on who to vote for. But then again, you’ve never heard a word about it, have you?

I haven't—honestly, I've never heard anyone say they've experienced that, regardless of who I've talked to. I've just noticed that it's the most common theory among people who don't even attend Mass, so I end up reading it on the political posts of clumsy types or Eminem types who are full of religious propaganda (without ever stepping foot in a church), or on sites like Index. Of course, it's all without a single shred of evidence in 2017, when with all this technology, you could record anything literally with one tap on a smartphone screen.

Look, I believe you personally, I really do. I don't necessarily believe everyone else. I actually respect your stance that this is bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, I just don't agree with it. I would consider it a problem if a priest spent 55 out of 60 minutes of Mass lecturing about communists and how to vote for the Republican Party, but if in a full 60-minute service he spends maybe a minute or two expressing his opinion on who the right option is—I don't find that controversial.

brightpilot6 said:Don't get worked up; if a person truly believes everything they’re preaching, they almost certainly lack genuine intelligence or a high level of education, regardless of how much money they have or what degrees are hanging on their wall. Or perhaps they were once brilliant, but now they're suffering from such profound self-deception that one has to start questioning their actual mental state.

And honestly, this isn't even about a clash of values—you seem to constantly spiral back to that argument. Someone can be a conservative or a liberal, economically left-wing or right-wing, a nationalist or not, a believer or an atheist; those value systems themselves have nothing to do with raw intelligence, and nobody here is claiming otherwise.

On the flip side, if someone consistently casts their vote for figures like Bandić or the Republican Party—political creatures who possess no moral compass beyond the contents of their own pockets—or if they short-sightedly support policies that benefit them today while ensuring their own children suffer tomorrow, then there's a problem. Alternatively, they might just be foolish enough to swallow that populism without gaining anything from it at all. In my view, both groups are equally dim-witted, though the second category lacks the inherent corruption found in the first—even if, for most Americans, that first group is simply seen as "successful" people who figured out how to "make it."

Look, there's no way for me to convince you of this—believe me or don't, it's up to you. Though, if you really need proof, I'm actually willing to introduce you to him.

Yeah, the guy is highly educated, sharp, and well-read. You’d probably get along famously with him—we’d be perfectly aligned on the Republican Party, the KC, Markić, and all that related nonsense.

He's actually quite a pleasure to talk to because he knows a little bit about everything—Germany and its upcoming elections, Nimčovič's defense, immigration issues, Perelman and Poincaré's economic cycles, Caravaggio's brushwork and his apples, history... He possesses an immense amount of knowledge (except for sports, as far as I can tell) and holds some incredibly smart positions. But the moment the conversation shifts toward the Democratic Party or Josip Broz Marshall, it’s like he switches to a completely different level of consciousness.

And because of that, I can't bring myself to write a single negative word about him. He has these core convictions that he clings to, refusing to let anyone drift away from them during a debate. I actually respect that.

brightpilot6 said:Any kind of political endorsement, especially when delivered from the pulpit, feels cheap and utterly beneath the office, doesn't it? It essentially exploits the perceived divine mission of a priest in a small town like Mrduša donji to force a specific viewpoint on people—people whom such figures often hold sway over—regarding our messy daily political landscape. And if these messages were actually aimed at the public good, perhaps it would be different, but they aren't; most of the time, they just serve to nudge voters toward the Republican Party, the ultimate undertaker of this nation, or one of its loyal satellites.

To me, it feels like a deception at the lowest possible level, the absolute gutter of populism.

In a private conversation, I have nothing against a priest saying whatever he pleases. I don't even mind them doing it from the pulpit, provided we are all honest about how we perceive them afterward.

Okay, so now you're saying *any* stance, but I’m not sure you’d put it quite like that if the sermons were just campaigning for the Democratic Party. That's just my take.

I don't know; I've honestly never heard anyone suggest who to vote for during Mass. Around here, people act like services are literal political rallies, which isn't true—but then again, the people who don't attend seem convinced that's what happens, while the 99% of people who actually go rarely experience it. It's a bit of a strange dynamic.

brightpilot6 said:Listen to this—she merely "provided a platform" for them to speak. 😂

That "clearly predefined" stance was practically screaming within Americans, simmering like a slow fever, and then Markićka offered the nation a sense of relief by allowing it to finally be aired. So many people in the US were preoccupied with the constitutional definition of marriage and its survival against an onslaught of tens of thousands of gay couples wanting to wed, that the anxiety ran so deep it supposedly distracted them from reading the morning paper in Central Park or working at a toll booth in Šestanovac.

It was a complete waste of money and effort to run that massive, meticulously coordinated campaign by the Church and the rest of the right-wing NGO scene; you could have just told them there was no need for it, since the people already had their minds made up, and there was really no necessity to spend all that energy demonizing gay people.

Look, that referendum is a foregone conclusion. Yes, she enabled it—that’s what I meant when I said she gathered the signatures. Personally, my stance is that marriage is M+F, so I wouldn't be caught dead organizing signature drives or jumping into media debates on the subject. I would have just carried on with my life regardless of whether that referendum happened, or if the Constitution had been amended to say marriage is exclusively M+M.

But did she enable it? Sure, so what? It's not like you and I personally paved the way for this referendum, regardless of how much (or how little) it was actually needed. It's like how Hasan’s political maneuvering enabled Marshall to leave. Even if he hadn't, we'd end up in the exact same spot—nothing better, nothing worse.

Anyway, let's not spiral further down that rabbit hole. I simply wrote what I believed when I said she enabled it; I didn't claim to know just how deep the public concern actually went.

brightpilot6 said:No, Americans aren't stupid. That’s precisely why the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party) and Bandić have held onto power for countless terms, and why they can successfully use inflammatory culture war topics—like historical clashes between fascists and partisans—to blind the public year after year to the actual reality of corruption, incompetence, cross-party omertà, and the systematic covering up of past wrongdoings. It happens because people aren't actually dim-witted, which is why the only "new" forces that ever seem to gain traction are the ridiculous populists like the Labor Party or Live Wall.

Of course, if by any chance you happen to believe these arrangements aren't actually bad solutions, or if you personally stand to benefit from this specific setup, you wouldn't view this as evidence that we are a mostly foolish nation, but rather as evidence of the exact opposite.

And don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone on this forum is some kind of genius. Quite the contrary.

You clearly think you’re the only one who gets it—because, well, you obviously believe your own takes are the absolute truth. From that specific vantage point, I'm sure you see yourself as the ultimate authority on everything. Just admit it. ☕

Look, don't get me wrong—I'm not saying you aren't smart. I have no idea what you're actually like, and frankly, I'm not trying to dive into that. It just seems like you have this weird, inexplicable urge to insult people with "velvet gloves"—you know, being subtle about it. For reasons known only to yourself, you just love dragging everything down to discussions about hookers, gluttony, or priests.

I’m not really in the mood to talk about the general public today—and honestly, I have no interest in debating the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party—but let's look at someone like Bandić instead. Since you’ve brought me up a few times in connection with the Republican Party, I should probably clear the air: if I'm being totally honest, I’ve actually voted for the Democrats more often than the Republicans throughout my life. Call it 1-0 in their favor, I guess. I did cast a vote for the Republican candidate in the second round of the KGK-IJ race, but that was strictly because of the individual, not out of any loyalty to the party itself. Regardless, it's not that important.

I find it equally mind-boggling that anyone would actually cast a vote for Bandić—it honestly makes me wonder what goes through people's minds when they choose to turn a blind eye to certain realities. But, as much as their reasoning escapes me, I try not to judge. I don't really feel it's my place to label someone stupid just because they see something in Bandić that I simply can't grasp or understand.

I spent about seven or eight hours yesterday stuck with a guy who is—to put it mildly—a hardcore old-school communist. He’s at least thirty years my senior, and since we were out scouting some potential construction sites for work, I figured the polite thing to do was take him out for lunch. While we were driving near Kumrovec, he suggested we stop there. I made a little joke, implying we shouldn't go just because some local locksmith happened to be born there, but we eventually settled on a spot and things naturally drifted toward politics. To this man, the Democratic Party and Marshall are practically sacred. To him, the Democratic Party is the nation's greatest treasure, and Marshall was the absolute greatest figure to ever walk this soil—and he wasn't even kidding. When I tried to push back a bit or ask questions regarding the Democratic Party, he had nothing to say; in his eyes, everything was perfect. Sure, the GDP might have looked shaky under the Republican Party, but he insisted that was just "underground" interference. Employment? Growing steadily—again, he claimed any perceived decline was just Republican trickery. Then I brought up Marshall. According to him, Marshall knew absolutely nothing about Bleiburg, and he certainly had no idea what was happening at Alcatraz. This guy will vote for the Democratic Party until the day he dies—though, from what I gathered, his loyalty to Bandić over the years has mostly been driven by his devotion to Marshall. Now, let's be real here—based on those takes, you could pretty much call the guy stupid, couldn't you?

I’ll give you this much—the guy is incredibly sharp. And I don't just mean he's "smart" in a casual sense; we're talking genuine intellect, a solid education, and a level of literacy that's hard to come by. Not to mention everything he’s actually managed to accomplish in his life—honestly, most people on this forum probably won't get anywhere near those milestones in three lifetimes. So, calling someone stupid just because they don't align with the specific viewpoints you happen to enjoy? That’s just not right. Even if I personally find certain theories absolutely absurd—like the idea that Marshall knew nothing, or the notion that this country truly flourished under the Democratic Party—it doesn't follow. People get tunnel visioned by their own theories, or they harbor such intense hatred for the opposing side that they'll justify just about anything to defend their own position. But being stubborn or deeply biased doesn't necessarily make them stupid—at least, not in any broad sense of the word.

Charles Chase4 said:You've lost the plot. Surely, within a niche field like American soccer, those who follow and study it daily on these forums can claim to be more informed about that specific subject than the general public, who doesn't spend even a fraction of the time thinking about or worrying about it.

I didn't see Casual posting anything about satellite trajectories around Mars on the soccer forums. 🤷 As for politics, James Anderson5 already explained that perfectly above.

But that's a different story entirely. There's a massive gap between saying someone is more informed on a topic and claiming they "live in a country of idiots" or that they're surrounded by morons. In this case, someone is only a "moron" because they simply don't care about what's happening in the world of sports. 🙏 Sure, maybe people *should* care more—should they be out there protesting when laws are broken? Honestly, if they did, the "rational" crowd would probably just label them idiots anyway, since I haven't seen anyone breaking a sweat over the whole Walmart situation.

99% of you wouldn't even realize that a couple of years ago, at a biology competition, a student's mother sat on the judging panel and helped her daughter clinch first place and a direct college admission. That’s a textbook example—and I can dig up plenty more if necessary. I’m intentionally picking a minor infraction rather than some major legal violation here, but for those parents, that competition was their entire world, not soccer. Those parents aren't "idiots" for lacking common sense; they just have different life priorities than worrying about Čačić or Mamić.

And just to be clear, I'm not sure if Casual actually wrote that, or if it was Los or someone else—not that it matters much. I recently read a similar angry rant, along with many others, though I have to admit, I find that kind of fury somewhat charming.

We’ve drifted pretty far afield here—from discussing intelligence all the way to the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party. It all started with the claim that people are just stupid, but honestly, I don't buy it; I think people are generally underestimated, especially over here. I was reading a few days ago some post by Casual where they seemed convinced they were *the* one—the only one who actually gets it. You see posts like that all over this site; people patting themselves on the back (and the worst part is they actually believe it) thinking they are the intellectual elite of society, the chosen Renaissance warriors, while everyone else is just a clueless idiot. This stuff keeps popping up day after day on this forum and it’s starting to get on my nerves, which is why I spoke up.

I mean, look at the geniuses at NASA, MIT, Harvard, or the European Legal Institute—they scout the best of the best... They look for educated, smart, successful people, but if they just checked this forum and listed this "intellectual and moral cream of the crop" who supposedly "understands everything" while everyone else is a moron, they'd be set. After that, they could just slide into their DMs and offer them jobs ranging from legal regulatory work and space flights to solving millennial problems or studying the properties of silver cuprate. And frankly, if Đikić had ever read this forum, I’m pretty sure he’d tell Goethe in New York City or anyone at Stanford to get lost.

Anyway, to wrap this up—the point is that too many people are inflating their own egos without any actual basis for it and, in the process, insulting everyone else. That’s the gist of it. We aren't surrounded by idiots or mindless sheep being led around by Željko Markić or Oliver Frljić.

Adam King6 said:When I talk to a priest, I expect him to talk about faith, maybe some family issues or personal struggles. It’s only right that he gives me a hard time for missing Mass too often, or asks why I’m not volunteering more at the parish, or suggests I could afford to give a little more to Catholic Charities, or reminds me I haven't dropped off any old clothes lately. I couldn't care less about his political leanings. It's basic logic. You don't ask a plumber for his opinion on policy when he's fixing your pipes, and you don't care who a doctor votes for when he's treating you. For any of them, their ballot is none of my business.

It’s not even a shot at you specifically, but man, this trend of everyone claiming "people are just stupid" has become incredibly popular lately. It doesn't matter if the person saying it is brilliant or a total moron; it’s just become part of the daily chatter. I knew this guy once—could barely sign his own name, probably didn't finish eighth grade, and was clearly missing at least half a dozen teeth—who told me, totally deadpan, about six months ago that people are simply stupid. Give me a break. The poor guy has to live in the same world as the "stupid" people he's looking down on. And when I asked him *why* they were stupid, his answer was basically "because they believe in the supernatural." 🙏 In his head, he's some kind of Isaac Newton. 🙏

Look, I don't mind if you think people are stupid. I just don't want to hear it when we're talking. It honestly makes me nauseous to read it.

I haven't really noticed it becoming a trend lately. 🙂
Actually, it might be more accurate to say that people are generally lazy when it comes to thinking for themselves. They’re prone to swallowing whatever suggestion comes their way, especially if it comes from a perceived moral authority—which, for most, is the Church.
For others, that "moral authority" might be the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, Markićka, or Frljić, but those are just symptoms of the same thing... 😉

It’s funny how differently we all approach things. If someone tried to lecture me about missing Mass regularly, or if they started judging me because I’m not "involved enough" in parish activities—which, let's be honest, I'm absolutely not—well, I’d probably just show them the door. And if they had the nerve to suggest my bank account justifies a higher donation? That would be the end of it. There wouldn't be anything left to say. I’m just not interested in that kind of back-and-forth. Now, if you wanted to sit down and actually dive into politics, art, or philosophy, though? I'd be all ears.

Adam King6 said:When I talk to a priest, I expect him to talk about faith, maybe some family issues or personal struggles. It’s only right that he gives me a hard time for missing Mass too often, or asks why I’m not volunteering more at the parish, or suggests I could afford to give a little more to Catholic Charities, or reminds me I haven't dropped off any old clothes lately. I couldn't care less about his political leanings. It's basic logic. You don't ask a plumber for his opinion on policy when he's fixing your pipes, and you don't care who a doctor votes for when he's treating you. For any of them, their ballot is none of my business.

It’s not even a shot at you specifically, but man, this trend of everyone claiming "people are just stupid" has become incredibly popular lately. It doesn't matter if the person saying it is brilliant or a total moron; it’s just become part of the daily chatter. I knew this guy once—could barely sign his own name, probably didn't finish eighth grade, and was clearly missing at least half a dozen teeth—who told me, totally deadpan, about six months ago that people are simply stupid. Give me a break. The poor guy has to live in the same world as the "stupid" people he's looking down on. And when I asked him *why* they were stupid, his answer was basically "because they believe in the supernatural." 🙏 In his head, he's some kind of Isaac Newton. 🙏

Look, I don't mind if you think people are stupid. I just don't want to hear it when we're talking. It honestly makes me nauseous to read it.

I haven't really noticed it becoming a trend lately. 🙂
Actually, it might be more accurate to say that people are generally lazy when it comes to thinking for themselves. They’re prone to swallowing whatever suggestion comes their way, especially if it comes from a perceived moral authority—which, for most, is the Church.
For others, that "moral authority" might be the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, Markićka, or Frljić, but those are just symptoms of the same thing... 😉

I can somewhat agree with that—though I don't really buy into the idea that anyone is overinflating these "moral" authority figures. People have their own opinions; nobody's being forced to adopt a worldview just because Željko Markić or Oliver Frljić says so. The reality is simpler: when Markićka launches an initiative, it just gives people a vent for views they already held. They didn't vote to put marriage into the Constitution because some shadowy group dictated their thoughts—it’s more that Markićka provided a platform for them to express a position they had already formed, even if it wasn't something that actually impacted their daily lives or wallets. For instance, twenty years ago, I believed marriage was a union between a man and a woman—and honestly, I still do—but I’ve lived my whole life without it, and I’d be perfectly fine continuing that way. If Markićka decided to step up and do the legwork of collecting signatures, then fine, I’m glad I at least had the chance to cast a vote. That’s the extent of it. It isn't like Markićka or Frljić are out there sculpting public opinion from scratch; maybe they influence a negligible few, but it's not like everyone around us is some kind of programmed idiot.

James Anderson5 said:Common sense is one thing, but true intelligence is something else entirely. While being "smart" can be pretty subjective, intelligence is actually measurable—and trust me, not everyone out there is hitting those high marks. We definitely aren't all on the same page when it comes to how much we read or how educated we are. There are huge gaps between us, though that doesn't mean a genius can't be dead wrong while someone less academic might actually be right...

The real point is that most people don't make decisions based on logic; they act on emotion and instinct. We've known this since the propaganda tactics used during World War I—you should try watching a documentary on Bernays if you want to see how deep it goes...

So, who would actually vote for the Republican Party in a rational world? Maybe even if they stood to gain something from them. But if the dominant mindset is "better them than the communists," or "they might steal, but at least they're on our side," or claiming they're the ones who secured American independence while labeling everyone else as nostalgic for the old regime... then what are we really talking about here? Is it about economic platforms and actual arguments, or just pure emotion? Take Sanders, for example—half the people voted for him simply because he was convincing, spoke multiple languages, and was a great orator, not because his policy was brilliant. It’s the same story with the Democratic Party; they usually win elections just because people have had enough of the Republicans, not necessarily because their platform is better. Basically, you first manufacture an enemy in people's minds, trigger that fight-or-flight response, and suddenly instinct takes over. People stop looking at policy and start seeing the election as a matter of survival rather than a choice between ideas...

Let's be clear, Hitler was a terrible person, but there's no denying he managed to jumpstart the economy—Germany was absolutely crushed by poverty and hyperinflation after WWI, and he really turned things around at first. That’s not to say he didn't eventually lose his mind with all that Lebensraum nonsense and those other theories... 😁 Gandhi wasn't just some random guy that people called a great statesman before the war... it was for good reason. Of course, the winners get to write the history books, so they tend to gloss over the messy parts to make everything seem black and white. It’s like that old legend about Jesse Owens—people always claimed Hitler refused to congratulate him, but that wasn't actually true. Hitler just didn't shake hands with any athletes because it wasn't part of his protocol, though he did send a congratulatory note. The real issues happened when he got back to the States, where nobody would acknowledge his win and he was even barred from using hotel entrances because of segregation...

So, that's why they covered up both the Allies' crimes after WWII and the actions of the partisans here—to make everything seem strictly black and white. It’s obvious the fascist movement was evil because of its ideology, but that doesn't mean every single individual involved was a criminal, just like it wasn't true for everyone on the other side. Still, we should probably leave those heavy debates to the hobbyists and historians instead of digging them up just to manufacture new enemies for daily politics... especially when there are much more pressing issues to focus on, like the privatization of the local utility companies, the buybacks of major energy firms, or the situation with Walmart and so on...

Well, look at you going off on all sorts of tangents now. Honestly, I’m not really buying it—but there’s honestly no point in us getting into a massive tug-of-war over this. If Adam King6 or whoever else feels the need to go around labeling people as stupid, they should probably start by actually defining their terms. You know, like what exactly constitutes "intelligence" or "brains" in their eyes? And since we aren't exactly dealing with a single metric here—given we have linguistic, logical-mathematical, social, and all the other types out there—it would be helpful to know which specific flavor of intelligence they're actually judging us by before they pass sentence.

Some people I know have this incredibly blunt—and honestly, quite rude—habit of labeling anyone with just a high school diploma as "stupid." I’m only bringing this up because nowadays, people seem way too quick to throw that insult around like it’s nothing. Take this recent interaction, for example. An acquaintance of mine tells me, quite pointedly, that the crowd over at FF is just a bunch of useless losers—people who spend their time philosophizing in Central Park and dragging out their studies until they're 32 or 33, all while being bankrolled by their parents. And look, you can try to argue with every single person like that—you could explain that having a high school diploma doesn't make someone dim-witted, or that listening to a priest isn't a sign of low intelligence, or that being an FF student doesn't automatically equate to being a lost cause—but there’s really no point in trying to correct every misguided opinion you encounter. It's exhausting. And for what it's worth, it's also a total fallacy to assume people are stupid just because they vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party—especially when they aren't actually gaining anything from either side.

James Anderson5 said:Common sense is one thing, but true intelligence is something else entirely. While being "smart" can be pretty subjective, intelligence is actually measurable—and trust me, not everyone out there is hitting those high marks. We definitely aren't all on the same page when it comes to how much we read or how educated we are. There are huge gaps between us, though that doesn't mean a genius can't be dead wrong while someone less academic might actually be right...

The real point is that most people don't make decisions based on logic; they act on emotion and instinct. We've known this since the propaganda tactics used during World War I—you should try watching a documentary on Bernays if you want to see how deep it goes...

So, who would actually vote for the Republican Party in a rational world? Maybe even if they stood to gain something from them. But if the dominant mindset is "better them than the communists," or "they might steal, but at least they're on our side," or claiming they're the ones who secured American independence while labeling everyone else as nostalgic for the old regime... then what are we really talking about here? Is it about economic platforms and actual arguments, or just pure emotion? Take Sanders, for example—half the people voted for him simply because he was convincing, spoke multiple languages, and was a great orator, not because his policy was brilliant. It’s the same story with the Democratic Party; they usually win elections just because people have had enough of the Republicans, not necessarily because their platform is better. Basically, you first manufacture an enemy in people's minds, trigger that fight-or-flight response, and suddenly instinct takes over. People stop looking at policy and start seeing the election as a matter of survival rather than a choice between ideas...

Let's be clear, Hitler was a terrible person, but there's no denying he managed to jumpstart the economy—Germany was absolutely crushed by poverty and hyperinflation after WWI, and he really turned things around at first. That’s not to say he didn't eventually lose his mind with all that Lebensraum nonsense and those other theories... 😁 Gandhi wasn't just some random guy that people called a great statesman before the war... it was for good reason. Of course, the winners get to write the history books, so they tend to gloss over the messy parts to make everything seem black and white. It’s like that old legend about Jesse Owens—people always claimed Hitler refused to congratulate him, but that wasn't actually true. Hitler just didn't shake hands with any athletes because it wasn't part of his protocol, though he did send a congratulatory note. The real issues happened when he got back to the States, where nobody would acknowledge his win and he was even barred from using hotel entrances because of segregation...

So, that's why they covered up both the Allies' crimes after WWII and the actions of the partisans here—to make everything seem strictly black and white. It’s obvious the fascist movement was evil because of its ideology, but that doesn't mean every single individual involved was a criminal, just like it wasn't true for everyone on the other side. Still, we should probably leave those heavy debates to the hobbyists and historians instead of digging them up just to manufacture new enemies for daily politics... especially when there are much more pressing issues to focus on, like the privatization of the local utility companies, the buybacks of major energy firms, or the situation with Walmart and so on...

Look, that’s just your perspective and nothing more—it doesn't make it a fact. Just because you're convinced you're right doesn't mean you actually are. I hear people like you all the time in real life, usually followed by some variation of, "I mean, who would be rational enough to vote for the Democratic Party?" In my view, the Democratic Party was essentially dismantling the country; they had no interest in actually building this nation. Personally, I consider their pre-election era to have been nothing short of legalized robbery. You could easily add to that argument that anyone—intelligent or otherwise—would still cast a vote for them, regardless of whether there's any actual benefit to doing so. Just because I can't stand the Democrats, and you happen to loathe the Republican Party, doesn't mean we can use passive-aggressive jabs to imply that only idiots vote for either side. That's just not how it works. It feels like you're just wrapping up your frustrations in fancy packaging—as if I haven't noticed that Zdravko Mamić wasn't exactly playing saint during the Democratic years, or that Ivica todorić was quietly operating under the radar while they were in power. It’s not like the education system wasn't falling apart back then, or that the healthcare system wasn't crumbling under Democratic leadership. At the end of the day, they're both equally useless. Whichever side happens to trigger your resentment a little less, you'll just pivot and ask, "Who would be rational enough to vote for *that* group?"

neonfalcon16 said:Lojzek, why on earth are you doing a rebranding?

Every single time the Democratic Party gets mentioned, there you are—it’s fine, really. We’ve all figured out exactly who we are, what we have, and apparently, what’s in our email signatures too. Just relax. 😁

Lunch sandwiches at Iblerov's are on the way. ☕

Larry Fox5 said:It’s honestly wild how people still lose their minds over Marshall—whether they're tearing him down or acting like he was some kind of saint. And the worst part? It’s every single generation, even the kids who weren't even born when it all went down. I don't get what drives people to care this much... seriously. Even if a family suffered back then, it happened fifty years ago! I just can't wrap my head around why people are still so obsessed...

The dust has finally settled on the Walmart scandal, the school curriculum debates have faded from the news cycle, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović isn't the main topic anymore, Saucha is dutifully raising her hand, and—unfortunately for some—the GDP is actually growing... All we have left to argue about are Marshall, Pavelić, and whether we should legalize AARP.

William Gomez5 said:I don't follow everything, but if I did, I'd absolutely shred that "he's certainly a historical figure" nonsense first.

It sounds just like Zajec trying to break down football players.🙏 🤣

She also added that that’s exactly how we ought to view him. ☕

A German guy was telling me something similar about Hitler the other day—as if to say, sure, he was a criminal, sure, he slaughtered countless people, but look at the economy! Look at the infrastructure! He built roads! He held a pretty significant position back in Bavaria.

So, I decided right then that I wasn't interested in looking at Hitler through shades of gray. I'll stick to black and white. 😁

How do you even tackle these issues without falling back on the way Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović handled that question about the locksmith—just pure evasion? It was such a massive blunder, and honestly, that single moment alone disqualifies her from actually leading the country. If she’d just been blunt and said, "He was a criminal, a mass murderer, and the face of an evil totalitarian regime," people would have respected the honesty. But no, instead we got the classic political dance: "Oh, he’s certainly a historical figure," "We can view his legacy in two different stages," "We should acknowledge his certain statesmanlike achievements..." All that was missing was some tear-jerking anecdote about the Mississippi River.

brightpilot6 said:Don't worry, I'm sure the local priest will tell you exactly what you ought to think.

Give it a shot—you can definitely do better than that.

Alright, this is great—so she was just out there hooking up in the States? Fantastic. First, I hear from my hairstylist that she went under the knife for liposuction. Then, a plumber tells me she actually had a full skin tightening and excess removal procedure—which, by the way, if you ask him whether you're supposed to stay in bed for up to 36 hours with your knees tucked to prevent the incision from ripping open, he just gives me this blank stare, unlike Kolinda who apparently walks around like nothing happened the very next day. Then, a buddy mentions she was busy buying up private jets, and some local politician claims she was attending one of those "watch your mouth" burger-eating contests—not as a contestant, mind you, just as a spectator. On political forums, people are saying she went off to get her doctorate because her kids go to school over there, and now we're left with the theory that she was just out there playing the field. Honestly, out of all these wild theories, I’ve decided to put my money on Anthony Jackson2.