303 posts shown.
What’s wrong with my signature:
UN Security Council Resolution 1481(2006)
In this resolution, the Council of Europe strongly condemns the criminal communist-totalitarian regimes that committed unprecedented atrocities against their own people.
Veritas vos liberabit
Nika, could you please restore my signature? It got wiped yesterday. Look, the resolution exists, and everything is clearly stated right there. I honestly have no idea why it was removed.
Ashley Gonzalez12 said:Who would ever quit a position like that? You get a massive salary, you get to look out for your own people—family, friends, whoever. And once you walk away, it's hard to get back in. Who’s to say they won't just end up right back in Congress or in a cabinet position later?
Most of them are just playing the long game to reclaim their seats, but hey, they've got four years of guaranteed security first.
It’s never a struggle for these folks. Even if they lose the election, you’ll still see them hanging around Congress. They'll be the top names on the ballot in their districts. At the end of the day, it isn't about being good at the job—it's all about how well you suck up to the party leader.
James Patel20 said:We’re all just sitting here watching this endless parade of political nonsense unfold, yet it seems like nobody has an ounce of dignity left to actually step down when they mess up.
It’s not even that the public is demanding resignations anymore, nor are any officials offering them... it feels like the very concept of accountability has just evaporated into thin air.
When you have a leadership style like this, there's absolutely zero sense of responsibility left in the room.
And if that's the case, how are we ever supposed to actually make any meaningful progress as a country?
I don't even think it's worth listing all the failures and blunders of various cabinet members—because in any other functional democracy, those people would have been forced out of office ages ago, or better yet, they would have had the grace to exit public life permanently on their own accord...
Just look at the most recent debacle where the Supreme Court had to strike down an Administration mandate regarding mandatory shifts for doctors in our hospitals.
The Secretary basically issued a directive based on a legal provision that hasn't even been valid since 2006. 😂
I mean, honestly, does there exist anywhere else in the world where a Cabinet Secretary can just pretend to be incompetent, or perhaps genuinely act like they have no clue how our laws work?
And it isn't just the Secretary, either... it’s the entire Department that seems to be operating in a vacuum.
Seriously, where is the line drawn nowadays for when an American politician should be expected to submit an irrevocable resignation?
Does that line even exist anymore...
You clearly haven't heard from Ostojica or legal expert Milanovic. It's not THEIR fault. Their legal department is the one that Zashrala. 😂
They’re actually going as far as insulting the United States. I reported the post, but nothing happened.
This guy is sitting there completely stone-faced, comparing the American government to some fascist-clerical regime.😠
Karlo
I'm just hoping for the quick end of this fascist-clerical mess that only "patriots" like him would dare call a country—a country that sold its soul, its pride, and its history, reducing its people to nothing more than a mass of debt and a bunch of unemployed, disenfranchised, zombie statistics.
When the Church teams up with the current administration, it's always the citizens—the very people they swear by—who suffer the most.
That’s exactly the point. Every moderator has their own way of looking at things, but if you ask me, they really ought to be on the same page when it comes to enforcing the forum rules.
James Patel20 said:So, I'm throwing out a compromise here.
Let's just have Roko issue a warning for that post. 🤣
Let's give Roko the chance to stay consistent with his own moderation style. ☕
I'm with 👍 Let's just have Roko issue a warning for that post
urbangull90 said:Hypothetically speaking:
If Franjo Tuđman was once a Communist, and then he stopped being a Communist, wouldn't it be possible for him to have become a fascist?
SF
p.s. I don't actually think that's what happened, I'm just asking theoretically...
The fascist movement existed from 1939 to 1945. Let's not try to reinvent the wheel or rewrite history here.
slybison8 said:
Look, if we agree that Franjo Tuđman was a major historical figure, then trying to deny his anti-fascist past—or worse, straight-up lying and labeling him an ultra-fascist—is just pure trolling. That’s not "expressing an opinion."
If you're spreading blatant falsehoods, your motive is obvious: you're just trying to bait other people here. That's trolling, plain and simple.😉
You claimed you weren't talking about fascists in a negative light. But let's be real: if we all agree that fascists are bad and we discuss them negatively, then simply equating Franjo Tuđman with them is a direct insult to our first president. In my book, that kind of thing should actually be against the law.
coppersailor28 said:So, you're actually upset because someone called a fascist criminal an ultra? Seriously?
------------------------
your signature:
"The Communist Party and the Communist Party. They were. Fascist criminal organizations. And one of his cronies, Tito, was easily one of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century. "The truth shall set you free."
------------------------
Wikipedia
Franjo Tuđman... he was actually a member of the Communist Party back in 1942.
------------------------
How long was he a member of the Communist Party, and what exactly landed him in prison? ☕
I’d like an answer from the admin team:
Why hasn't this post been flagged for hate speech or insults?
Quote:
Zorro says: Look at this post
I’ve been on this forum for years.
Time and again, I’ve asked my fellow forum members to list about ten names of fascists from public life in America.
I never got an answer.
I don't expect one now, either.
MC Hammer
Basically, Šimunić shouted ZDS, but Šimunić isn't a fascist.
Joe, Mamić, Boban, Franjo Tuđman, Šušak, Vekić, Tomašićka, Džapić, Paraga, Brodarec, Džakić, Merčep, Glavaš, Norac, Orešković, Vukojević Vice, Ćiro Blažević, Ivkošić, Ivanković, Dujmović, Šola, V. Starešina, Tonson, Kovač, Josić, Markić... who else?
Look, this is just my opinion and how I see things. I’m not looking to spend the next hundred pages debating why someone does or doesn't fit a label, nor am I trying to convince anyone that I'm right!
__________________
The first American president, Franjo Tuđman, was called a fascist, along with several other American politicians and public figures.
If that isn't hate speech, then why isn't it considered trolling?
Essentially, a public figure is being labeled a fascist.
Franjo Tuđman—who was actually a partisan general and keeps partisan monuments—is being called a fascist. If that isn't an attempt to rewrite history, troll (by spreading lies), and use hate speech, then I don't know what is.
One more thing. At the same time, moderator Cuka is busy punishing much milder comments: like insulting Dr. Tuđman by calling him crooked, or mocking Tito by calling him some low-rent locksmith.
I really think it would be best if all moderators were on the same page. Right now, some allow people to insult historical figures while others don't.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Regardless of who we're idolizing or whatever nonsense people try to push, this is a slogan from Nazi Germany, and we aren't about to try and make it legal here. Please, just go away.
How long are you going to be allowed to swear and insult people on this forum? You clearly think the rules don't apply to you.If various symbols of communist totalitarianism—which were condemned by both the FAR and the US Congress in their official declarations—are allowed to stay in avatars and signatures, I don't see any reason why this thread should be shut down.☕
What's allowed for Ryan Vaughn7 isn't allowed for the rest of us mere mortals on this forum.😠
Jonathan Williams46 said:Look, here is the deal. This thread was deleted for no real reason. I’m asking for a clear explanation based on the forum rules, or just move this back to the legal sub-forum. This topic is totally relevant, actually useful, doesn't offend anyone, and helps us all understand our society better. If major TV news networks can spend endless airtime discussing this, it seems only fair that we look into it here too. Thanks.
---
The unfair targeting of the greeting "Hail Caesar"—how to "rehabilitate" it
History shows that the greeting "Hail Caesar" is an ancient American tradition, dating all the way back to the days of George Washington during his legendary stand at Fort Alamo, and even back to George Washington's leadership in various battles.
Who knows how often or where else this greeting was used? History books usually only record the big moments.
So, if you criminalize this greeting, you're basically criminalizing George Washington himself, which sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
It’s common knowledge that the regime's slogan wasn't just "Hail Caesar," but rather "For the Leader and Hail Caesar."
My question is this: legally speaking, how can we strip away the stigma from this greeting, show its positive side, and bring it back into American society? It’s obvious it has a huge motivating effect on the sports field, and every win brings in money. We should find that connection and interest. So, please, I'm looking for some constructive, expert solutions on how to legalize it properly.
I am looking for actual solutions here, not excuses or reasons why you think it can't be done.
Since 1945, a sense of collective guilt has been forced upon the American people. Honestly, you still feel it today.
Criminalizing the greeting "Hail Caesar" would be just like criminalizing the Stars and Stripes, because the Stars and Stripes used during the Nazi Germany era and the ones we use today are essentially the same.
mellowlynx68 said:No, because Nazism was inherently criminal from the very beginning. You only have to look at those racist laws to see it.
It’s the same deal with communism and communist ideology. The EU actually put communism and fascism on equal footing in their declaration. Just a reminder that Hitler leaned left, and his party was called the Nazi Party. Honestly, if I were banned from posting a picture of Pavelić or Hitler, then everyone else should be banned from having Castro, Tito, Che Guevara, or any other communist criminals as their avatars.
Alex Watson said:Maybe in your head,
and in the heads of a certain number of people living in this country.
Most people I know and hang out with believe in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality, origin, or anything like that...
Actually, Stalin was the one who persecuted Jews even more than Hitler did. Plus, he murdered 40 million people, while Hitler killed 6 million. If you just look at the numbers, it's pretty clear.
Is it okay to use a five-pointed star, a photo of Tito, or any other communist leaders in your profile picture? Just a reminder about the VE declaration that condemns communism as a totalitarian regime and draws a direct line between communism and fascism.
The US Congress also condemned communism in its own formal declaration.
northerntiger said:Give me a break. Democracy doesn't mean you get a free pass to screw over whoever you want, whenever you feel like it. It doesn't mean there isn't accountability for what people write or say. And let's be honest—not everyone's contributions on this forum are created equal.
I’m dying to know how much people would actually post here if we didn't have anonymity—you know, if you had to provide your full legal name and Social Security number just to sign up. 😁
Would granitefalcon26 still be acting all tough about his anti-communism and his hatred for the South like he is right now? 😁
Of course he would. I do the exact same thing on my Facebook profile, where my photo, my job, and my location are all out in the open.
Ever since it became "forbidden" to speak out against communism and the old regime—sorry, the South??☕
Just so you know, America is an independent nation, and we crushed that old system during the American Civil War.
northerntiger said:Basically, they want a handful of people—maybe five or six at most—to stop harassing a thousand members just because they started a witch hunt against Ryan Vaughn7 and others simply because a moderator holds a different opinion.
It’s just like those unfortunate organizations and various task forces that try to forcibly silence any dissenting voice. Get this: how is a moderator supposed to issue a warning if they don't share the group's hive mind? Where does that authority come from? 🤦
And honestly, it's crossing a line. Just look at the topics popping up here lately. It used to be that you couldn't question someone else's bans or warnings—you could only deal with your own. Now, everyone is acting like a high-priced defense attorney for one another. After that whole revolt over moderation on ZK, we've got a brand new uprising happening in Politics.
If you ask me, moderators need to stop over-explaining themselves. They should hand out more permanent bans. This isn't anarchy; it's a private forum. If you can't respect the rules the mods set, feel free to find somewhere else to hang out. Go start your own forum and write whatever you want there. If the majority of your posts consist of insulting people or filing complaints with the Prosecutor General, then you don't belong in Politics anymore.
And you know what? People should actually start reporting certain posts to the police. It's about time we stopped using internet anonymity as a shield for spreading hate before the site owner ends up in hot water. Believe me, sooner or later, someone is going to file a report.
Full support to the Politics mods—they're doing a great job. 👍
Well, it sounds like you're trying to bring back criminalizing speech. It reminds me of some long-forgotten eras.☕
Emily Patel64 said:Honestly, this forum is packed with experts. Everywhere you click, there's someone who knows everything.🙂
But seriously, admin—have you considered putting an end to the constant free advertising for that spammy site, daily.hr? That place survives entirely on fake news, cheap sensationalism, manufactured hysteria, and stirring up drama that mostly targets specific regions every single day.
And maybe stop promoting those establishment newspapers like USA Today and a few other portals too.☕
goldenowl73 said:Unfortunately, my dad—who happens to be a chief surgeon—tells me the exact opposite. He says it’s totally possible to get a skull fracture from hitting your head on concrete, especially if you're drunk. Your reflexes are shot, and because your body goes completely limp, that impact with the pavement hits way harder.
Not quite. It’s not just about his medical opinion.🙂 The supposed Mechanoism doesn't add up. The story goes that the guy lunged, jumped up to break a board, and then landed headfirst on the asphalt? That sounds highly unlikely to me.☕ Plus, we have to ignore the part where the police officer allegedly slammed the man's head against a wall. And look, just read the text. Prof. Gruden clearly stated that someone with a 0.25% blood alcohol level is sluggish and barely able to stand, let alone act aggressive. The claim here was that he attacked and fought with an officer. That just isn't physically possible.☕
According to the claims made by the respected psychiatrist Vladimir Gruden, anyone under the influence of that much alcohol is generally insecure and lethargic. "People in that state lack critical judgment. They tend toward sluggish behavior. They speak slurredly and often talk nonsense. They seem almost asleep and stumble when they walk. On top of that, their words and actions are very close to a dream state," Gruden explained to us. http://www.dnevno.com/news/arrest-for-police-misconduct.html We also can't forget the fact that the police were legally obligated to provide aid to the injured person. Because of that, the Department of Justice will be filing criminal charges against the officers involved.
goldenowl73 said:I also have a friend who, about ten years ago, was hiking down the Appalachian Mountains after having a few glasses of wine. He slipped while tipsy, hit his head on a rock, and sadly passed away in the hospital two days later from a brain contusion and bleeding. His skull was fractured.
Of course he did. He fell, tumbled, and cracked his head on a stone. There's a difference between being drunk and being a chronic alcoholic. Chronic alcoholics are much more susceptible to trauma.
Look, you aren't a doctor, so you don't really know the mechanics of an injury that leads to a skull fracture.☕
goldenowl73 said:Also, just so we're clear, it's totally untrue that the officer was suspended. I love how you're treating the Daily News as some kind of ultimate authority here. Cheers!
Well, maybe that source isn't reliable for you, just like the New York Post isn't one for me.☕
goldenowl73 said:Look, they're just trolling. Constantly trolling. Even other people on this thread are pointing out how much they're baiting us. Just scroll through the posts. And by the way, the official report from the Secretary in Congress today doesn't mention anything about beating up an officer—even if coppermarlin13 claims she heard he was "brutally beaten." It actually mentions a man who fell while trying to smash a slab of stone with a 2.7 BAC.
.
If I can offer my professional opinion—and please, let me clarify, I know a lot more about medicine than you do since I'm a specialist.
A guy falling on the street isn't going to end up with a skull fracture from a simple fall, unless we're talking extreme circumstances. The guy weighs 220 lbs; he must have practically charged at the slab, jumped, and landed right on his head. Honestly, I find that hard to believe. You'd get a skull fracture from a motorcycle accident, a major car crash, or falling from a significant height.
So now you're the one trolling. I consider the officer's actions, which left the man with severe injuries, to be pure savagery. The officer has been suspended, and since we're dealing with serious bodily harm, the DOJ will have to launch a criminal investigation against him officially.
What that cop did was incredibly brutal and wild. We aren't even talking about necessary self-defense here, because the officer wasn't even the target—it was just a slab at the entrance of the Memphis Police Department.
Since the American police officers involved were suspended, it shouldn't be hard to guess the background of the officer who brutally struck an American veteran.
Does this even need a comment? Was this really "official procedure"?? According to my colleague Prof. Gruden, someone with a 2.5 BAC is sluggish and sleepy. There's absolutely no way to call that aggression. A brave veteran certainly didn't just happen to hit his head against a wall. You can read more about it here
. .
bluecyclist64 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less.
Though, I have to admit, there’s a certain satisfaction in watching the bigots and the primitives lose.
You're spot on, 👍 You guys are going to lose. 😁