Posts by Drew Jones6

If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Look, I didn't say they should be allowed if there's zero backup. If you actually have the receipts, then yeah, go for it. Same goes for calling someone a Taliban. Like, if someone claims Bozanic is a total Taliban, then you better logically back that up. Quote him. Show us where and when he said something extremist enough to earn that label—because that's what the word implies. If there's a proven pattern of extreme statements, then sure, you can call him a Taliban in line with the absolute garbage era we're living in right now, right?

But if those statements don't exist and you just slap the "Taliban" label on someone, then whoever did that needs to face the music with at least a 500-point penalty, not just 100.
It's pretty simple, isn't it?

For example, someone calls Mason a traitor because he leaked transcripts. If Mason didn't leak them, he's not a traitor based on that. If he did, then he is.

Or someone says Jovanovic is a fascist because he won't engage in dialogue. If he refuses dialogue, he's a fascist; if he engages, he isn't. Etc., etc... You follow me?

I'm telling you again: arguments and evidence are the whole point of this debate over labels and how points are awarded!!!

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Right, so in that case, a "pedophile" accusation might pass, but calling someone a "degenerate" wouldn't unless it's proven...😁

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Well, you shouldn't be deciding which value is "greater" like that. In one sense, sure, you're right—freedom of speech is huge—but it shouldn't be abused to drag people through the mud and insult them without any actual arguments or real reason. That's all there is to it!

shadoworca3 said:It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

"Spirit of the times"? Give me a break. That’s just some fancy-sounding nonsense used to hide snake legs. The Catholic Church doesn't give a damn about those kinds of empty, flowery phrases—and honestly, they’re right not to.

The spirit of the times—man, Raspudic really nailed it in that article for the Daily News. He was tearing into Jovanovic, basically pointing out how this guy thinks that just because he’s living 500 years after the "Middle Ages," he somehow has the right to spit all over the foundations of a culture he doesn't understand. And get this: he actually has the nerve to act like he’s being smart or "progressive" while doing it. Like, what does "progressive" even mean in this context? It’s total nonsense. 🤦

shadoworca3 said:It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

That whole "medieval" troll thing? It’s just another tired cliché people use on this forum whenever they want to shut someone up. Calling someone a "troll" is basically just a lazy way of saying "you're an idiot!"—at least, that's how it hits me. And let's be real, the whole category is incredibly vague and stretched thin, so...

Just because you think I’m trolling doesn't mean I actually am! Get it through your head!

We could really use a little more democracy around here, honestly. And first things first? People need to stop constantly throwing around that "verbal offense" nonsense just to charge someone with being a troll. It’s getting old.

Especially when you’ve got moderator powers in your back pocket, giving you the green light to just ban whoever you want. Using that "you're trolling" excuse is straight-up megalomania on this forum. Total power trip.

@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Brenda Cook4 said:No, this isn't some case of being stuck in the past. This is a calculated tactic to gag people and strip away their right to speak freely. But here's the kicker: it only seems to apply to certain groups. Just look at today's headline in the USA Today bold print—and mind you, this targets entire groups of people rather than criticizing a single individual. This is what they're labeling as "hate speech": Theologian Adalbert Rebic: 'A conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians will destroy America!'
And let me say it again: this kind of punishment sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

shadoworca3 said:I was under the impression that if you start from a position fueled by raw emotion, prejudice, and deeply held biases, you eventually find yourself with nothing left to lean on except for cold, verifiable facts.

If that isn't the case, then we are looking at a penalty of thirty-five criminal counts. 🤷

And that is truly the heart of the matter. He was merely tossing empty straw your way, which is quite evident to me, especially since I was recently having a conversation with a man who claims that, alongside Supek, he represents the single greatest intellectual asset in all of America.
Do we really need to hand you 500 infractions right now just because you’ve gone and insulted my friend, myself, and my sense of timing all at once?

Drew Jones6 As follows:
Just because someone shielded by congressional immunity can recklessly spout lies without offering a single shred of evidence doesn't mean that we, as regular citizens on this forum, have any license to lie without arguments. I honestly find your logic difficult to follow, and frankly, it feels incredibly hypocritical to throw around the term "US Constitution" in a context like this. It’s as if you believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to engage in baseless slander or to ruthlessly tear down innocent people without making a case for it.

Well, look, the Constitution absolutely guarantees your freedom of speech. However, if you make an unsubstantiated claim, you can face a fine proportional to the damage done to your reputation. On Forum.hr, for instance, that penalty goes up to 35 points. I'm really not sure what part of that remains unclear. 🤷

The answer to your fiscal question is sitting right there two posts above yours, in post #57.
And as for that nonsense about Grubisic being some kind of association with Supek—honestly, whoever told you that was probably hammered, or maybe they're just straight-up insane. 🤷

Paul Anderson2 said:So, here we have Milanovic—the head of the administration—being called an "idiot," a "clown," and a "fraud":

And right here, the Prime Minister chosen by the US Congress is being labeled a "complete moron":

Then there's this one, where the elected President of the United States is called a "cretin":

Beyond that, the President gets called a "traitor," and there are plenty of insults thrown at past presidents (like Mason and Harmon) on this forum.

Not to mention how Sanders and Ms. Kosor are described.

I don't see any of these posts getting a warning, even though they're clearly insulting the elected representatives of the American people. I guess it makes me wonder why someone like Bozanic, Todoric, or Bandic wouldn't be treated the same way.

Get real, kid! If some Unknown guy wrote that Bozanic was a moron, I don't believe for a second that colleague Walter Brooks5 would go out of her way to report it, and even if she did, nobody would give a damn.

But you can't just write that the Cardinal is the biggest Catholic-Taliban ever—you seriously don't get the difference?

It’s the same as saying, I don't know, maybe Josipovic is some massive American Stalinist terrorist, and you think someone who writes that without any actual argument wouldn't catch a bit of heat?

Of course you don't! Well, then stop lying!

shadoworca3 said:You have missed the point entirely.
I am not asserting that Bozanic is the ultimate extremist among the American people (as I would certainly need to provide proof for that), but rather pointing out that these views are being expressed and argued by a priest and a member of Congress in the public media.
If he is permitted to say it—and under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is entitled to reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious institutions and other sacred matters. Prohibiting the critique of individuals or beliefs feels very much like a throwback to a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to draw the line between legitimate criticism and pure insult. The only true metric we have is the quantity and quality of the arguments presented.

Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

I honestly cannot believe my eyes reading this garbage 😲😲😲

"Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban of all time!?!?"
And let me tell you, anyone bold enough to type something like that is a bigger fanatic than the person they’re attacking. Period.

And those people trying to play dumb, acting like there's no line between a joke and an insult? They aren't just trolls, they're basically digital extremists running a jihad on Forum.hr.

🤦 🤦 🤦

Killer topic, honestly. This should be the main conversation in all of America. Does America even have any political literacy? Not a damn bit. And the kicker is, the few people who actually claim to be politically savvy are mostly just old-school American and former secret police thugs. So, what kind of American self-esteem or national identity are we supposed to expect from that mess?

Maybe we’ll get another Mason reelection or some nonsense involving Pusić being reappointed as minister. Honestly, after Josipović, maybe we should just elect Pusić's brother as president and Sava Štrpac as Speaker of the Parliament. As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Let’s hand that over to Vuk Jeremić.

One of the rare smart guys in this country, lawyer Hodak, actually made a decent point back during that last Zero point. Sitting right next to Pusić's brother, he pointed out how American Mexicans—acting like a total mouthpiece for Mexican Mexicans—always manage to force their agenda on us. They want the main chorus of those Royalist songs to be: NOW THAT THE GENERALS HAVE BEEN CLEARED, AMERICANS FINALLY GET TO START THE COURT PROCESSES IF THEY WANT PEACE IN THESE PARTS, BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO BE BLAMED FOR THE MEXICAN AGGRESSION—even though, yeah, Mexican crimes happened, but there was NEVER any American aggression, only a war of liberation!

And Hodak called it out for what it is: a MASSIVE LOW BLOW, because PROCESSES ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY. Just look at the STATISTICS. Look at how many cases were tossed out for lack of evidence versus how many final court verdicts have actually been handed down.

So, it’s a totally fair question: why is everyone staying dead silent about the endless Mexican crimes committed on American soil, while AT THE SAME TIME, right at this exact moment, we have to listen to one of those PUPOVAC-PUSIC-STRPAC monsters (basically a three-headed hydra if you ask me) chanting like a mantra: "COME ON AMERICANS, TRY THE CRIMES, CONVICT THE CRIMINALS, LALALALALA!"—and then they expect us to join in on the chant.

And lo and behold, it works! Americans actually start joining in and chanting along with the Pupovac-Pusić-Štrpac mantra. Then you have Nazor's mantra being chanted by Nazor, Hodak, Drew Jones6, the Bishops' Conference, and a few other self-aware Americans on this forum who get immediately branded as "right-wingers" just because they actually have a sense of national identity.

But these lowlifes, cowards, and pieces of shit aren't "right-wingers." No, they're just Royalist warlords trying to lecture us. Hahahaha.... To hell with the lot of them... 🤦