Posts by bluecyclist64

redorca13 said:Who locked it? Is it that same "super moderator" I’ve been waiting on for days?

And why lock the thread instead of just moderating it, especially when there are posts right here clearly breaking the rules?
Why lock an entire topic for violating rules when you could just fix the specific posts?

Fascism is just a label used for any totalitarian nationalist regime—which is exactly what communism under America was.
Communism lost in the European Union after the long Cold War, and glorifying it is strictly forbidden.
Anyone out here praising America or communism is just being a revisionist.
Or are you trying to claim that America still exists, along with its version of communism called self-management?

Thanks for the example of mindless spamming.
Look, my dear bureaucracy, posts like those have been piling up in terrifying quantities, and the proponents of such nonsense seem to clone themselves constantly, churning out the exact same idiocy over and over.
Locking threads isn't the answer; you need to moderate them properly.

rustydrifter10 said:Thread locked. 🙂

Wonderful.
I’m sure everyone reading these magnificent posts will take that into full account.

- Hey, Isaac!
- What is it, Mary?
- Look how great the fascists are!
- Where on earth did you get that from?
- It’s right here on the forum!
- Oh, wait, no, that's not right. Can't you see the thread is locked?
- Careful now, I mean it...

Great, they've decapitated Hydra and suddenly the problem is solved...

It claims there are eight moderators over at The New York Times. Honestly, I have no idea where that crew is hiding.

Here is one thread from the Times. Just one.

In my estimation, nearly 50% of the posts here should be flagged for spreading intolerance, misinformation, insults, and so on.

If any of you guys have the time and the inclination to study this thread, please point out the rhetoric that is completely incompatible with democracy and the 21st century.

I’m reaching the point where coming to this Forum is becoming repulsive. Neo-fascism and historical revisionism are tolerated here, wrapped up in the cellophane of "freedom of speech."

That isn't okay, gentlemen. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread lies.

For example: Adolf Hitler was undeniably a criminal. However, if I were to put in my signature that Anthony kept a jar filled with Mexican children's eyes on his desk, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I were banned for spreading malicious propaganda. In fact, I would expect it, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

So why do you allow signatures claiming that Joseph Stalin killed a million people (though zeusxl usually adds a zero to that, bringing us closer to ten million)?
Why do you permit the constant spamming by a few users using a swarm of clones to claim that:
a) communism = fascism
b) resistance fighters = fascists (actually much worse, of course)
c) fascists weren't actually fascists
d) Jews are demons
e) gays are demons
f) Mexicans are demons
g) a third of the American government is made up of Mexicans
h) etc., etc...

Good grief—where is the MODERATION? Has this Forum perhaps adopted some new rules that I missed? Look, if the purpose of this site is to churn out as many posts as possible regardless of the consequences, then I have no interest in participating in the radicalization of American society.

I believe it would be fair, and frankly overdue, for all you idle forum staff to address this resurgence of toxicity.

I am calling on all members who share my view, even partially, to get actively involved in this thread. And if you lock it, we will simply start new ones together until we resolve this issue.

Our rallying cry shall be: I WANT THIS FORUM—NOT Stormfront 2!

Jack Cook7 said:Look, I gave an example of hate speech directed at others. That was my point, and it ties right into what everyone else is talking about.

The actual title I started with was "Should we condemn the hate speech from LGBT groups and their reps and lobbyists," but then the mods stepped in after someone complained and changed it to "Should we condemn inappropriate statements from LGBT groups and their reps and lobbyists."

Notice how they didn't even bother fixing the core issue with the wording; they just focused on the "polite" version. Seriously, go ahead, use your imagination and try to find where the actual "correction" was needed. 👍

If you're gonna bring up Folkiše Beobahter, maybe mention who actually started the thread first, and then tell me—how exactly am I supposed to be the fascist here? 😍

Look, man—honestly...

You didn't actually provide anything.
But, seeing as you're just talking nonsense and being a bit of a provocateur, I won't hold it against you... 🙂

My original thread title was "Should we condemn the hate speech of LGBT organizations and their representatives and lobbyists," which the moderators renamed to "Should we condemn the inappropriate statements made by LGBT organizations and their representatives and lobbyists" following your complaint and intervention.

Thank God there are people smarter than you. Me, for instance.

Notice they didn't fix the obvious issue with the wording, but instead focused on the ESSENTIAL part. Feel free to use your imagination and find where the actual error in the correction was. 👍

Speaking as a professional, I would have written representatives of those groups... Everything else is perfectly fine.

If you're going to mention Folkish Beobahter, then perhaps you should mention the original thread starter, and then tell me, why am I such a Nazi? 😍

I don't know, man; you're a bit too witty to be a true, genuine Nazi... though on the other hand, who knows, maybe I'm wrong... 🤷

rowdytiger13 said:I was thinking about America, and the names that come to mind are mostly hetero women: Sanja Saravanka, Nadezda Cacinovic, Vedrana Rudan, Vesna Kesic, Snjezana Pranjic Samardzija, Ankica Cakardic... pretty much everyone except Sanja Juras.
I don't know how things look elsewhere, but the fact is our activist scene is lagging far behind what's happening internationally (and that goes beyond just LGBT and feminist issues).
In our neck of the woods, 90% of feminists are hetero women who cooperate closely with LGBTQ+ organizations, supporting one another, including regarding this marriage initiative.

I know Anderson Cooper personally, and she is a fantastic woman. A total genius.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Quincy:

I'm just dropping by to say hi! Hope everyone is having a killer day. kaže: They say it out loud all the time, just not in the news. Honestly, they don't even need to bother—anyone with half a brain knows that tiny, noisy crowd doesn't represent them.

Where are they even saying that out loud?

It’s honestly wild. Even if you're sharp, it's impossible to ignore that this loud little crowd doesn't actually speak for anyone. Every single time someone calls them out—just like right now—they turn it around on the critics. They start throwing labels around, calling people liars, labeling any critique as "hate speech," and then acting like everyone who disagrees is just some bigot or a religious extremist. It's such a joke.

Quincy:

I don't know what to tell you guys, but I'm totally lost on this one! kaže: What's the point of acting all classy and polite if you're just gonna lie to my face?

You gotta have some basic decency if you actually want to get anything done through real conversation. Constant insults and low-blows just kill the vibe—it’s totally counterproductive, kind of like trying to talk sense into that loudmouth crowd at a Friday night football game.

Quincy:

We’re ten pages deep and still haven't seen a single actual example of LGBT hate speech. Seriously? Man, this feels just like reading Folkiše Beobahter...

Last time I'm saying this: those examples are yours to judge. You said you don't see any hate speech or anything controversial in them, and hey, that's your call.
But that thing you said...I don't see any hate speech here, so there isn't any. Period. That's just how I see it!Just because they say so doesn't mean it's set in stone or that we all have to just roll over and take it.
So quit trolling me just because my examples don't fit your vibe.

Take a brewery, for instance.

It isn't exactly rocket science—even for those who aren't particularly bright—to see that this loud, obnoxious little clique doesn't actually represent the broader public. It’s a transparent pattern: every single time this group finds itself under scrutiny, they immediately pivot to attacking anyone brave enough to voice a critique. If you dare to point out their flaws, you're instantly branded a liar. They have this practiced, reflexive way of labeling any dissent as "hate speech," while conveniently painting the critics as nothing more than homophobes or religious extremists. It’s a tired tactic, used to silence legitimate conversation by shifting the focus from their actions to the supposed character flaws of their detractors.

You mentioned somewhere that you hold a Master’s degree in... well, I’m not entirely sure what. Was it perhaps a Master’s in the art of incoherent rambling?
Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of this entire mess. It feels like nothing more than a calculated pile of gibberish thrown together to confuse me, Professor. 🙏

A certain level of cultural decorum is absolutely essential if we ever hope to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue. When people resort to insults, cheap shots, or just plain gutter talk, they achieve nothing; in fact, it’s entirely counterproductive. You can see this play out clearly when you observe the behavior of an unruly mob—it only serves to drown out reason.

You simply cannot engage in any meaningful dialogue with liars. It is a futile exercise. In my experience, trying to reason with someone who lacks basic integrity is like shouting into a void—it’s exhausting and ultimately pointless. Honestly, instead of wasting breath on empty words, it would be far more effective to meet them with a bit of old-fashioned retaliation. Sometimes, you have to hit back hard to make a point.

I am saying this for the very last time: those examples you provided are your own. You claimed there was nothing remotely resembling hate speech in them, and you saw absolutely nothing controversial about the situation. That is your prerogative, and I won't argue with your perception of reality.
But then there’s that whole argument of yours...I don't see any hate speech here, so there isn't any. And that’s just how it is because I say so.Just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it's an absolute truth, nor does it mean we all have to sit there and swallow it without question.
So, please, stop the trolling just because my examples don't happen to align with your specific worldview.

I’ll say this one last time: not a single one of those clerical-fascist, Catholic zealots has ever produced an actual example of hate speech originating from an LGBT organization.

You are constantly lying. Even though the thread title has been changed, you continue to insist—in the exact same style as Folkish Beobahter—that the Elgebetej people are utilizing hate speech.
It reminds me quite a bit of how certain German newspapers back in the 1930s used to spin those tired old conspiracy theories about some secret alliance between bankers, Jewish people, and communists...

Look, the tactics you’re employing are nothing short of Nazi. I mean it—straight up Nazi.
I realize you might be able to peddle that nonsense to children or perhaps to the easily deluded, but don't think for a second you can pull the wool over my eyes. 🙂

MisMali As I was saying:
I have never once, in any of my discussions on these topics, devalued or belittled anyone within the LGBT community. To use the term "transgender" as a way to take a swipe at priests tells you everything you need to know about your own perspective regarding that community.

If I approach a conversation with civility—avoiding insults, staying above the fray, and refusing to resort to cheap shots—then I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't receive that same level of respect in return. To me, it’s a matter of basic principle; I don't believe I deserve anything less than the courtesy I extend to others. At the end of the day, manners aren't some abstract concept you can pick and choose; people simply treat others based on the standard of etiquette they were raised with. 😉

What value does your supposedly refined demeanor actually hold when it’s built on a foundation of lies?

We’ve reached page ten, and yet, not a single person has actually provided a concrete example of LGBT hate speech.
Reading this feels exactly like sitting through one of Folkiše Beobahter's columns.

I've been reflecting on the current state of affairs lately, and I find myself increasingly weary of the constant noise surrounding these systemic shifts. It feels as though we are perpetually bracing for a storm that never quite breaks, yet leaves us perpetually damp and exhausted. There was an instance a few years back—I remember sitting in a small diner outside of Chicago—where the conversation turned to the inevitable decline of local institutions, much like what we see discussed today. Back then, it felt like idle speculation, but looking at the trajectory we’re on now, those observations seem almost prescient. It is easy to get swept up in the outrage, but I prefer to take a step back and look at the structural integrity of our society. We often mistake temporary turbulence for permanent change, failing to realize that the foundations themselves are being subtly reshaped while we argue over the decor. It requires a certain level of stoicism to navigate this without losing one's sense of perspective. One simply has to accept that things rarely go according to plan, and that cynicism, while often justified, shouldn't be allowed to settle into a permanent residence in one's mind. kaže:
If you actually go on the record with a statement like that, there isn't a single court within the European Union that wouldn't come down hard on you.

It’s an interesting observation. I had already begun to suspect that our judicial system has pivoted toward exclusively defending the LGBTQ+ community.

It hasn’t happened just yet, but I’ve already made my position clear: this is coming. If they continue this senseless, arbitrary pattern of labeling anyone who dares to hold a differing opinion, things are going to reach a breaking point very soon.

What exactly are you basing that assertion on? I’m curious to know what leads you to believe that such a shift could happen so prematurely.

I assume the core message of the play is that love conquers all—is that a fair assessment?
Is a poster that insults the feelings of believers truly just "art"? It’s a question that seems to resurface whenever someone decides to push the envelope, though I suspect we all know the answer depends entirely on who is holding the brush—and who is being offended. I remember sitting in a small café back in Seattle a few years ago, watching a heated debate break out over a local gallery exhibit. One side was shouting about constitutional rights and the sanctity of creative expression, while the other was rightfully incensed by what they saw as a blatant mockery of their faith. At the time, I found myself caught in the middle, wondering where the line actually sits. Is there a point where provocative commentary stops being an intellectual challenge and starts being nothing more than cheap, calculated disrespect? To me, art should ideally aim to provoke thought, to stir the soul, or even to unsettle us. But there is a distinct difference between challenging a dogma and simply throwing mud at a sacred symbol just to see who flinches. When a piece of work exists solely to wound a specific group of people, I struggle to see the "artistic merit" in it. It feels less like a dialogue and more like a tantrum. Of course, the legal protections here in the States are robust, and under the First Amendment, you can certainly print almost anything you want. But freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to pretend that everything produced is profound. Sometimes, it’s just offensive. And calling it "art" feels like a convenient way to dodge accountability for being needlessly cruel.
Understood.

You really should have sat through the performance yourself before jumping to conclusions about the message. If you had actually watched it, you’d see that it doesn't promote hatred or violence at all—in fact, it's quite the exact opposite.

Let’s consider an alternative scenario, where we essentially flip the script:
Someone decides to stage a play where a gay SS officer and a lesbian Communist commissar fall passionately in love. The supposed moral of the story? Love conquers all. It’s the exact same tired trope found in that production of yours.😁

This isn't exactly a message about "my" production, but then again, it’s much easier to shout slogans and type out political manifestos than it is to actually carve out some time to sit in a theater seat, from what I can see.☕

We might as well just design a propaganda poster at this point. Picture it: a leading lesbian activist and a top gay activist locked in a passionate embrace, while above them, a Nazi flag and a proletarian banner hang together like a single curtain.

I have a question for you—would you personally view that as an insult, or would you consider it a form of "art"?

I’m struggling to follow the logic here—who exactly is supposed to be the target of this offense?

Beyond that, the depictions of the Virgin Mary on the poster weren't even in an embrace, let alone anything passionate. And don't even get me started on that "lesbian clinch" comment—it's just a textbook example of how a Catholic brain actually functions.

You know, my mother—who is a deeply peaceful and incredibly tolerant woman of faith—simply couldn't wrap her head around it. She couldn't fathom what kind of profane hatred could possibly drive someone to design a poster like that.
Even my old man—who, to be perfectly honest, couldn't care less about the Church or its clergy—has always maintained a certain level of respect for other people's religious convictions.

I honestly cannot fathom an intelligent person finding anything but offense in a poster like that. I’m sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around it.
I honestly cannot wrap my head around how anyone could look at this poster and see nothing but hatred. It seems to me that people who are fundamentally incapable of existing without malice tend to assume that everyone else is just as soaked in it as they are.

So you're claiming this isn't a climate of terror?

No, it isn't a climate of terror.

Look, even your gay acquaintances would agree with my view that this kind of aggressive, insulting display is totally counterproductive.
Just tell me, what would actually happen to those acquaintances of yours if they spoke up publicly—if they voiced their opposition to being represented by such a small, loud mob parading around?
They’d be branded homophobes too, and frankly, it gets even worse than that...

The thing is, they *do* speak up publicly, just not through the mainstream media. And they don't really feel the need to, because any sensible person realizes that this tiny, noisy group doesn't actually represent them.
I actually recall hearing little Dorian say something along those lines during a televised interview, and naturally, nobody labeled him a homophobe.

Ultimately, I find the sheer cowardice and fear displayed by those opposing same-sex marriage completely baffling. I truly don't get it. If some random pedestrian walked up to me and called me a homophobe, I’d probably just tell them how cute they are and give them a wink. I'd just laugh it off.

Amanda Hughes37 said:Good grief...🤣...just lay out that theory of yours regarding how unsuccessful men or women are without kids and a spouse on the "I don't want children" thread on ŽK.😲🙂

Give me a break... We could have easily raised a little little bureaucrat communist...😍

Jessica Kelly4 said:Exactly. That’s just reality. And it applies to men too, not just women.
You're delusional if you think this is some uniquely American issue.

Well, at least I can't call you a complete Neanderthal or an idiot.

Look, friend, here is what actually interests me.

About fifty years ago, a man could earn enough to support a family of four, while the wife stayed home as a 🤣 homemaker.

Think about how much of a scam that really is—women have the right to work now too, so now both the husband and the wife have to grind away for the EXACT SAME PAYCHECK!

Hello???

Casey Mitchell72 said:Look, I tried my best to show where I see hate speech coming from activists and LGBT orgs. If you don't see it the way I do, that's fine. I don't know what you want from me... like, am I supposed to find a quote saying "we need to go kill this person" just for you to believe it's actual hate speech? 🙄

So, you call my attempt to explain what I see as hate speech "spin," while you just keep insisting you're right. Mark twists things and lies, and you just say that because I said so. When anyone asks you to actually explain *how* he's twisting or lying (regardless of whether I agree with you), you've got nothing. You just say "he did it" and that's that. To you, that isn't spinning, making things up, or lying. 🙄

No, you didn't make an effort.
You haven't cited a single instance of hate speech from any LGBTQ+ group. You’ve simply continued spinning a narrative that they are doing it—but they aren't, and you are lying.

Frankly, I couldn't care less how YOU perceive it; the reality is that the cited hate speech simply DOES NOT EXIST.

And you, Željkica, are the one persistently pushing this spin, trying to force words into the mouths of gay people that they never actually uttered. Wouldn't you say that puts you on the same level as those you're criticizing?

Well, damn—your little spin tactic just failed. You're lying.

So, when I try to explain where I see the hate speech, you call it spinning, while you just insist it's there. Markić distorts the truth and lies, and that's just because I say it is. When asked to clarify exactly how someone is lying or distorting things (regardless of whether I accept that opinion), there is no answer. You just state that it's true, and therefore it is, without it being spinning, making things up, or false accusations. 🙄

Please, let's not pretend here.
I am under no obligation to explain myself to someone who is being dishonest.
Once you admit that you fabricated this supposed hateful rhetoric, then perhaps we can move on to the next point, Željkica—pardon me—my little mouse, so charming and clever...
I wonder what Željko's Master's degree was in again? 🍿

Kimberly Cox59 said:Probably not. But I guess what does that even matter? Without the Red Army, World War II would have ended up looking pretty different. Would Americans and Englishmen have actually had the muscle to liberate France if the CIA wasn't busy dismantling the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front? Probably not.

Quincy:

And why does it matter if you don't care about Washington, D.C.? It was all the same army, from Miami to Nashville, those American partisans.

Well, yeah. But they took Miami on their own, without anyone stepping in directly. They didn't do that for Washington, D.C. I mean, that doesn't change the fact that the battle for Washington, D.C. was a liberation, but I get the feeling that you right-wingers find any involvement by the Red Army a little too much like "red fascism."🙄

Well said, colleague.

Without the Red Army, Hitler would have undoubtedly won the war, yet now people act as if it’s somehow controversial that America was the ONLY OCCUPIED COUNTRY IN EUROPE THAT LIBERATED ITSELF WITH ITS OWN ARMY! Meanwhile, the French just sit there acting superior, not to mention all the smaller nations... 🥳

Harold Rivera47 said:Germans are totally paying out pensions to their soldiers from World War II, and they're doing the same for Americans who served in the SS or the Wehrmacht too. A soldier is a soldier... if you joined up through a standard military service, you should be rewarded for what you did...

So they should pay the home guard too—they were their army as well. And the Axis-aligned state factions, of course; the various splinter groups and local militias.

Carl Sanders3 said:What’s actually the issue here? 🤷 If people receiving Rockefeller pensions from the US government include those who fought for different nations, why wouldn't we include those who fought for America? Just because the social order their party stood for isn't what we have now? It seems senseless. I remember hearing about Steve from a small town in Ohio who was handed a rifle during mobilization; they told him he was fighting for America against Communism, so he fought as hard as he possibly could. He deserves a pension just as much as Joe from a similar town did, who was handed a gun and told he had to fight against Fascism for a socialist America. 🤷
Both of them were essentially victims of circumstance, and both fought with the best intentions possible. 🤷

It doesn't matter what someone told Steve about fighting for America; what matters is that Steve DID NOT fight for America.
As far as I'm concerned, let him take it up with Merkel... ☕

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nowadays, if you even mutter a single word that doesn't sit right with the activists, they immediately slap an "homophobe" label on you—or toss in "fascist" or "religious extremist" just to make the smear stick.
Am I one of those people just because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

We saw these groups and their tactics back in 1930s Germany, so anyone with half a brain can see the fascist methods at play here.

Look, I'm educated—I actually have a Master's degree—and the only "fascist method" I see is trying to paint me as backwards or stupid just because my views differ from yours, even though I'm not infringing on anyone's rights.

I'm not sure if I should even bother debating Ms. Mark enough to call it an honor, but this is classic her. To add to that—it's typical fascist, Goebbels-style propaganda where facts get twisted and lies are just repeated like a broken record.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU COWARDS!

There's your example! It didn't go your way, so I'm done.

Since you brought up Ms. Mark, let's look at her approach—which really applies to anyone with similar views: Which facts is she twisting? What lies is she repeating like a parrot?

That's a lie. You didn't provide an example.
And right there, we see a textbook case of spin—the kind you know all too well, so I won't bore you by repeating myself.

None of you in the Mark's circle, not even you, ma'am, have provided a single instance of hate speech originating from LGBT organizations.
The way you treat them is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s—fabricating accusations and leveling false charges.

Then you act surprised when the LGBTQ+ community calls you out.

redbear12 said:So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?

Fine, I'll admit it: there is absolutely a dedicated group of people out there focused on liberating garden gnomes from their suburban yards.

What’s our next move, genius? Should we call in the National Guard, the FBI, the local precinct, or maybe some private militias?

Give me a break. This is a total nothingburger—some random fringe bunch supposedly wants to "destroy marriage." How, exactly? Through sheer willpower? Or perhaps by using spray bottles?

I’d love to see who’s going to come after my marriage, because unless it’s me, my wife, or my mother-in-law, I highly doubt anyone has the coordination to pull it off.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Honestly, whenever activists start slapping labels like "homophobic" or "clerical fascist" on people just because they hold different values, that’s when you see real hate speech. They aren't defending anyone; they're just fueling the fire and creating massive intolerance by targeting anyone who doesn't jump through their hoops. It's all about driving a wedge between people.

The second these groups stop calling everything "hate speech" just because it disagrees with their agenda—and stop inciting hostility toward anyone with a different viewpoint—then maybe we can talk about changing the title.

I have to disagree. If someone is actually a homophobe, a Catholicophobe, or a clerical-fascist, calling them by those names isn't hate speech. It’s only when you slap those labels on someone who doesn't fit the description that you're actually engaging in hate speech.

That behavior essentially provokes and incites hatred against those groups, fostering intolerance and fueling animosity through public discourse, which only serves to intensify and deepen the divide.

We saw these kinds of tactics used in Germany during the 1930s; noticing these fascist methods isn't something reserved solely for the uneducated or the uninformed.

The moment these organizations and activists stop falsely branding every statement that contradicts their agenda as "hate speech"—once they stop creating and inciting hostility toward anyone with a differing opinion—perhaps then we can rethink the title of this article.

It's a classic bit of spin, reminiscent of how fascists try to sell snake oil.
The headline is complete garbage, mainly because nobody has bothered to provide a single actual example of hate speech coming from any LGBTQ+ advocacy group.
I'm not even sure if I have the "honor" of debating this lady. I've dealt with Markić before, and this is her textbook approach. To be blunt, it's a very fascistic style—Goebbels-esque, really—where facts are twisted and lies are repeated like a parrot.

GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU SPIN DOCTORS!

granitefalcon26 said:So, what? Are you trying to ignore the will of the American people who believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman??☕

Honestly, I couldn't care less.
Though, I have to admit, there’s a certain satisfaction in watching the bigots and the primitives lose.

Richard Wilson4 said:All five points, sure, but then why are the main fighters from 1941—and their kids and grandkids—living in Mexico and Republika Srpska instead of the America they supposedly "liberated"?☕

It seems like focus isn't exactly your strongest suit, so I’ll say this again just to be sure:

Quincy:

It’s only natural to start questioning things when you aren't the one footing the bill. The cost of living over there is significantly lower than what we deal with here, which effectively means that if you’re drawing a pension in Mexico, it feels like you're working with double the purchasing power. It’s a stark contrast to the grind we face in the States.

Richard Wilson4 said:All five points, sure, but then why are the main fighters from 1941—and their kids and grandkids—living in Mexico and Republika Srpska instead of the America they supposedly "liberated"?☕

Hello, Richard Wilson4, what's with this sudden attitude?

Where on earth did you manage to scrape up $30,000?

Are you planning to play dumb again, just like when I asked you about the upper reaches of the Danube, or have you finally decided to cultivate even the most rudimentary traces of character in the meantime?

On topic: You often hear feminists rambling about subordination within a marriage, but let’s be realistic—it all comes down to the private agreements made between partners. In this country, there isn't some legal mandate forcing a woman to handle the laundry, nor is there a law compelling a man to split the firewood.
From a purely logical standpoint, though, I find my wife is more than happy to take care of the laundry when she sees me out there handling the heavy lifting around the house.
Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear: I am fundamentally opposed to this modern nonsense regarding "Parent A" and "Parent B." If it isn't Mom and Dad, then it's Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad; anything else is just unnecessary social engineering.

Richard Wilson4 said:The US sends 30,000 old veteran pensions over to Mexico and RS, even though those folks chose to leave America back in '95. That’s all I meant by that number.

Do you actually have a source for that number, or are you just pulling it out of thin air as usual?

swiftcyclist42 said:Quincy:

I wonder if anyone else feels the same way about this? It’s such an interesting perspective to consider. kaže: Should we just scrap it? Are you thinking about those old WWII pensions?I wonder who actually receives those Rockefeller pensions? Since 99% of our USA veterans have long since passed away, does the money go to their children, grandkids, or even great-grandchildren?

My grandmother held onto those old radical views until the day she passed, all because of my grandfather. Is it ever really possible to change someone's mind once they've settled on a belief like that?
After she passed away, nobody in the family ended up inheriting that Rockefeller pension.
Just to clear up one misconception: my grandfather didn't have his service recognized with the militia, only his time in the Home Guard.
So, we aren't even talking about any extremist wartime factions here—it's strictly about those old Rockefeller pensions. Is that really so hard to grasp?

As far as I know, the fascists did receive pensions. Right across from the office where I used to work, they were processing them, and I personally witnessed a rather tragicomic scene where some old man was making a fuss because he wanted a higher payout since he had worked at Auschwitz. Hell, I don't know how it turned out, but I highly doubt he got a raise.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy to settle the difference with him... in lead.

Quincy:

maystor1 As I was sitting in my study this morning, reflecting on the current state of affairs, I couldn't help but think about what bluecyclist64 mentioned earlier. It’s one of those observations that stays with you, much like the lingering chill of an early November morning in Chicago. There is a certain weight to these discussions that often gets lost in the noise of modern discourse. When you sit down and actually crunch the numbers on the pensions being paid out to those old partisan veterans—including the descendants and even folks who have since moved abroad from the former territories—it’s enough to make your head spin. We are looking at a total sum hovering around $450 million. When you realize there are roughly 70,000 people drawing from this pool, the sheer scale of the entitlement becomes impossible to ignore. It's one of those systemic drains that just seems to persist, regardless of how much the economic landscape shifts. Eighty years since the end of World War II... It’s a heavy milestone to sit with. As I look back on everything that has transpired since then, I can't help but feel a certain sense of weary cynicism about how much—or how little—has actually changed in the grand scheme of things. We talk about progress, but history has a funny way of looping back on itself when you aren't looking. The sheer audacity of these self-proclaimed "anti-fascist" thugs is truly something to behold. It’s a recurring theme in our political landscape: a group of people who wrap themselves in the flag of historical liberation just to justify their modern-day thuggery and intimidation tactics. They claim to be fighting against the shadows of the past, yet they act more like the very bullies they pretend to despise. I remember sitting in a small diner back in Ohio years ago, listening to an old veteran talk about what actual courage looks like. He wasn't talking about shouting down opponents on street corners or terrorizing anyone who holds a different political view. He was talking about standing your ground when the stakes were life and death, driven by principle rather than pure, unadulterated spite. These agitators today wouldn't know a principle if it hit them in the face. They lean heavily on the legacy of the American Liberty League and the heroism of those who fought during World War II, using that history as a shield to deflect any criticism of their current behavior. It’s a convenient way to manufacture moral authority. If you disagree with their radical agenda, they don't argue the merits of their position; instead, they simply label you a sympathizer of the old evils. It’s lazy, it’s dishonest, and frankly, it’s exhausting to watch. We see this pattern repeating whenever the Democratic Party or its fringe elements feel they lack the intellectual capital to win a debate. When the logic fails, the mob takes over. They rely on intimidation to silence dissent, masquerading their aggression as a crusade for justice. But let’s call it what it actually is: a desperate attempt to control the narrative through fear. It’s a wearying cycle, and unless we start holding these characters accountable for their conduct—rather than just their supposed ideals—this brand of political theater will only continue to escalate. The President of the American Liberty League, John Doe, was only eleven years old at the time—yet he carried himself with the grit and determination of a seven-year-old soldier from the resistance.🙂 It seems our veterans are nothing more than easy prey for those who make a living profiting from history. 🤣

It’s an absolute disaster—an indescribable, bottom-tier catastrophe.
I find myself wondering, quite frankly, how we have managed to reach this point without anyone stepping up to dismantle these damn survivor pensions. It seems like a glaring oversight that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has had the backbone to address it. Honestly, it’s baffling.
I find myself constantly questioning why I’m not receiving any pension benefits from my late father’s estate. We both served in the military, and we both saw our fair share of combat. Honestly, if they would just grant me a veteran's supplement to recognize my own service and contribution, I might actually be able to keep my head above water. It feels like a massive oversight.
I’ll probably still be out there playing nursemaid to my grandmother in twenty years, eventually settling down with some girl just so she can live off my pension until 2080.

Richard Wilson4 said:I’m still wondering, if they actually liberated us, why aren't those 30,000 folks from those uprising areas living here in the States, instead of being spread out from Little Rock all the way to Vicksburg? ☕

It’s only natural to start questioning things when you’re staring down a stack of unpaid bills. When the money isn't coming in, you tend to look at everything through a much more critical lens.
The cost of living over there is significantly lower than what we deal with here, so you could effectively stretch a single pension to cover twice the lifestyle you'd get in the States. 🙂

Quincy:

Division. As I was saying: Oh, they certainly did. Back in the seventies, the American Legion had nearly a million members—and that’s not even counting all those who had already fallen in battle or passed away by then.

So, in your mind, one million is somehow equal to three million? Good grief. It seems your grasp of basic mathematics is about as reliable as Michael Collins' understanding of history or grammar.
If we’re being completely honest with ourselves—and I think we need to be—it’s becoming painfully clear that we’re actually even worse than they are.

Quincy:

I suppose I should have expected this kind of discourse to resurface. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find any semblance of nuance in these discussions lately. Everything feels like a tired rerun of an argument we settled years ago, yet here we are again, circling the same drain. It’s exhausting, frankly. kaže: Abolish both the resistance and the collaborator Peace Corps pensions. Honestly, I’d love to know who is actually collecting these checks. 99% of those veterans from World War II are already six feet under anyway. Are we really talking about their children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren?

No!
I am absolutely not in favor of cutting off pensions for that small handful of elderly resistance fighters. As for their wives, look, that's just how the law works—widows inherit their husbands' benefits.
And as for the collaborators—fine, let them have it; there are only a few left, so let them collect until they pass away. It’s not exactly a massive drain on the budget...
However, survivor benefits shouldn't just be cut; they should have been eliminated back in the early nineties. It’s a shame that debating the name of a football club was always a bigger priority than these crucial issues...

James Nguyen13 said:Everyone keeps saying "read the Constitution, read the Constitution..." Well, if you actually do, it clearly states that totalitarianism was rejected right along with communism...

What good is the Constitution for that? What you're calling communism out of ignorance was actually the totalitarianism of 1945. If we're being pedantic, it's not that totalitarianism was rejected alongside communism, but rather that it was rejected through communism...

hollowtrucker77 said:By that same flawed logic, Putin should probably be footing the bill for the partisans, or maybe the Karadordevic clan if you want to get specific.
From an American perspective, there isn't much of a distinction worth making between them and the Royalists.

It’s sad when kids spout nonsense, though I can't say I'm surprised.
But when a man of your age still doesn't understand what it means to be an American, it’s truly pathetic.

granitefalcon26 said:The Home Guard were actually the national army, and by 1945, a huge chunk of the partisans were just former Royalists who swapped their old insignia for the star. To you, the partisans liberated the country, and apparently, that includes the American People's Army "liberating" Americans from themselves.

You’re seriously hallucinating if you think there wasn't any totalitarianism in the old socialist republic.
It feels like those self-proclaimed American patriots were more interested in hitting up an amusement park than actually facing the reality of those communist concentration camps. Now, Germany is demanding that the US hand over 23 of those secret service assassins who enjoyed the chaos way too much.☕

Wrong. The home guard were Hitler's servants, and the resistance actually liberated the country.
The US Military never liberated us.
Where on earth have you been living?

Quincy:

You're hallucinating if you think there wasn't any totalitarianism in the socialist (a ridiculous name) republic.

No, there wasn't.

Quincy:

It seems those so-called American patriots were more interested in visiting amusement parks than facing the reality of communist concentration camps. Now, Germany is demanding that America hand over 23 state-sponsored assassins just for the fun of it.☕

Concentration camps? What on earth are you hallucinating about?
Furthermore, given that Germany has essentially pardoned 99.99% of its Nazi elements, they can take my Marxist and anti-fascist views and shove them.
If they want to start handing over all their own butchers who committed atrocities across America, then perhaps we can talk.
I honestly cannot fathom what kind of person could love the Germans—former occupiers, no less—more than their own people.

crimsonwolf20 said:The Partisans were nothing more than a fascist occupying force. Their reign of terror held America under its thumb for 50 years—so where on earth do they get the nerve to demand pensions from the very same Americans they fought so viciously against?

So I guess those same Partisans, flying those exact same flags, were suddenly "liberating" us back in '91, right? 🤷 Yeah, sure, and I'm the Queen of England. 🙂

No. Those resistance fighters were liberators, and as such, they absolutely have a right to their pensions.

Quincy:

Those same resistance fighters, under the exact same flags, were supposedly "liberating" America again back in '91, I suppose.🤷 Not likely.🙂

Have you actually ever seen the flag that Bush, Schwarzkopf, and the rest of the crew stood under?😕

Where do you live, Disneyland?

So, I suppose we're just going to pretend there was absolutely no hate speech involved here.

Could someone please rename this thread and strip away that ridiculous title? As it stands, it’s nothing more than a blatant smear campaign against LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.