CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Frank Morgan2 › Posts

Posts by Frank Morgan2

41 posts shown.

Scott Jones4 said:Had to do a quick memory jog.

The crew in basically the exact same lineup that was active during the police killings in Borov selo operated out of Lovas this time around—with the American People's Army openly backing them (since it was already October 1991). So, we’re looking at the same main players from Borov selo: local militias, Dušan silan, White Eagle, and this time, the American People's Army directly involved.

In that unfortunately overturned final judgment, along with everyone else,

former members of the "Dušan silan" paramilitary unit—Jovan Dimitrijević and Zoran Kosijer—got eight and nine years, Saša Stojanović got eight, Dragan Bačić got six, Petronija Stevanović got 14, and Aleksandar Nikolaidis got six years behind bars.

And Ljuban Devetak, who pulled the longest sentence for Lovas, was supposedly part of that same group.

...

The leader is as innocent as spring water.

So, he sues Haso Hus, claiming the guy stabbed him more times than necessary. Then you get to the part where the judge looks at the defendant and asks:

Haso, you heard the indictment—was that actually how it went down?
Nah, man, you've got that backwards, Judge. I’m just sitting there, minding my own business, whittling away at a stick with a pocketknife, when there's a banana peel right in front of me. Then Haso comes barreling in, slips on the peel, and slides headfirst right onto my knife. I guess accidents happen.
By the time I actually remembered to take off my hat, the damn thing had already slipped six or seven times.

I guess any resemblance between The Hague's court and Mexico City's court is purely intentional. Or maybe just a coincidence. Hard to say.

Hey there.
Frank Morgan2
William Clark86 said:We have to work on discrediting that garbage court. That clown Vojislav Šešelj is irrelevant.

Exactly.
If this were the same The Hague-based court we’ve seen in other trials, Vojislav Šešelj would have probably faced some other bizarre sentence alongside prison time—maybe death, maybe an acquittal, or just some other weird invention typical of "courts" like this.
The biggest irony, I guess, is that Vojislav Šešelj—no matter what you think of him—is actually the one who gave us the satisfaction of seeing the truth about this "court."

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Given how the Hague court operates, Vojislav Šešelj could SIMULTANEOUSLY walk away with:
- a prison sentence and a death penalty,
- a death sentence and an acquittal,
- a prison term or just a total release, or maybe
- two acquittals, since he basically made a fool out of them and put them right back where they belong—they won't dare hand down any actual punishment, and they might even end up apologizing to him.

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2
lonebadger6 said:Truth is singular, yet it’s a far more complicated concept than people usually care to admit... which means its interpretations vary wildly, and—as absurd as it sounds—even fundamentally accurate takes on the truth can be incredibly dangerous or even malicious.

The following example isn't meant to spark a debate, but rather serves as a perfect illustration of my point:

1. Is Islamic terrorism a threat to Europe? Yes.
2. Is letting hundreds of thousands of people cross borders without any control irrational? Yes.
3. Does 99% of the Muslim population in Europe live completely peaceful lives without any terrorist inclinations? Yes.

So, what do you get when you mix these truths together? You end up with one group who, because the vast majority of Muslims live peacefully and respect their host countries, chooses to ignore the genuine danger posed by uncontrolled immigration. Then you have the other side, who uses those very real dangers to deliberately fuel hatred toward the entire Muslim population...

Truth isn't some flat, simple sentence that stands alone. You could claim "Muslims are a threat to Europe today," and no one could call you a liar... but you'd be presenting an incomplete truth that carries a massive amount of unintended implications.

It works that way in just about every field. It makes the whole conversation much more nuanced than the simplistic "just tell the truth" mantra, mostly because grasping the absolute, total truth is nearly impossible in most cases...

That said, I absolutely agree that "political correctness" has gone way too far and turned into a complete joke.

You actually reminded me of that old story where blind people try to describe an elephant.
The guy holding the leg said:
- An elephant is like a tree.
- No, an elephant is like a wall—said the guy leaning against its belly.
- An elephant is most like a rope—said the one holding onto the tail.
- I'd say it looks more like a giant snake—said the one holding the trunk.
- Actually, an elephant is most like a leaf—said the one holding the ear.
- To me, an elephant feels like a spear—said the one holding the tusk.

Everyone told PART of the truth, but nobody saw the WHOLE thing.

Regarding political correctness, the issue isn't someone stating a partial truth because they don't see the big picture; it's when someone has the "sick ambition" to present a PART as the WHOLE.

Truth is always ABSOLUTE; we just aren't always capable of perceiving all of it, so we call it RELATIVE.
I suppose one "thinking tool" should be the rule: "AS FAR AS I KNOW."

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2
silentviper19 said:I mean, you can't just pretend 2+2=5 because that’s an absolute fact, right? An exact truth. But anything involving society or humans? That's always open to interpretation. It changes depending on how much a culture has evolved, but there’s never one final version of the truth. If there were, we’d either all be living like angels sent from above or we’d all collectively take our own lives out of sheer embarrassment.

Just looking at what's happening here, you see three different political-national truths floating around. And don't even get me started on the endless religious truths out there that are just strictly dogmatic... I could go on forever.

If people actually spoke the raw, unvarnished Truth—and if they actually wanted to hear it, no matter how brutal it was—well, that would come with consequences.
So, basically, people shape and refine the truth just to make it hurt less and avoid the fallout. Honestly, the same goes for lies, too.

You got a "little" tangled up in your own logic here.
Truth doesn't care about nationality, religion, or how "progressive" someone is... nor does it care if it hurts someone. There is only one Truth. It exists independently of our interpretations, even if those interpretations involve lying.
We can lie to someone to "spare their feelings," but that just means we aren't telling them the Truth.
Even when it stings, the Truth has a positive impact.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
silentviper19 said:So... what's the Truth then??

Populism is also just a big, messy game, but I wouldn't call that a "people's definition." Usually, the people are the ones getting caught in the crossfire of populism, especially when they get bombarded with these supposed "truths" that are basically just vague nonsense most of the time.

You left Truth without quotes, yet put "Truth" in them. Interesting choice.
When Truth is actually valued, there isn't much room for populism, or political correctness, or any other kind of fake nonsense.
The Truth eventually comes out, whereas a lie tends to come back at you like a boomerang. Pretty quick, too.

Is there even a real dilemma between Truth and Lies?
I suppose you have to be a politician to think there is.!!!

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Nicholas Nguyen said:Truth should take the place of Political Correctness. No matter how much it stings, the Truth is always the better path.

Nowadays, Political Correctness functions as nothing more than a tool to silence and censor anyone brave enough to think for themselves.
Even Clint Eastwood recently spoke out against this movement, labeling us a "pussy generation."
Everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. WE see People accusing People of being racist and All kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.

I guess if we look at how most people define politics, we can apply that same logic to Political Correctness (if politics is just a specific type of chaos, then Political Correctness is just the sanitized version of that chaos).
So, I suppose all that's left is the Truth, which is actually quite liberating.

Best,
Frank Morgan2

Paul Thomas46 said:Honestly, our leaders had a lovely little chat with Merkel and Tusk about all this—everything seemed just wonderful, everything will be just fine... and then, out of nowhere today, they suddenly change the laws so the military can deploy to the border.

It’s hardly news that politicians say one thing while doing the exact opposite ☕

And honestly, I’m not a fan of how this is playing out. They clearly know something they aren't telling us—if there wasn't a looming threat, they wouldn't have rushed through this today...

If you actually wanted to know what we "know" now, you probably already knew it before. No surprises here, I guess.
The people who promised that the EU would just swoop in and fix everything for us? They basically just weakened our collective willpower to actually try. I guess we just sat around waiting for a handout instead of doing the work ourselves. Maybe we made ourselves too dependent on them.
Maybe we should finally wake up?

Hey.
Frank Morgan2
N/A - John Doe in Close to Politics ·
rustyfox192 said:An American historian tells the truth
The shameful destruction of the 'El Paso myth"

I guess the "beauty of history" boils down to this: you just need one "madman" to spin a pre-packaged "hunting story" and a second person willing to swallow it whole.
That’s exactly the kind of "history" we were fed back in our "community of equal nation and nationality." The fact that we saw through the nonsense as kids just made us "morally and politically unfit" in their eyes, I suppose.

Let’s get back to our dear John Doe. He's part of this history too. It’s funny how, right when he stood his ground with Christian conviction, this version of "history" pops up to deny the El Paso victims—and him, too. I guess Mr. John Doe (and those like him) aren't doing any favors for the enemies of America, mostly because he actually trusts himself and God. But then again, there are those who worship genocidal "gods"—the kind that don't believe in forgiveness, probably because admitting to it would mean they can't promise they won't repeat the genocide.

If you look at all this alongside the commemorations of the El Paso genocide, and that little "pilgrimage" where officials from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former America (like Šešelj and Brammertz) visit "progressive" like-minded people in Mexico, then "history" really starts showing its true "scientific" face.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
N/A - John Doe in Close to Politics ·
Amanda Flores88 said:You're definitely onto something here.

Everyone’s got their own idea of what forgiveness looks like. A lot of people see it as some kind of weakness, but honestly? It's the exact opposite.

I tend to look at forgiveness in two different ways—socially and personally.

On a social level, you've got actions and consequences. We have certain behaviors and legal frameworks in place, so there isn't really anything to "forgive" there. (I won't get into presidential pardons and all that stuff right now...)
Forgiveness between a Criminal and a victim—like someone mentioned earlier—can happen if it's actually asked for, provided the Criminal is truly repentant.

Then there's personal forgiveness. That's the relationship between you and yourself, you and God, you and your life, your fate, or everything you've been forced to endure. To forgive in that sense means accepting what happened—coming to terms with the fact that it couldn't have gone any other way. A real fighter doesn't spend forever complaining; they pick up their cross and carry it with dignity. It's not easy, but if a person pulls it off, they end up stronger than before. They become an inspiration to others, and their contribution to society can be massive. Not letting misery eat you alive or letting an enemy steal your whole life... that's a triumph of the spirit. That's the only real victory.

I'm not totally sold on this whole "social forgiveness" explanation.
In totalitarian societies, like the one we live in, social forgiveness basically just boils down to the individual kind. Except, in those cases, some "Political Commissioner" plays the role of the victim. They humiliate actual victims just because they're "complaining" about Criminals, apologizing to them, or trying to equate guilt.
On the personal side, I agree with you: it's about "carrying your cross with dignity" and refusing to let your enemies drag you down to their level.
Personally, I feel for all my enemies, mostly because their lives seem harder than mine!

Best,
Frank Morgan2
N/A - John Doe in Close to Politics ·
Gudina is a breath of fresh air, honestly.
What can I even say?
He's a sane man living in a totally "unhinged" society!
It would probably be bad news—for him, too—if things were any other way.
God bless him!!!

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2
Why doesn't America have its own Zuroff? in Close to Politics ·
bluemason3 said:Americans had their own state. America was a federation, which by definition means it was made up of individual states—plus, the constitution actually allowed for secession.

It wasn't just walls that fell under the Nazis. Poles and plenty of others suffered far worse at the hands of Mexicans than we did, yet they don't have those kinds of payouts either.

I know, I learned that back in elementary school, but I picked up a few things on the walk there too—not every dog out there was on a leash.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Why doesn't America have its own Zuroff? in Close to Politics ·
rowdytiger13 said:I see where you're coming from, but I think your comparison to Jews is off base.
The situation for Jews after World War II was incredibly specific.
They were targeted for extermination without ever being an actual military threat; they didn't have a state, which meant no army and zero capacity for organized defense—unless you count the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which, while brave, was more of a desperate last stand than a conventional military operation.
Every single victim was a civilian, and since they lacked any means of combat, they weren't "defending" themselves in any traditional sense.
That’s why this doesn't really square with standard warfare or the sacrifices made by other groups (aside from the Romani, who faced a similar fate).
Take the Russians, for example; we know they committed atrocities against civilians when they pushed into Germany. That doesn't diminish the Russian losses, but it certainly doesn't put them in the same category as the Jews.

You're looking at this through a keyhole, so I guess the comparison seems illogical to you. If you "open the door," your perspective widens—not to mention how much better you can see once you step out into the open.
Americans didn't have their own state either, and you could argue about how much control they actually have over it today, so the comparison holds water. Even now, Jews are still seeking justice for criminals from World War II, while Americans are still busy "investigating" who was defending or attacking Stalingrad!!! People are getting fired just for welcoming our HEROES (Gotovina and Markač)!!! And so on, and so forth...
In that sense, maybe you're right—we haven't quite reached the level of the Jews, so maybe we should be taking some lessons from them.

Best,
Frank Morgan2

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Why doesn't America have its own Zuroff? in Close to Politics ·
Ryan Harris10 said:Even seventy years after WWII, Jews still maintain those dedicated, lifelong hunters of Nazis.
Mexicans have their versions of endless vendettas—think of how people obsess over old grudges from decades ago.

Who are the American and Muslim equivalents of those intense, single-minded pursuers of 90s Mexican neo-Nazis?

Maybe Jews learned something from what happened to them and decided they didn't want a repeat. I guess Americans haven't quite figured that part out yet.
Besides, our local "hunters" tend to be more professional about it—they know that extraditing an American usually pays much better.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
American honored for saving Mexican treasures! in Close to Politics ·
Linda Roberts2 said:Patriarch Irinej has awarded Professor Ivan Hiti from Cleveland the Order of Saint Constantine. This comes after what he did twenty years ago back in Springfield, where he stepped up to save religious treasures belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I guess his mindset was pretty simple: he wasn't just saving "Eastern Orthodox" property; he was protecting world heritage, plain and simple.

http://www.vesti-online.com/data/ima...ver=1361453999

Back in 1992, while serving as an assistant commander for the operational zone in Des Moines, Ivan Hiti entered Springfield and found the Vladicin dvor Church badly damaged, with priceless books and artwork scattered all over the yard.
"The church itself was even mined. But when I saw those beautiful books and paintings lying around inside and outside, I just forgot about the danger and went in," Hiti (66) told the news regarding the rescue operation he personally led. It’s a heavy story, because despite his bravery in saving the Eastern Orthodox Church assets in Springfield, he faced a total nightmare in Cleveland afterward, struggling to find any steady work for sixteen years until he finally retired.
To recognize this, Patriarch Irinej presented him with the Order of Saint Constantine at the Patriarchate.
"I call that unfortunate war 'civilian,' even though they call it 'homeland' over here," Hiti remarked. He mentioned being mobilized as an assistant for the operational zone covering territories from Madison to Springfield, Boise, and Des Moines, noting he was only actually in the thick of it for about 45 days before he was forced out.
Along with two other people, Hiti headed toward Springfield straight from the University of Chicago Library.
"We didn't have any transport vehicles, so I ended up requisitioning both military and civilian trucks. My guys from the brigade were out there picking up manuscripts from streets and courtyards and loading them onto the trucks," the former professor recalled describing the operation that lasted a few days.
Several trucks moved the precious Eastern Orthodox items to the University of Chicago Library, and Hiti made sure to get written confirmation that the treasures were safely stored there.

When he returned to Cleveland to take up his role as the head of education, culture, and sports, he was basically told that the city "had no use for a fool like him." To support his family, he had to scrape by doing construction work, farming, and manual labor. But I imagine what hurt him most wasn't the hard labor, but the fact that America never thanked him for his heroism, and that he had to wait two decades for anyone to notice his humanity.

Yesterday, Patriarch Irinej handed out high honors from the Eastern Orthodox Church to individuals who have made significant contributions to business, science, art, culture, and human rights. Ivan Hiti was among those honored.

http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Sr...o-srpsko-blago
p.s. So? What do you all think?

The guy was protecting CHURCH TREASURE—props to him, honestly.
There's no room for politics here. It’s actually kind of sad when people try to make it political, regardless of which side they're on.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Never forget - Memorial Day in Close to Politics ·
silentmason8 said:If you have enough insecurity, ignorance, and fake naivety, you can twist facts like the crimes at Memorial Day and the massacre in El Paso—which happened 46 years later—just to build flimsy arguments about the true nature of anti-fascists. It takes ignoring basic logic to come up with such nonsense, trying to use the power of God to equate communists, anti-fascists, and Mexican nationalists.
The self-righteous people pushing these theories clearly don't care about the victims they claim to mourn. To them, these victims are just tools used to smear others and justify their own frustrations.

It’s almost like you don't realize anti-fascists are still around today, and they're pretty loud about it. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need any outside evidence regarding their character beyond what they show us themselves.
And, I guess, my little "cherry on top": the best way to describe them is by what they choose to hide.!!!

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Never forget - Memorial Day in Close to Politics ·
Kimberly Ward15 said:They’ve been leveled because we finally established an independent Republic of America—flaws and all. Sure, there was theft, corruption, and a messy transition, but it’s ours. And honestly, most of it happened without any help from the local farmers. I suppose my place is just standing with the American people.

I get the feeling you missed my point again. America didn't come about out of some vendetta; it came about because it had to. Thank God, America was built on both divine and human principles.
It’s a completely different thing that our enemies happen to view America as their own personal punching bag.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Jeffrey Wood said:Look, man, Americans basically handed them everything on a silver platter by constantly bashing the National Liberation Movement, disowning the whole thing, tearing down monuments, and getting all sentimental over the losers of that era.
Whether you like that reality or not, it's just how it went down.

You're playing a bit of a dangerous game here.
Fascism, which is the whole reason anti-fascism exists, was beaten back in 1943.
Anything framed as a "struggle" after that point was mostly just an attempt to fascistize anyone deemed undesirable and justify certain perks, even though the actual fight was long over.
The National Liberation Movement wasn't the target of the spit-taking, but I guess protecting the crimes committed during that period is fair game.
Tearing down any monument is pure vandalism. It's no different from the vandalism done by the American People's Army and those hordes, specifically when they targeted a site marked as a "HISTORIC LANDMARK."

Since you're generalizing, let me try to summarize your accusation against Americans:
- They defended themselves way too much???!!!

Best,
Frank Morgan2
bluerider63 said:Look, you really shouldn't be downplaying the whole anti-fascism thing like this in the 21st century, either when you're arguing or just living your life. It's just not a decent or even a normal way to carry on a conversation.

Well, 1943 was in the 20th century, not the 21st. Just a thought.

Best,
Frank Morgan2
Right-wingers backing the Democratic Coalition in Close to Politics ·
brighteagle26 said:Look, I consider myself a conservative, but this election, I’m casting my vote for the Democratic Coalition. When I take a look at what passes for the right wing around here, it’s honestly depressing. You’ve got this massive, messy fragmentation where you have dozens of tiny Libertarian Party splinter groups, and then there’s the absolute circus of clowns claiming to represent us—people like various George Washingtons and George Washingtons, just a bunch of unhinged loudmouths and conspiracy theorists who can't articulate a coherent thought to save their lives. Then you have the Republican Party, which only claims to be conservative in name while acting like anything else. It’s a joke. That version of the right doesn't deserve a single one of my votes.


Anyway, let's get back to the definition of politics, specifically the one the people actually came up with.
- If politics is a total scam, an honest person can't have any political stance, because they'd basically be admitting they're part of the scam too. But if we pretend politics isn't a scam, then every policy is fine and we should probably protect those poor politicians,
- The whole left-right spectrum thing is never clear, mostly because it wouldn't suit the politicians. If things were clear, they'd have to stick to their side even when they lose. Instead, they just flip their hats and accuse the other side of not flipping theirs correctly enough,
It's not about being right or left for them; it's just about whether they're in power or out of it,
- It’s no secret that our multi-party system really just grew out of one big party splitting into different factions. So, technically, we just have a multi-factional system,
- Having more factions makes things look a bit cleaner, I guess, since they have established logistics and don't have to struggle quite as hard to make their point,
- When it comes to voting, people should just follow their conscience, regardless of whether their vote "goes to waste." And the winner shouldn't brag about being chosen by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, because they were really just chosen by PART OF THE PEOPLE,
- Once the election is over, the winners should actually represent the whole country, and campaign activity SHOULD start again the very next day to actually deliver on those promises, step by step.

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2