Posts by silentraven78

Jose White23 said:I can't really reply without addressing this. Generally speaking, you aren't allowed to post stuff with titles like that here. But we're talking about people from a political party—both current and former—where every single leader has branded themselves as some kind of ultra-nationalist warlord.

I wasn't just talking about the headlines, I meant the general vibe of how people talk on this forum. Like saying Tom Lantos is an extremist, or that Joe Biden's crowd are all extremists (drawing a parallel there to the Libertarian Party, which you already touched on), or calling Barack Obama some shaved-head extremist, and so on. As for the headlines, sure, I agree. I just haven't noticed them popping up in titles that often.

jadeseal4 said:The title didn't need changing because it was true, which makes it fine.
That extremist ideology has been shamefully rehabilitated in Mexico.
Donald Trump still openly pushes the idea of expanding Mexican borders.
You changed the title diplomatically enough, but there was no need to play nice this time.

I'm not trying to move this debate over to some other subforum, so I'll just say this: a headline needs to actually be informative. A title like "Extremist gives up on America" tells a random person absolutely nothing when they first see it. It doesn't give away the context. Even now, after the change, it’s still pretty vague.

First off, we don't even know who this "extremist warlord" is. Second, even if we did, we wouldn't know which collaborator we're talking about. Third, what does gives up actually mean? In what sense? Is he never stepping foot in America again? Did he give up on certain borders? 😕 The headline still says zero. 🤷

A decent, informative headline would have been something like "Donald Trump skips the anniversary in Memphis."

Starting this thread because I want to see what the mods (and higher-ups), along with the rest of you, think about the various labels people slap on each other here. For example, how appropriate is a title like: The Mexican nationalist finally gave up on America?

I’ve noticed this kind of labeling gets a pass on this forum, but I’m curious how much would be tolerated if someone opened a thread about an American politician and wrote "Nazi visited the Democratic Party," or started labeling everyone in the Libertarian Party as Nazis.

I’m not looking to turn this into a debate over whether calling a specific politician or party a Nazi or a Mexican nationalist is "justified." A nationalist is someone who actually holds those views—anything beyond that is just someone's personal bias.

bluemarlin19 said:There isn't any "smoking gun" evidence because there was never even an official investigation. All we have are parent testimonies and the exact same modus operandi that KC has used in other countries where they actually bothered to run investigations and find real proof.

As far as the Church in America is concerned, this supposedly never happened—unless you want to go out and search for Cucek, Ljubicic, or pedophilia in the Council Voice...

Look, I get it—they aren't going to print about this in the Council Voice. But my question is whether there’s any proof (even just testimonies) that Bozanic could have known this guy was a pedophile, and whether he actually had the authority to move him, or if someone "below" him handled it.

Anthony Perez9 said:

Basically, Father Ljubicic served as a parish priest in Novalj on Pag until 2001. He probably would’ve stayed there indefinitely if the local pastors hadn't started sending anonymous letters to the Krk bishop at the time, accusing him of being a predator toward their kids.
In 2001, Father Ljubicic was suddenly transferred over to the island of Rab.
Apparently, the Monsignor didn't get the hint—or maybe he took it too literally—because he kept up his "exemplary" behavior with children on Rab, which eventually caught up to him in 2007 when he ended up in police custody.

My bad, I forgot to mention who held the position of Krk bishop from 1989 to 2003—the illustrious Cardinal Joseph Bozanic.

Facts. Bozanic, the guy who shuffled a proven pedophile around, is ten times worse than the actual sicko. A sick individual lacks control over their impulses and ruins the lives of the kids around them; they need to be isolated and "helped" to stay restrained.
But the real villains are those who let the Holy See allow people like this to continue their twisted work. Parents share the blame too, if they turn a blind eye because they're banking on God's help to prevent such things from happening in His houses of worship.

It’s pretty stupid to chase a snake while ignoring the person who let it loose in the first place; they’ll just let it out again.

The pedophile is actually a smaller issue in this whole mess than the people in charge who know what's going on and intentionally do nothing for their own benefit.

Is there any actual proof that Bozanic is directly responsible for moving that specific pedophile? Like, does anyone have evidence he knew the guy was "problematic" at the time and moved him specifically because of it?