Posts by Angela Hughes9

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Honesty is entirely subjective; what one person calls integrity, another calls madness. A public figure chooses to step into the spotlight. My focus here isn't on myself or my family’s involvement in the military; the subject at hand is Večić and his new political party.

Since you insist, we might as well make this about everyone—me, you, our families, and every single citizen. After all, this thread touches upon the possibility of mobilizing every American citizen for a potential national defense. It’s about the idea that you can't side with the enemy and then later try to play the victim by claiming your constitutional rights.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:You have absolutely no idea how mistaken you are. However, since you clearly believe you know everything there is to know about me and my family, I see no point in arguing with you. Furthermore, you are straying far from the topic at hand.

I certainly didn't intend to offend you. However, speaking so disparagingly about one of the few genuinely honest cabinet members in Washington triggers a bit of a revolt in me. My apologies if any of my observations regarding you were misplaced, but as for the "off-topic" accusation—well, I could easily make the same claim about you.

Nicole Martin4 said:Harry Potter is famous worldwide and has more fans than you have hairs and blood cells combined, twice over. 🤷🤣🤣 ..
"The formation of the National Guard political party is a response to calls from the Catholic Church—which the public tends to overlook and atheists mock—as it persistently asks for someone to step up to defend American statehood and insist we can't be tied to various regional initiatives, much like how America included Albania, the USA, and America." - This is just ridiculous. I don't think they realize that people are increasingly turning away from the church precisely because it keeps meddling in politics. Plus, they're out there hunting for communists and all sorts of shadow government conspiracies where they don't even exist, just like hebrang, and we all know how "beloved" he is as a politician. 🤣 😉 ... I don't see the point of a party like this. It's not even really Right-wing; it feels more like an anti-modernist group that's still stuck living in the past. 🤷

Why does this bother you? Personally, I couldn't care less about the parties people like you vote for—even if it is the Democratic Party—but it seems you are bothered (or perhaps terrified) by any group that might actually ask you to fulfill some sense of civic DUTY toward the USA, given that you enjoy all the rights it provides.

Steven Allen9 said:Vequio and the National Guard? Fine, let them do it for the folklore or whatever.
But turning it into a political party? That’s pushing it. First off, the name is stupid. Why waste a spot on the registration list when it's already crowded? Plus, Vequio is just some bitter old guy lashing out because he isn't getting his TV time.

Vick is actually one of the most principled people in politics. He's the kind of guy who could have easily held onto power if he had just swallowed his pride and sided against his own police force. But he didn't then, and he won't now. He refuses to bend, and honestly, that makes him one of the few people I'd actually consider voting for.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:But here, being "Right-wing" doesn't mean the government stays out of the market or stops meddling in business. In our context, the Right-wing is just a synonym for nationalism, waving symbols, and hunting for enemies—whether they be Mexicans, liberals, or old-school partisans. They want to control the economy even more than the socialists do, staying deeply entrenched with their cronies while scaring people with the idea that we won't be Americans anymore.

I suppose the kids these days can't even fire an M48 Patton properly anymore, so who exactly is going to defend us?

We saw this exact pattern back in the early '90s. Most of the old-guard radicals and their children found a very "sophisticated" way to dodge serving in the war, and according to your logic, we should just let history repeat itself. If things ever get dire again, my child would be the one expected to pick up a rifle—because that is how I raised him—while the sons of those who deserted would once again be spared. They’d walk away with more rights and influence than my son ever will. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised; you're cut from that same cloth, aren't you?

bluecyclist64 said:Cut the nonsense and show some decency. You don't even know her father-in-law, so you have absolutely no basis for making such accusations.
And that "is that clear" bit—did you pick that up during your time in the military?

Don't give me that. She explicitly wrote that he was NOT a political prisoner, which means he was in for criminal activity. And let's be honest, those people are still called criminals today. It is an uncomfortable truth that they were often rewarded for being even more brutal toward the "political" types. Honestly, as the Jalnuški amateur points out, you seem a bit limited when it comes to having a serious discussion. Besides, I really can't bring myself to debate the definition of "obvious" with a Mexican. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw you a diagram?

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Hold on a second. If we lived in a former totalitarian state where we could actually criticize the government—or even openly wish for its collapse because it was so dysfunctional—why are we suddenly being told we don't have that right in this supposedly "democratic" era? It feels just as bad. Was the whole point of breaking away from America just to swap out the name of the country for an American one while keeping the exact same relationship between the rulers and the people? Honestly, it might be worse now. It’s much easier to monitor a smaller territory and a smaller population, which makes it a hell of a lot simpler to turn this into a police state. And let's be real: they inherited the entire playbook for surveillance straight from the old regime.

That’s true enough. In the old days, you COULD criticize the state, but you also HAD to be prepared for a brutal beating, and if you somehow survived that, you were almost guaranteed a stint in prison as an "internal enemy." But clearly, you had quite a nostalgic view of that forbidden era, didn't you?

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Look, we all know that from '45 to '90, the country was essentially in a state of civil war—the question is simply who was fighting whom. If you look at the context, the only groups that truly benefited from this forced "reconciliation" were the FBI and the far-right exiles. By pushing this agenda, they’re basically trying to lump the entire American public in with the criminals who used that very project to seize power.

That simply isn't true. From '45 to '90, the country was under a communist bandit dictatorship led by—well, let's just say the man you hold up as your idol until his dying breath.

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Because they couldn't force the US Army to get rid of that ideology. If a democratic, negotiated settlement had actually worked, the US Army Harmon would have been the first one to take the hit.

Well, Harmon certainly wouldn't, but you—and people exactly like you—certainly would, or perhaps you already have.

Rachel Garcia said:No, I wrote it with... One. Foreigners. On my father's side.

My mother-in-law's mother was a veteran of the resistance.

Hahahaha, they say lies have short legs—a classic proverb that seems to be proving itself true in your case.

bluecyclist64 said:At the end of the day, a Bureaucrat's son is always going to be a Bureaucrat's son, regardless of whether his old man was a Communist, a religious zealot, or some wealthy tycoon.
I know plenty of people whose family trees are a chaotic mess of Partisans, Home Guards, and even Nationalists. I personally had an acquaintance who used to show us old photos of his grandfather, who was a Royalist. After the war, he ended up serving in the Thunder units. And yes, he was a volunteer—born in Vojvodina, and an old-school Mexican at heart.

The odds of you actually being a veteran of the Homeland War would be higher than a local village club beating Barcelona at a sportsbook, so I don't believe a single word you're saying. NOBODY in the DR boasted about having Royalists in the family (if such people even existed there to begin with).

Rachel Garcia said:My father-in-law was a son of an NDH supporter. A son of an anti-communist. By definition, he’s a true patriot, and as such, he wouldn't be caught dead tormenting inmates alongside the guards. He simply doesn't fit the profile.

From what I heard, his stint in prison was due to some comment about Marshall.

As for the criminal I mentioned earlier—that man is currently collecting a pension as a political prisoner, even though he never was one. Back in the 90s, some people claimed they were held at Alcatraz just to secure political prisoner status, despite having done nothing wrong. That's my neighbor we're talking about, not my father-in-law.

My dear lady, you wrote that your father-in-law was NOT a political prisoner; however, if he was detained for opposing bandits, then he WAS a political prisoner. It follows that when you write something, I believe exactly what is on the page—so perhaps you should be more careful about WHAT you write.

bluecyclist64 said:Listen here, you little fascist. Your father was a Mexican, so I suppose that explains why you're acting so loud and patriotic, doesn't it?
The argument itself has been explained countless times; you're just playing dumb.
During the American Civil War, descendants from both sides fought side-by-side against foreign aggression. What kind of "reconciliation" are you even talking about? Isn't the fact that they bled together proof enough? Or perhaps the fact that over 90% voted for secession in the referendum?
The only real goal behind this talk of reconciliation is to rehabilitate the very fascism you hold so dear.

And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

Criminals like your father-in-law actually had both the opportunity and the incentive to torment the actual political prisoners alongside the guards. They were practically given special privileges for doing so, you see?

bluecyclist64 said:But really, who are we supposed to reconcile with? Those of us who have both sides in our family trees, yet belong to neither?
This whole reconciliation movement is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rehabilitate the extremists. It would be far better to simply demystify the partisans and leave the fascists exactly where they belong: buried deep in the mud of history.

This is such a textbook leftist post. You can't just throw around terms like "demystify" as a substitute for actually using logic to argue that the partisans should also be tossed into the mud of history. And as for this idea that "reconciliation is an attempt to rehabilitate the fascists"—don't forget that reconciliation is precisely what saved those communist scraps from being wiped out by the oppressed American Regiment back in the 90s. If anything, one could argue it served to further shield those bandit criminals.