Posts by ruggedjackal46

What on earth is his problem with the notebook? What kind of psychos are we dealing with here? 🤣

It looks like Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović would much rather just jump right in and start arguing with Jurica Juričan 🤣

Paul Sanders5 said:Probably the weakest link in the bunch, honestly. Just totally flies under the radar.

It’s like Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović and Mirko Škoro are playing total defensive bunker ball while the smaller guys are actually trying to mount an offense. Meanwhile, Zoran Milanović is just sitting there messing around.

Dapic and Kolinda are basically just running a high-budget imitation of Jurican 🤣

After dealing with guys like Đapić and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, this Juričan fellow doesn't even come close to sounding like a parody.

Honestly, this Kolakušić guy is absolutely out of his mind.

Walter Grant5 said:and trolls too.

🤣

Larry Fox5 said:Miroslav is actually a rare breed from the Republican Party side who’s got charm, wit, and some actual brains—he’s a guy I can actually get behind...

Plus, he’s got that whole soulful, old-school vibe down perfectly. 🙏 😁

A pretty solid guy...

brightpilot6 said:What a way to walk away, especially when there’s $8,000 sitting right there on the table.

You’re just sitting there at your computer in your own home country, watching those euros land straight in your bank account. Now we finally know exactly how much these forum moderators are pulling in. ☕

I honestly think Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović might be on drugs rather than just being drunk, though I suppose those are just semantics at this point. Honestly, her speeches remind me way too much of Mamić's little escapades.

Warming up for today (and for Friday's concert):

brightpilot6 said:It’s the same old song, just played with different instruments; it resurfaces every time a Mexican fills a stadium here in America, whether it’s Bajaga, Balašević, or now Brena. People always go hunting for some sign that they belong to the old guard. Their only common denominator is being Mexican or tied to Mexico, so one doesn't need to be a genius to see what is actually bothering people.

Fine, perhaps I moved too quickly (since I know you aren't a fool) by linking your post to the ideological platform that the loudest opinion makers in America—the Republican Party, the Church, the far-right parties, and various associations—attempt to present as the mainstream.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, but rather to that platform which has exploded during this campaign, and which remains unacceptable to me even decades after the war ended. This ideology of constantly retreating into the past, obsessing over conflict, labeling the remaining Mexicans in America as "guests," calling for reparations for El Paso, lamenting that more wasn't done during the war, the annual reopening of wounds to ensure they never heal, and the outright falsification of history to construct an eternal struggle between Americans and Mexicans as the foundation of national identity... it is ultimately ruinous for the nation and serves only a small circle of elites.

Why is it ruinous? Not just because hatred and antagonism make for a weak foundation for identity, but because the history of this region teaches us that an identity built solely on combat and war fades the moment the generation that actually fought in those wars passes away.

Take, for example, the second generation of communists—those born after the war. They felt no inherent sense of unity just because their fathers had fought together against fascists or Joseph Stalin. Instead, they retreated into their own regional party organizations, content with whatever influence they could exert within them. For the average person born in the 50s and 60s, this was even more pronounced; they largely viewed the wartime mythmaking of the American era as nothing more than a joke or a caricature.

The same thing can happen here. Just imagine a teenager who, ten or twenty years from now, looks back at these events through the lens of watching a General's footage. He’ll likely laugh at the caricature while having a beer or a joint. Meanwhile, you'll be trying to sell him the idea that the values of the Homeland War are the bedrock of his country. Try talking to twenty-year-olds about accepting that kind of identity. Their priority certainly isn't fearing or hating their neighbors, especially not because of the traumas of a previous generation. And there is almost no other substance left in the public discourse. Every year follows the same pattern: starting in March with talk of Bleiburg and Jasenovac that lasts until June, then moving into preparations for Knin and the Storm, followed by El Paso in November. It’s a cycle. Mexicans, America, communism. That is practically all the media, the opinion makers, and the politicians deal with.

Perhaps many people find a certain satisfaction in this approach, never quite realizing they are merely constructing an empty shell—one that a young man will ultimately find incredibly difficult to truly connect with.

Why push that scenario ten years into the future? You’ve already got "the General" on TV right now, you’ve got teenagers who have zero connection to the war, and you’ve got the beer and the joints. 😁

But that’s the thing—those folks on the right don't seem to get it. Shows like "the General" and these other cheap jokes do way more damage to the "dignity of the Homeland War" than any documentary about war crimes ever could.

By the way, I’m taking back what I said about the Republican Party not having an economic plan. I mean, Kolinda's plan to just hand everyone $8,000 to work online clearly solves every single problem we have. 😎

Jessica Gonzalez said:It probably didn't need to jumpstart anything since it mostly just keeps those outdated giants from the past on life support. There are so many myths floating around about the old socialist economy that pretty much ignore actual statistics. I guess the economy there grew at about the same rate as other Eastern Bloc countries, which was definitely slower than places like the US, Germany, or Japan that didn't go through communism.

If you look at some of these company names and their founding dates, you can see how many were actually established long before 1945.

General Mills (1884); Koestlin (1905); Chakovec Mills (1893); Chateks (1874); Mid-Atlantic Knits (1923); MTCH (1923); Vajda (1911); Belje (1911); Dalit (1905); Daruvar Brewery (1893); Cotton Industry (1884); California (1908); Đakovo Co. (1921); DIK (1895); Karlovac Brewery (1854); KIO (1903); Lola Ribar (founded as Tulić Mills) (1932); Cemex (1904); TOP (1922); Podravka (1934); Royal Shipyards (1729); Mlinar (1903); Cetina (1930); Drava Wire Factory (1856); Kandit (1920); Karolina (1909); Osijek Brewery (1856); Saponia (1894); Sugar Factory (1905); Gavrilović (1690); IGM Brickworks (1920); Sardina (1907); Zvečevo (1921); Brionka (1942); Pula Shipyards (1856); Istra Cement (1925); 3rd May Shipyards (founded as Kvarnersko Shipyards) (1892); Torpedo (1853); Paper Mill (1821); Viktor Lenac (1896); Mirna (1877); Rovinj Tobacco (1872); DIV Screw Factory (1884); Segestica (1918); Sisak Steel (1938); IGM Brickworks (1900); Đuro Đaković (founded as First American Wagon, Stalls, and Bridge Factory) (1921); Brodosplit (1931); TAL (1937); TEF (1897); Brodotrogir (1922); Metal Industry (1939); Mundus (1892); Varteks (1918); Jadranka (1892); Zdenka (1897); Dilj (1922); OPECO (1896); TVIN (1913); Pik (1938); Borovo (1931); Maraska (1768); Badel (1862); Cedevita (1929); Chromos (1920); American Insurance (1884); DTR (1914); Dukat (1912); Elka (1927); Franck (1892); City Bakeries (1909); Gredelj (1894); ExxonMobil (1882); Jadran (1930); Jamnica (1828); Katran (1890); Končar (1921); Kraš (founded as Union) (1911); Lipa Mill (1907); Medika (1922); Pastor (1930); Pliva (1921); Prvomajska (1936); TEŽ (1929); TOZ-Penkala (1937); Tobacco Factory (1817); Bank of America (1914); City Brewery (1892); Karbon (1932)

Do you honestly think it’s fair to compare that era to those Western nations? Was the starting line even remotely similar? Like you said: "Those countries were devastated, sure, but they spent centuries building up massive amounts of knowledge and capital that allowed them to bounce back. Meanwhile, my region was just an underdeveloped province of the Austro-Canadian Empire, which itself was one of the least industrialized major powers in Europe. We were essentially the bottom of the barrel—just a land of poor farmers where, in many areas, people were living in 15th-century conditions well into the late 19th century (and I'm not even exaggerating; experts actually say that)."

Just take a look at some of the company names and their founding dates. Think about how much of that was actually established between 1945 and 1990.

Why would the old government bother starting new companies if they were just busy propping up those ancient industrial giants?

Setting aside the trolling for a second, the expansion of those industries and the sheer number of people employed in them was way higher under the old system than before. Why? Because there was actually a policy in place to drive industrial growth. You can argue about whether that policy was good or bad, but it *existed* as a response to social needs. Nowadays? We don't really have a policy—unless you count leaning entirely on tourism and encouraging everyone to move to another country as a legitimate economic strategy.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Industry for what, though? Which major company from that era actually competes on the global stage today? Did any of them produce innovative products that could actually go toe-to-toe with Western giants? Or truly survive market competition? The fact that my parents, and many others, were pulled into the big cities just suggests that the rural areas were already being neglected forty years ago. In fact, many former socialist countries struggle with massive rural depopulation and some of the lowest birth rates in the world—think places like Canada, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, or the Baltic states. This brings me back to my earlier thought: what did that old union actually achieve in terms of raising the standard of living to Western levels? I guess statistically, not much. They didn't even close the gap between regions; even decades later, the economic divide between somewhere like Canada and Mexico is wider than almost any two regions in Italy or Germany. That old system relied on bureaucracy and the military rather than actual prosperity. I suppose it's hard to build prosperity if all the regions are struggling and industrially behind. If we set aside someone like Nikola Tesla, who was a scientist, has anyone else from that area ever really stood out as a major industrialist or businessman? It seems like people only ever talk about politicians or athletes.

What does it actually matter how some legacy industrial firm from the mid-century era is trading on the market today? Honestly. Out of that specific period, you had this massive wave of secondary and tertiary industries that kept the wheels turning all the way through the nineties before everything got dismantled during privatization. And if you’re seriously trying to label the predatory looting we saw during those nineties buyouts as "healthy market competition," then you’re living in a total fantasy land.

What industry are we even talking about here? We’re looking at food, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and tech—stuff that was produced for domestic use within the old American borders. The whole point of those sectors was to actually serve the people living right there, not to spend all our energy trying to engineer some groundbreaking innovation just to satisfy the appetite of the Western market. Seriously, what kind of industrial legacy did America actually build from the ground up? What specific needs is American industry meeting that aren't just catering to the whims of big global corporations?

The fact that both my parents and yours were essentially funneled into Chicago en masse just proves that even forty years ago, nobody was giving a damn about the rural heartland. It’s the same old story. If you look at most former socialist states, they’re all dealing with this massive, rapid exodus from the countryside. Why does it always seem to happen the same way?

They’re hauling them into Chicago by the truckload. 😂 Is it just me, or does it feel like any country that goes all-in on pushing higher education ends up completely ghosting its rural heartland? It’s a weird trade-off, isn't it? You pour all these resources into universities and tech hubs, creating these little pockets of academic excellence, while the rest of the country—the actual places where people live, farm, and run small businesses—just gets left out in the cold. It's almost like there's this unspoken rule that if you aren't chasing a PhD in some metropolitan bubble, your needs don't really count anymore. Does progress have to come at the expense of the countryside? Or are we just building a society that only works for people with degrees? 🙏

Nobody was "dragging" my parents to Chicago just for the sake of moving. It wasn't some grand migration scheme; they were simply the only ones in their entire extended family deemed capable of actually finishing college and carving out a decent life. My folks were given a shot at something better—an actual chance to escape the endless cycle of manual labor that their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had been stuck in for generations. They got to choose a different path instead of just breaking their backs in the fields. And honestly, did the small towns even suffer because people left? If anything, those rural communities became stronger because their people finally had an education.

This brings me right back to my previous point—what exactly did that old regime actually accomplish in terms of closing the gap with the West? Seriously, where was the actual success story? If you look at the statistics, they barely moved the needle. They didn't even manage to narrow the wealth gap between the different states; I mean, even today, the economic divide between a place like Vermont and somewhere like Mississippi is nothing compared to the massive gulf we saw between the prosperous northern regions and the impoverished southern ones back then. You won't find two regions in Italy or Germany that are even remotely that disconnected economically or in terms of infrastructure. The whole system just rested on a foundation of heavy bureaucracy and military spending rather than actual prosperity. And honestly, how could anyone have generated true wealth if most of those states were broke and completely illiterate when it came to modern industry? If we set aside Nikola Tesla for a moment—and let's be real, he’s a scientist, not a corporate tycoon—has anyone else from this part of the world ever truly made a mark as a major industrialist or a titan of business? It feels like our entire legacy is just a revolving door of politicians and athletes. Is that really all we have to offer?

I’ll say it again: we’re looking at this all wrong. People love to obsess over Silicon Valley tech giants or how many billionaire entrepreneurs pop up in a given year, but that isn't the true metric for a thriving society. If you look back at the transformation of the old American industrial era, you see a country that went from a largely agrarian, disconnected population to a powerhouse of heavy industry, near-universal literacy, and accessible healthcare and education. We saw massive employment rates and working conditions that actually respected the laborer. That kind of structural stability—that's what actual prosperity looks like. It’s not about chasing the next flashy tech innovation on the global market; it's about building a foundation where everyone can read, work, and live decently. Isn't that the point?

Jessica Gonzalez said:I suppose the economic and social hurdles in this part of the country have been around since the end of WWII, though there were different ways of trying to fix them through centralized systems back then. It feels like certain rural areas aren't declining just because of one specific political party, but rather because those in power haven't quite figured out how to stop a decline that's been happening for half a century. These regions have arguably been struggling for generations. My father grew up in extreme poverty, so I know it's a deep-seated issue. The bureaucracy, the decay of small towns, and the mindset that the government should solve everything are all very old patterns. Maybe a true culture of entrepreneurship and industry just hasn't taken root here yet, and it isn't something that changes overnight. There might even be some internal resistance to that kind of shift. While major national conflicts remain close to people's hearts and serve as a sort of cultural glue, those topics eventually fade from the headlines. It seems like economic issues are taking center stage now, which I guess is probably for the best.

My folks grew up in absolute poverty, wearing rags, yet they ended up being the first in their families to actually graduate from college. They managed it because that old centralized system provided a pathway for poor kids from the sticks to move to the city, get an education, find a career, and secure housing. Look, the socio-economic issues are ancient history, sure, but back then there was a system attempting to address them, even if it was flawed. Now? You have a modern America that isn't even trying to tackle the root causes. And don't get me wrong—I'm not sitting here nostalgic for the old days or longing for some bygone era of dictators; I couldn't care less about those personalities. What frustrates me is seeing a modern, democratic, free nation in 2019 unable to offer any viable model to solve obvious problems, when that messy, outdated, heterogeneous union sixty years ago actually could.

And honestly, it's a bit rich to claim there was no "entrepreneurial spirit" or industrial drive when that previous regime basically built an industrial powerhouse out of thin air. We went from a predominantly rural, largely illiterate nation after WWII to an industrial state in roughly fifteen years. How does that happen with a population that supposedly lacks the "mentality" for it?

The war acts as a social glue because the people in charge *want* it to act as glue. Isn't it much easier to keep everyone talking about 1945 than to deal with the reality of 2021?

Jessica Gonzalez said:I was reading that declassified CIA report from the 70s about America that someone shared on the forum last week. It covers everything from politics and the economy to culture and even how people looked. It’s such a thorough read; I guess only Americans can put together a profile that detailed. 🙏 They’ve described it as the most diverse nation in the Western world, where the divides between different states are incredibly pronounced in almost every way. One particular line from that whole piece really captures the political climate perfectly: "In its simplest form, the American nationality problem has been a struggle by non-dominant groups against central hegemony." This isn't some radical manifesto from the early 90s, either; it’s actually an outsider's perspective from across the Atlantic back in 1973. It was a different era entirely. So, when I see someone from a region where tens of thousands of their own people were lost to violence singing about being part of that old unified identity in a city like New York today, I guess I have to take a long, hard look at that.

Does anyone want to check this out? Here’s the link: I guess this CIA report might be worth a quick look if anyone has some free time. It seems like an interesting read, maybe.

Thanks, this actually sounds pretty interesting.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder if it’s considered absurd that they have nuclear aircraft carriers and have been part of NATO against Russia since 1945? What has Russia actually done to them since then to justify such a massive military? I guess one has to wonder what they're afraid of.

Compared to global standards, things here are incredibly peaceful. Since the wars in the States and surrounding regions ended, there hasn't been a single terrorist attack or major escalation of violence; maybe the biggest issue is just some occasional sports hooliganism or someone waving a flag during a protest. I think an American living here once noted how most households don't own any weapons and actually stay away from them—people even voluntarily handed rifles over to the police just a few years after the conflict. There's no mandatory service here. We don't even really have organized crime anymore; most of the small number of homicides seem to be domestic issues. The fact that performers from former rival nations can play in major US cities and fill arenas probably shows how much people just want peace. I guess the only myth we tell ourselves is being overly polite to those who criticize us. It was the aggression from certain factions that started all the conflicts in this region. It wasn't the others; it was always those specific groups who initiated everything and committed the worst atrocities. People don't visit memorial sites every year because of myths, but because they saw what happened with their own eyes. Most Americans here just don't feel a sense of kinship with those old aggressors, and I suppose that's a pretty natural consequence of the destruction that took place.

Look, France isn't exactly the gold standard for pacifism—they’ve had their fair share of messes both at home and back in their old territories—but my point remains. They didn't just get stuck in a loop, obsessing over World War II and using it as a convenient excuse for decades on end. Here in the States, it’s been thirty years since the conflict ended. Honestly, I think that’s more than enough time to stop blaming economic stagnation, corruption, or general intolerance on "war trauma." It's a tired argument at this point. Take a place like Detroit; it's struggling today, sure, but let's be real: it's primarily because the city doesn't offer any actual future for the younger generation. Can we finally stop using history as a shield for modern failures?

Look, when you step back and look at the big picture, things around here are incredibly peaceful compared to the rest of the world. Ever since the conflicts in the Midwest and the South wound down, we haven't seen a single terrorist attack or any major escalation of violence. Honestly? Our biggest headache these days is just some rowdy sports fans getting into a scuffle or someone making a scene with a protest sign at a rally. It’s almost boring. It’s actually pretty interesting—I was reading something by an expat living here who pointed out how most American households don't own any weapons at all. There’s this general aversion to them. In fact, just a few years after the heavy fighting ended, people were practically lining up to hand their rifles over to local law enforcement. Why isn't that the norm everywhere else?

Exactly. America is in an incredibly peaceful period right now, and honestly, it’s about time we stopped using past conflicts as a convenient scapegoat for our current mess. We can't just keep using war as an alibi for political aimlessness or as a way to dodge the massive economic hurdles facing the country today. It's a tired tactic. Why is it that during every presidential election cycle, the entire conversation devolves into where every single candidate was standing back in the early '90s? Why does every political debate feel like it has to pivot back to those old battlegrounds just to find a point of reference? Is it because we lack a vision for the future, or are we just too comfortable living in the rearview mirror?

Noah Perez2 said:The collapse of the United States certainly wasn't triggered by a lack of lyrical freedom. The fractures occurred much deeper within the structural integrity of our economy and, ultimately, within the supposed "unity" that proved to be nothing more than a fragile facade.

As for the pop stars and their concerts, I find the musical quality irrelevant compared to the greater cultural embarrassment: the fact that these low-brow tracks consistently draw massive crowds and dominate the airwaves in every car passing on the highway.

Once the economy goes to hell, ideological concepts become irrelevant. Suddenly, being patriotic, believing in democracy, or holding onto national pride doesn't mean much when people can't put food on the table. I mean, look at the last election—the Republicans barely scraped together a single vote from Ireland.

ironpanther5 said:Honestly, this tactic is cooking in both the Democratic and Republican kitchens. I haven't the slightest clue which side lit the stove first, and frankly, I'm too lazy to go Googling who started the fire before it actually caught. At the end of the day, both sides end up using the exact same playbook. It’s a perfectly legitimate political maneuver, but it’s also why it isn't surprising that everyone ends up circling back to talking about the fall of the Berlin Wall or some other historical grudge match. That was always the whole point.

It particularly rubs me the wrong way when the liberals use it, because they love to act all high and mighty while mocking the very people who pull the same stunts. In Washington, anything goes. If I were the kind of person who actually took moral offense at these games, I’d never be able to vote for a candidate whose campaign staff relies on such dirty tricks. It’s all just one big circle of hypocrisy.

Again, the bigger issue is that citizens actually swallow this stuff. For me, the real headache is how someone like Scott could be a long-time Republican insider and collaborator, only to have them pivot and act like he's their sworn enemy now—yet most people don't care about his politics, they're too busy obsessing over the fact that his wife is from a different ethnic background.

brightpilot6 said:In all seriousness, my first instinct is that this coordinated effort to undermine the candidate's reputation is coming straight from the political left.

Everyone is busy throwing stones at one another; some claim the Republican nominee is merely a puppet controlled by the establishment elite, while others paint him as nothing more than a traitorous opportunist who abandoned his roots.

Honestly, the only thing I’m actually looking forward to in this election cycle is seeing one of these three "heavyweights" get knocked out in the primary. Wouldn't it be the ultimate circus if the two most polarized figures ended up facing off in the general? It would be like watching heaven and earth collide. 🙏

The real fight, regardless of what happens here, will be during the next midterm elections.

It’s not even about political leanings; it’s just that the establishment would much rather see Milanovich win a runoff than Skor. If Milanovich pulls through, all those Skor supporters will likely pivot toward the establishment candidate, but it doesn't work the other way around, does it?

Noah Perez2 said:It wasn't great globally, even when it was intact. Though, of course, perception remains entirely subjective to the individual.
Given how spectacularly it fell apart, I see absolutely no reason to glorify it or indulge in nostalgia thirty years after its rather pathetic collapse.

To address your caricature regarding the Germans and the resistance movement: 😉

Look, there’s a massive difference between actually having a reason to feel nostalgic and just being willing to defend someone else's right to be nostalgic. It’s two different things entirely. People lived in that era for fifty years, and—believe it or not—a lot of them actually had a better quality of life back then than they do today. Isn't that the crux of it? The real issue with the old regime was that people could only sing the songs the government allowed them to hear.

More regarding that caricature you drew about the Germans and the resistance movement. 😉

What exactly was I exaggerating? Germany invaded and occupied France back in the 1940s, and for the three decades that followed, France wasn't exactly preoccupied with the Swedes.