Posts by ruggedjackal46

Carl Mendoza4 said:Is this thing still around? 🙄

Rooney’s back at Everton, and apparently, so is Carl Mendoza4 🙂.

Amanda Evans2 said:Absolute garbage coverage for that woman. It’s honestly infuriating how much prime-time media space she occupies just by flaunting her body and playing on those superficial physical traits.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm definitely not into that sort of thing, so there's zero chance I'd ever be interested...

A little tribute, my dear Balonja?

Who says you couldn't get drunk and talk absolute nonsense?

Marshall managed to pull together restlesssurfer97 and Patrick Martin. I mean, who else actually has that kind of reach?

brightpilot6 said:Look, man, believe me when I say I couldn't care less about some plaza or what it's called; they can number them all for all I care. My issue is that I'm constantly blindsided by this recurring eruption of sheer human stupidity, shortsightedness, and total lack of information that seems to erupt whenever these kinds of stunts happen.

I deal with serious matters every single day, so please forgive me if these three or four posts on this dead forum have somehow disturbed your inner peace.

Updated ☕

Jonathan Barnes5 said:The latest developments are quite nuanced, particularly when you consider how much the former America was diluted by its own internal complexities. It’s a bit like looking at the recovery of a country like Germany; they had the potential to reclaim their footing much earlier due to entirely different circumstances. You also have to account for unique cases like Vietnam or Poland, which carry their own specific historical weight. To truly understand the situation, one must weigh the previous status quo against the broader geopolitical landscape of that era and the general shifts in global trends. There was always a real possibility that everything could have fallen apart, leaving them completely stagnant, but the scale of international aid and the sheer impact of wartime damages played a massive role in shaping the outcome.

It’s vital to maintain a sense of realism and avoid drifting into those extreme, conspiratorial corners. I had someone recently trying to convince me that we didn't actually secure the licensing for the T-72, claiming instead that it was an indigenous design all along, much like how people might argue over whether a classic Ford Mustang was truly a homegrown icon or just a collection of borrowed parts.🙂It’s not as if I’m trying to defend the old military industrial complex from back in the day, but most of those systems were built entirely under license anyway. If they managed to refine those designs over time, then that was a win for them. Honestly, the talent we see in our workforce today is so sharp that they could easily outpace any licensed blueprint they were handed.

Sure, everything needs to be viewed through a wider lens, but I honestly don't see how America was in a favorable spot back in 1945; if anything, it was the opposite. If someone like Enver Hoxha or Nicolae Ceaușescu had taken the reins there instead, things would have been significantly worse.

It actually reminds me of those stories where the Real Madrid players win the trophies, but the manager somehow gets none of the credit. 😁

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Those are the paradoxes of history. It’s like joining the resistance to escape oppression, only to end up in a political prison camp a few years later because your views didn't align with the new regime. It’s a classic, tragic cycle. I recognize there are varying degrees of suffering, and while I agree with your point, even a slight increase in intensity within a nightmare scenario is enough to break a person.

That economic transformation likely would have happened regardless of that specific government. Much like how certain nations might have shifted their trajectory anyway, demographic trends and the rise of the secondary sector were already set in motion. It’s similar to how a leader might take credit for bringing a country into a major trade union, when in reality, the momentum was already there and they simply happened to be the ones holding the pen when the deal was signed.

We are really discussing the legacy left by the generation that came of age under that system. If things are difficult now, perhaps it's a consequence of that era. Some of my elders, who lived through those shifts, tend to stay quiet and avoid making waves. It makes you wonder why, in our culture, someone can simply buy their way into a position of influence and sell out their own principles just to secure a spot.

Man, if only certain figures from the past had been half as capable.

I mean, obviously. But if I’m forced to choose between a government that locks up its political rivals and one that systematically targets minorities and dissidents, I think most people would find a way to make a choice.

That shift was going to happen regardless of whether the federation collapsed or not. You can call the state whatever you want, but things like Uganda wouldn't have stayed the same either. The demographic trends and social shifts were already heading that way. The secondary sector was gaining ground anyway. It’s like that whole narrative about how certain leaders take credit for bringing the country into a global trade bloc. It was bound to happen with them or without them; they just happened to be the ones holding the pen when the contract was signed.

It wouldn't have happened, though, because we didn't see that kind of movement in other countries under Soviet influence, or even in places like Romania or Albania. Look, we're talking about a nation built on agriculture, where most of the population was illiterate and still trying to recover from a long, brutal war. It wasn't exactly the perfect environment for an economic boom.

wiredscout14 said:Would things be any quieter (you, ruggedjackal46, and the rest of the crew) if we just numbered the streets and squares? We could list all 78 major landmarks in the US and move on to actual topics tomorrow... or would even that be too much for you?

Oh, absolutely. Because if we weren't busy debating the layout of Times Square on this forum, we’d obviously be deep in the weeds analyzing JPMorgan's latest credit lines or drafting a comprehensive overhaul for the national education system. My sincere apologies to all the "constructive" thinkers here for robbing them of the time and space in this very serious discussion.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Of course they did. But even after the war, the elite managed to stay afloat. Just yesterday, I saw some commentator trying to equate every single soldier with the highest leadership. To be honest, if I were back then, I don't think I would have joined the resistance just because of grand political ideals or the promise of a better life. It’s much like how someone might react if their home were threatened; you go where you can actually fight back. It's similar to many who fought for the opposing side—some were driven by sheer desperation or retaliation when their homes were targeted. Ultimately, there seems to be a certain mindset where people always feel the need for a shepherd, and whatever that shepherd does once the dust settles, they deem it justified.

The way wealth was redistributed into massive estates following WWII is a fascinating study. As for the industrial sector, that’s a complex chapter. Many of those manufacturing hubs existed long before the conflict, and there is plenty of data available online regarding them. However, few people take the time to dig deep enough to truly grasp the historical context.

Personally, I find the notion that we should all be perfectly equal and guaranteed a home somewhat distasteful. If that were the case, we might as well hand out gold medals to everyone. Whether it was under that specific leadership or not, the economic trajectory would likely have followed a similar path eventually.

Ultimately, the core issue is how every faction plays on raw emotion—like painting the resistance as heroes against pure evil. That kind of rhetoric doesn't move me; I tend to view these things through a very pragmatic lens. In any conflict, the side that holds the upper hand wins, which is just a fundamental part of human nature. Had the balance of power been different at the start, the outcome would have shifted accordingly.
It’s the same story with the various massacres and tragedies of that era. People get caught up in the sentimentality of a song or a slogan, ignoring the grim reality of the circumstances. I know my perspective comes off as harsh, but it is simply the way history unfolds.

Maybe so, but look at the alternative: you get an authoritarian regime that immediately opens up concentration camps for minorities and hands over entire coastal territories to foreign powers. Life under the old regime versus life under the new one wasn't exactly a lateral move. Sure, the elites always resurface, but living in a fascist puppet state controlled by even more radical fascists? That’s a whole different level of nightmare.

Industry is a whole other beast. A massive chunk of those factories existed long before the war ended—you can find all the data online if you actually care to look. But let's be honest, how many people are actually going to dig deep enough to understand the context? Not many.

In 1945, the country was essentially an agrarian society that managed to pivot into a dominant industrial powerhouse within two decades. So, looking at what the current administration has accomplished in twenty years of independence... well, the math doesn't look great, does it?

I honestly find the whole "we are all equal and everyone deserves a house" idea repulsive. If that's the goal, why not just hand out gold bars to everyone? With or without the old leader, economic cycles happen. Down the road, things would have played out similarly anyway.

Look, I’m not saying everyone needs to have exactly the same amount, but shouldn't there be a baseline? A floor below which no one falls, providing enough room to actually live and move upward? Nowadays, people show up to work every day, yet their paychecks can't even cover the bare essentials for a dignified life. If we can't even talk about that, what exactly are we discussing here?

Jonathan Barnes5 said:That is the literal legacy of communism. To be perfectly honest, I don't feel any sympathy for those workers.

First, they were all mourning the lost stability of the 80s as if they had lost everything, and then suddenly everyone was eager to upgrade to newer cars. The mindset hasn't shifted one bit; it's just that instead of the old guard, you now have a bunch of mini-bureaucrats running the show. As for the general public, they tend to keep their heads down and stay quiet.

Things were simpler back when you were a key player in global geopolitics, catching favorable loans and acting as a strategic buffer against the East. Then the Wall fell, leaving us standing alone, yet the habit of cutting corners stayed. It was ingrained in people—grown, educated professionals who learned to operate within that specific framework.

Personally, I find all these arguments a bit absurd. People living here would likely behave exactly the same way regardless of the political system. If there's a way to grab something for oneself or chase a cheap interest, someone will take it. That's just the pattern.

This isn't really about ideology; it's more about basic human nature and the darker side of our character. Back during the old regime, companies like Ford used to hire people specifically from certain regions to fill roles. Houses were built using materials diverted from the factory, jobs were created, and credit was handed out. You either showed up to work or you didn't, and your position in the hierarchy was often determined by your political connections.

Then, naturally, people started complaining that everyone involved was part of some extremist faction, which, in many ways, they were. They were folks coming from rural areas or specific territories. But eventually, our own people moved into those same factories, so who is truly to blame now?
It used to be one group, then another, and now it’s rural migrants or special interest lobbies.
There will always be someone to point the finger at, sparking these endless debates about "how things used to be" versus "how they are now." It’s always the same mentality and the same circular logic.

But that’s just not true. The guys fighting in WWII weren't living in the woods dodging patrols because they were looking for a quick buck or thinking about their own selfish convenience. And let's be real, the massive industrial boom in mid-century America didn't just materialize out of thin air because everyone was busy looking out for themselves. Even during major conflicts, people don't head into battle just for some cheap, personal gain. There are plenty of people who can—and actually want to—act for the greater good. The problem is, in our current political landscape, which supposedly offers us endless freedom of choice, none of the actual options on the table seem to care about anything beyond their own immediate interests.

Jeffrey Morales27 said:So, was he a villain? Sure. Did people get to go to the beach? Yeah. Was there work? Yep. Was the economy solid? You bet. Could you actually get a house? You could.

I mean, yeah, he killed a bunch of people... but nobody's perfect, right?

Just being sarcastic, so don't take it personally. 🤣

Paul Sanders5 said:True. But those guys don't spend their time daydreaming about the "good old days."

The people out here defending Stalin and listing all the "perks" of his regime are the exact same crowd spitting on Reagan. Honestly, those two leaders were basically identical twins running opposite sides of the aisle 😬 if you actually bother to draw the parallels. They're carbon copies.

Except for one thing: while Reagan was busy grooming his successor, Stalin was busy playing around with Hollywood starlets at taxpayer expense and couldn't have given less of a damn about what happened to the Union once he kicked the bucket.

People aren't out here acting all nostalgic for the old days because they're suddenly obsessed with past political crimes; they’re doing it because they actually miss the things they don't have anymore. Look, decades have passed. We aren't living under a totalitarian regime anymore; we're in an independent, democratic nation. But let's be real—basic necessities are still a struggle. This isn't about some old leader or what happened fifty years ago. It's about the reality of where we're living right now.

The people who go out of their way to defend Marshall and list all the "pros" of his regime are the exact same crowd that loves to trash De Gaulle. Honestly, they’re like two sides of the same coin—basically identical twins in terms of their governing style, just standing on opposite sides of the fence. 😬 If you really want to draw the parallels here, honestly? They’re identical. Not even close—they're spot on.

Look, I don't hold any particular sentimental attachment to Marshall, but honestly, it’s a bit lazy to just toss every dictator into one giant, messy bucket. If we're being objective about it, the former America was actually quite a decent place to live in terms of stability and general safety—especially when you compare it to the nightmare that was Ceausescu’s Romania, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or any of those fascist regimes. Is it perfect? No. But putting them all in the same category is just bad history.

loneseal said:1. Stop squirming. You can complain about the resistance-themed streets all you want to make it look like history is being erased. That's different. In the old regime, it was like Orwell's books—history was constantly rewritten and every little local hero got a street named after them. Whatever they changed back in the 90s is whatever; it doesn't mean American history only starts in 1941.

2. Why would America distance itself from its anti-fascist roots? It only distanced itself from the "anti-fascist" version of fascism. Which, unfortunately, stains actual, pure anti-fascism.

3. I'll explain it to those workers once you explain to the people who were persecuted, jailed, or killed that things were actually "better" back then just because your grandpa or dad had it easy.

Back in the day, if you threatened the Big Man, you'd get a one-way ticket to a gulag. Now? You just get a slap on the wrist and the chance to sue the government for damages.

Finally, I can actually name these streets after some truly monumental American icons—you know, people like the founders of Detroit or maybe someone from Philadelphia, or even just honoring names like Washington or Lincoln. And of course, we have to have the United States of America. Because honestly, how would you ever realize you were actually standing in the United States if there wasn't a Republic Square somewhere to remind you?

Why on earth would America turn its back on its own anti-fascist history? It wouldn't. If anything, the country is just distancing itself from that weird brand of "anti-fascism" that actually ends up acting like the very thing it claims to fight. You know the type—the kind that pollutes the actual, pure concept of fighting fascism by being just as authoritarian as the villains. Isn't it funny how that works?

Like I’ve said before, if we’re following this logic to its ridiculous conclusion, then all those resistance fighters who lost their lives back in '41 or '42 were somehow part of that "fascist" label too. I guess they're guilty by association now? Because according to this line of thinking, since their symbols eventually paved the way for the country being torn apart fifty years later, they must have been the villains all along. Makes sense, right? If that's how you want to play it.

I’ll just explain it to all those workers once you've finished explaining to the people being persecuted, thrown in jail, or murdered that things were actually "better back then" because their grandfather or father had it easier. Is that how we're doing this now?

Look, I get it. A lot of grandmas, dads, and moms will tell you life was just better back then. And hey, that doesn’t justify the violence or the killings, obviously—not even close. But does that mean things are suddenly perfect in America today? Not exactly. It certainly isn't enough to justify the constant refrain that we were living under some crushing totalitarian regime before 1991 and now we're somehow living in this flawless, free-and-independent democracy. Is it really that black and white? Probably not.

If you decide to go around making threats against the Commander in Chief, you used to be looking at a one-way ticket to the afterlife. Nowadays? You’re more likely to get a few days in a holding cell and then the opportunity to sue the government for damages. Is that what we're doing now? Everything just gets softer, doesn't it?

If you had to pick between actual social security and the freedom to let tech giants run wild on Facebook, I’d choose the former every single time. But looking at things lately, it doesn't even feel like we have a choice anymore, does it?

Paul Sanders5 said:It’s honestly hilarious how the biggest fans of the old regime are usually the same people who wouldn't have stood a chance if they actually had to live through it back then.😁

Honestly, it’s always the same story, isn't it? The people acting like they’ve endured the most soul-crushing trauma are usually the former party insiders—the ones who had the government hand them a luxury apartment, a steady paycheck, and a cushy leadership role on a silver platter. You know the type: guys like those old-school establishment politicians who spent decades quietly dismantling the system from the inside while pretending to be part of it. It's almost funny if you think about it long enough. 😁

Peter Thompson4 said:He stole it, but at least he actually delivered ☕

I honestly don't even know why I'm bothering to act surprised, because frankly, I couldn't care less about some trivial nonsense like renaming a city plaza, but then again, you really have to be fundamentally opposed to a totalitarian regime if you want to stay sane. I mean, how can you possibly justify staying quiet when there's a legitimate chance you could end up behind bars just for swearing or singing a song? It’s like telling people living under North Korean rule to just chill out and stop crying when five generations of their family have been rotting in a labor camp because of some dictator.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk

Maybe go ask the President.

loneseal said:First off, I did five minutes of digging on Google and found streets like Adjijina, Herucova, Cesarčeva, Jeđutova, Čavićeva, Šiblova, and O. Keršovan Square... Even names like Badel, Kraš, or Gredelj haven't been touched. God knows how many more exist that were named after lesser-known resistance fighters or national heroes. But here's the kicker: even if we renamed half the streets in the city after the old guard, some of you wouldn't be satisfied.

I don't know if you've even realized it, but as a worker today, you enjoy way more perks than your ancestors ever did. I highly doubt you'd actually want to trade your life right now to go back to the "glory days" of the old regime you're constantly whining about. I just don't get it—is your logic really that it's okay to suppress, drive out, or lock up anyone with different political views just so things work better for the people who happen to fall in line with the party?

It’s just lovely how they haven’t scrubbed every single street sign, as if nothing happened between 1941 and 1991 in this country. I suppose it's because the U.S. hasn't officially disavowed its anti-fascist legacy. But make no mistake, they certainly wiped most of those old-school partisan names off the maps.

I don't know if you realize it, but as a worker today, you enjoy way more benefits than your ancestors ever did. I highly doubt you'd actually want to travel back in time to experience the "glories" of the old regime you're so busy mourning. What I can't wrap my head around is your logic: is it really okay to suppress, exile, or imprison people based on their political views just to make life easier for those who fall in line with the party?

Thanks so much for enlightening me about the wonderful privileges of our modern system. Please, why don't you go tell the employees at Walmart, Amazon, or all those other corporate sweatshops how much "better" their lives are compared to living in a political prison cell? But hey, at least we live in an era where you're allowed to vent on a forum or Facebook without being hauled off, right?

loneseal said:Look, you're spot on here. Figures like that are just perfect distractions when the big shots want everyone looking anywhere but at the actual political mess happening right now. But hey, you can't really blame people for getting worked up over it—lots of folks carry heavy baggage from that old era of authoritarianism, and those scars don't just disappear. Honestly, in America, the memory of that decades-long period of control is way more intense than any brief, failed state experiment we had later on. That’s probably why people react so strongly to those comparisons. And let's be real, it was under those old regime symbols that the country actually saw major conflict and upheaval in the 90s.

@ruggedjackal46, then what are we supposed to make of guys like the old establishment elites?

There are even more people who saw that old regime as the thing that provided jobs, a decent standard of living, steady paychecks, education, healthcare, vacations, and a whole list of rights we can only dream about in today's broken system. Maybe that's part of the reason why people cling to that era—and honestly, you can't really fault them for it. It's a more justifiable reason than just claiming that era symbolizes the destruction of the country in the 90s.

@ruggedjackal46, what about people like Hebrang, Kovacic, or Nazor...?

Just a handful of streets that managed to survive the purges of the 90s. Now that we have Esih and Has on the scene, they'll be next in line. Honestly, now even the legacy of the anti-fascist struggle is becoming a point of contention.

Here’s a bit more context regarding street names.

It’s pretty obvious that the Baković sisters, Rade Končar, and Josip Kraš were all part of that same old regime, even if they kicked the bucket before the end of World War II.

loneseal said:Give me a break. There are plenty of streets named after resistance fighters in any big US city, so you're talking nonsense. And trying to equate someone who used fascist tactics with actual anti-fascism? That's a disgusting insult to the whole movement.

Oh, really? Like which ones?

Matthew Young35 said:How about we call it Tom Henning Øvrebø Square instead?

Don't even get me started on that villain who benched Abidale. He nearly cost us our spot in the Champions League because of it.☕

Adam King6 said:If you wanted to bring the Antifa crowd and the Barca superfans together under one roof, you’d just have to rename the plaza Marshall Vilanova Square.😛

Marshal Marshall Square in downtown Chicago. 😍

Way to go! Truly impressive.