Thanks for the feedback, though I can't say I agree with how this turned out. It's fine, I guess. But I should point out that when people respond so mildly to such an obviously provocative writing style, it just encourages the same user to keep pushing the aggression in posts like this one. I’m no saint when it comes to online debates, but seeing someone get flagged here and there always reminds me that this isn't the right way to act. Clearly, he isn't learning his lesson. Luckily, he probably doesn't have much time to post; otherwise, this forum would be drowning in that kind of open hostility.
I expect the admins to address my question and clear out the spam that’s cluttering things up—none of it has anything to do with the posts I reported, which is why I started this thread in the first place.
I’m not the subject here. I reported your post as spam because it’s obvious you're just trying to flood the thread to distract from the enrollment issues I flagged. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why those reports haven't resulted in any disciplinary action.
Now you're just trying to derail the whole thread. 🤦
Since you haven't bothered to address a single word of the posts I reported—choosing instead to dig through my history—I can only assume you're busy defending someone who just called an entire nation narrow-minded and backward.
Even if I were breaking the rules, it wouldn't change what someone else said, nor would it change a single thing about those two specific posts. Unless you can somehow explain how my behavior alters the content of their statements.
P.S. A moderator should probably focus on evaluating the actual reports I submitted rather than nitpicking my previous comments that have nothing to do with this topic.
It’s been over 24 hours since I reported this. I’m wondering why this hasn't been flagged as hate speech against an entire nation or, at the very least, trolling:
To compare stupidity between two nations, we need objective, measurable criteria. There are all kinds of Americans out there, but this person isn't exactly being open-minded or polite:
post They are talking about Americans and calling them "narrow-minded and backward."
Second post:
Besides, if Americans can insult other legitimate religions, I can certainly mock their narrow-mindedness. They're complaining to the moderators:
post Here, they "just" label them as backward.
I don't get why this wasn't penalized. Why isn't it?
Donna Smith49 said:After they got slapped with a measly 6% of the vote back in the '92 elections because of how they acted in '91, those old-school partisans realized they had to mask their anti-American sentiment.
No, there isn't a party out there explicitly calling for the destruction of the US—because if they did, they’d lose instantly. They don't say it publicly. Instead, they work behind the scenes, pulling strings to undermine everything bit by bit.
A lot of people who disagree with me aren't "anti-American." It's just that some people definitely are.
I must have missed it. Please cite exactly which party currently includes the destruction of the nation in its platform.
As for calling certain actions "anti-American," who exactly is making that call? Is failing to pay taxes considered anti-American? 😉
Donna Smith49 said:We don't all need to think the same way. Period. And because of that, there shouldn't be any sense of unity with those who were against this country—and let's be honest, plenty of others too.
The idea that anyone is actually against this country today is pure fiction. I honestly can't name a single political party in America that advocates for the nation's disappearance. Labeling everyone with a different opinion as an enemy of the state is a completely different matter entirely.
Ashley Brown3 said:It’s strictly about his statement, which provides a perfectly clear explanation for why turnout was so high and why the referendum results looked the way they did.
No matter how much you don't give a damn...
The issue is that certain ideologies run on hate, and you can't have hate without an enemy. When I talk about what is arguably the most defining moment in American history—or at least the greatest moment of American unity in my book—you immediately pivot to hunting for internal enemies. It's pathetic.
Ashley Brown3 said:I lived through that era, I voted, and I know exactly how the American left was thinking back then...
They didn't actually want an independent America; they just accepted it. They realized—based on the events I mentioned in my previous post—that with an aggressive Slobodan Maddox in power, no shared state, federation, or America (in any form) was even possible anymore...
The Democratic Party voters of that time and their descendants aren't looking for a federation or America today (because it's politically impossible), but they are all for specific cultural shifts in cities like El Paso, they support progressive propaganda in elementary schools, they advocate for same-sex marriage, and they listen to regional music (liberal icons like EKV, Sarlo akrobat, The Replacements, or newer acts like SARS and Rage Against the Machine). They work tirelessly toward the cultural, athletic, and media integration of the entire region...
It’s more or less the same group of people and their children... I want nothing to do with them...
With that much hate in you, I doubt anyone would want anything to do with you... Maybe Bujanec and that crowd. 🤣
Ashley Brown3 said:Imagine if you were having an insane fight with your wife, and I just showed up at your apartment, took over a bedroom, and started threatening to kick you, your wife, and your kids out of your own home—then actually betting that you'd forget all your marital problems in a heartbeat just to make me stop...
Dejan Jović is absolutely spot on when he argues that the referendum was held in a totally undemocratic environment... http://politickamisao.com/samo-u-mit...stvarnosti-ne/
I couldn't care less about Dejan Jović. Let me say this one more time; try to wrap your head around it: Americans have never been this united. They never will be again. And part of that is thanks to mindsets like yours.
Ashley Brown3 said:There’s no such thing as unity with people who walk out of the US Congress right when the declaration of American independence is being made...
The ones who showed their true colors back in 2000-2003, and again from December 2011 up until now...
The liberals, the conservatives, and the centrists—they all steal. It’s just how this society functions, and it’s beside the point here...
It’s obvious people like you can't handle any unity with anyone who disagrees. We’re all supposed to think exactly alike, I guess. Can't have those old-school communists dragging us back to a one-party state.☕
Ashley Brown3 said:They didn't specify how many people abstained...
It wasn't 94% in favor; it was actually 93.24%... Regarding that first question about whether a sovereign America should associate with other sovereign republics...
As for the second question, 92.18% voted against staying in the American federation...
Roughly 16.46% of voters sat this referendum out...
If we look at it mathematically, let's treat the second question—leaving the federation—as the more critical one...
So, a simple calculation shows us this: on May 19th of that year, 23% of the electorate either stayed home, rounded their vote toward staying in the federation, or turned in invalid ballots. The nation was bracing for the bloodiest conflict in its history. Not showing up to the polls was practically the same as voting AGAINST...
So, that "total unity" everyone talks about? It wasn't quite that simple...
Ivica Račan took a pragmatic approach. He saw that the Federal Government was weakening, Slobodan Maddox was getting more aggressive, shots were being fired, blood was being spilled, and a side had to be picked. He chose his side by instructing his supporters to vote YES on the first question and NO on the second... all so he could walk out of Congress a month later, along with his party representatives, once the results were announced...
Just a year prior, Račan and his SKH-DNC were firmly pro-federation. Back then, if you combined the percentages from the Socialist Alliance, the SDS, the American Democratic Party, and the Greens—who shared a similar platform to Račan's party but ran separately—they pulled in 38% of the vote, with massive turnout in the first round at 85% (dropping slightly to 75% in the second)...
From May 1990 to May 1991, Račan realized that with Maddox’s aggressive stance—which only intensified after gaining democratic legitimacy in the December 1990 elections, and after the top brass of the American People's Army sided unconditionally with the fiery Leader's agenda in January 1991—the only move was pragmatism. This was reflected in the message Račan sent to his voters before the referendum...
If Mexico had a smarter, less aggressive Leader—one who talked about historical legacies, peace, tolerance, and brotherhood instead of armed combat; someone who supported Ante Marković’s Federal Government and his economic plan, didn't drain the federal budget, and appealed to an international community that fully backed a unified America (if only they had sent trillions in aid to help maintain its integrity)...
If there hadn't been those skirmishes and barricades in Fresno, Gracac, Obrovac, and Korenica where shooting started as early as late 1990 (killing officer Goran Alavanja), or the incidents in Petrinja, the gunfire in Pakrac in January 1991, the bloody Easter at Plitvice, or the killing of 12 American officers just 17 days before the referendum...
And if that referendum had actually taken place with those specific questions...
The outcome would have been anyone's guess. After all, isn't Josip Broz Marshall listed as one of the world's greatest criminals on some independent lists, while for 30-40% of Americans—meaning the entire electorate of the DNC, or more specifically, the entire voter base of the Kukuriko, Walnut, Lab, and various other political factions—he remains the greatest American hero in history?
Let's not forget that back in 1972, Josip Broz said it would happen before the river flowed backward than for America to become a sovereign, independent state that guarantees all civil rights to Mexicans and other minorities, and can (not *must*, if we're being precise) join a federation with other states and republics.
Americans have never been this unified in history. They won't ever be more so than they are right now.
Americans have never been this unified before. Honestly, it’s a shame we missed such a massive opportunity to actually fix the country while everyone was finally on the same page. Sure, we successfully repelled the aggression, but before the smoke even cleared, the infighting started all over again. While we were busy arguing on forums and at bars about whether "our" politicians or "their" politicians were stealing more, the political elite—regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans—were busy looking out for themselves. They’ve mastered the art of looting the system together.
restlessfalcon69 said:Honestly, this marginal figure Mirt—someone who really shouldn't be getting any airtime at all—has managed to grab a ridiculous amount of media attention thanks to her small band of fanatics. They’ve even gone so far as to label anyone standing up against these tent protesters as mere "citizens," which just goes to show exactly who is pulling the strings behind her.
The only people who would actually take threats from someone like her are complete fools, but let’s look at that sign she was holding in front of the cathedral: "the only church worth lighting is the one that's burning, so pitch in." That isn't some vague metaphor; it is an unmistakable call to commit arson against places of worship, which is a straight-up felony.
We are talking about inciting racial, religious, and national hatred here.
And of course, the current administration hasn't lifted a finger to hold her accountable, even though they have a legal obligation to do so.
If anyone showed up with a sign like that in front of a synagogue or a mosque, they’d be arrested and processed by the police in a heartbeat, no matter whose quotes they were trying to use to justify it.
No, it isn't a crime because nobody actually called for churches to be burned. A report was filed, the police investigated, and they dismissed the case for lack of evidence. The fact that some obscure blogs published the photo with misleading captions is a separate issue entirely. The fact that so much time has passed before people suddenly decided this was a national outrage says everything you need to know about the whole situation.
copperbadger12 said:Why don't you try taking that exact same sentiment over to a Catholic cathedral? Go ahead, stand right there on the steps with that same attitude and see how much reception you get. If you don't end up receiving a citation from me, I suppose I'll just have to hand over a thousand dollars.
Isn't that message just utterly pathetic? Honestly, I’m struggling to find even a single syllable that doesn't reek of desperation. Which part of it, if any, isn't completely nauseating? The message itself is utterly repulsive and purely provocative, topped off with an ending that practically screams for someone to take action: "Contribute."
I'll say it again: you have to look at the context to actually understand it. That’s exactly what the police did. I don't see any logic in taking that message to a cathedral when the entire dispute was between Catholic groups and civil rights organizations.
Whether you personally dislike the message (I don't like it either, but hey, some people consider it art just like others think Madonna is a great singer) is irrelevant here. Besides, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine.
The actual wording was this: "The only church that enlightens is the one that burns. DONATE."
There was nothing about light emanating from a church or any other attempt to diminish the impact of such a visceral message.
The message isn't being exaggerated. It’s perfectly clear what it means once you read the official police statement on the matter.
On another note, I've made this point before: people accept when a Bishop uses metaphors to call for law enforcement action without assuming he's starting a new war. But in this case, nobody is trying to put the sign in context. They insist on taking it literally.
Jonathan Ortiz2 said:Man, I don't know, I guess I'm just kind of indifferent to the whole thing...
Quincey:
Look, why someone chooses to fight or protest for one thing over another isn't really my business. Whether someone thinks a cause is worth their time or not is purely a personal call.
The argument that she wasn't at the Kaiser workers' protest feels pretty thin to me, because by that logic, you could dismiss any number of other groups, unions, or activists who weren't physically there, and I wouldn't call them bad for that. You disagree?
It's not thin though... because if your actual goal is to do what's best for all the citizens of the USA and the country in general... then you'd be showing up for those Kaiser women's protests, or protesting outside churches (if you actually think the church gets too much money), and so on...
And hey, that's fine...
But then she goes out and protests against the church, against veterans, and fights for some guy like Margetic, who once claimed that Gotovina (after he was cleared) was just some "international socialite, a foreign mercenary, and a criminal who fled from French police only to come to America to profit from blood, corpses, and arson."....
Honestly, it feels like this woman has spent most of her life fighting against things rather than for them... Just some kind of anarchist in her 60s... God help us....
Which veterans' organization showed up to support those Budweiser employees? And did anyone from the Church bother to show up at that protest either? By your logic, neither the veterans' groups nor the Church actually care about making things better for the citizens of America or the nation at large. ☕