Posts by Brenda Taylor13

hollowmason64 said:It wasn't Reagan who won the war; it was the people actually out there fighting. Not a single person from his own family even stepped foot on the battlefield during that conflict.

👍

By that logic, Bobetko isn't a winner either since he wasn't out there swinging personally. Neither was Stipetic... hell, not even Winston Churchill, not even Franklin D. Roosevelt... just keep 'em coming, right?

Seriously, try to enjoy yourself for once! Your boy Zoe is the President, come on, show a little joy... honestly, that ceremony was beautiful, and that anthem? Best I've ever heard. I’m telling you, from now on, let's just have Tina Turner sing the national anthem every single time.

hollowmason64 said:No, it's because for months now, you guys have been relentlessly insisting that Plenković needs to be kicked out of the leadership of the Republican Party.

Following your logic here—you honestly have to be incredibly dense to believe that any Republican or Democrat is actually good for this country. Just completely delusional.

Fair enough, I can respect different viewpoints, even if some people seem to have brains wired in a way where the Republican Party and Democrats are basically the same thing. That’s usually the crowd that claims to be more enlightened while backing some washed-up Republican who was just as corrupt fifteen years ago when he was a standard Republican official. They’ll cheer for a coalition with the Republican Party, sure, as long as Plenković isn't the one leading it.
Yeah, they're just so much smarter 😁

That's right. Intelligent and educated people know how to adjust their vocabulary to match whoever they're talking to, just to make sure they're understood. 🥳

Anyway, you're talking nonsense. A nation isn't built solely on the battlefield through anarchy; it takes diplomacy, politics, administration, and solid leadership. By that logic, we wouldn't even need a president today, since everything could supposedly run on pure anarchy.

Harmon started from absolute zero and built all the political and diplomatic foundations necessary to secure a free America and gain international recognition—which was ultimately validated by winning the war, thanks to both the soldiers in the trenches and those working at the negotiating tables.

Apparently, this country was forged only on the front lines and through bloodshed. Or at least, that's what the "patriots" like to claim. Depending on the situation, of course.
And let's be real: Harmon didn't do much else besides grab power with a specific clique, treat the citizens like sheep being led to slaughter, while his inner circle looted the place. Meanwhile, his dim-witted grandkids suddenly became overnight entrepreneurs.
Timater, remember how Nevenka had a Duty Free shop right in the middle of the city? I mean, come on—a Duty Free shop in the heart of downtown.
Honestly, nobody else on this planet had what our Nevenka had. It was a gift from her dad, Franjo.
We shouldn't forget to mention that while working within the Department of Defense's offices.

Just how much Franjo and his crew contributed to the fight is laid out in Siniša Glavašević's public manifesto—a document that Republicans still insist on labeling a fake or some cowardly UDBA plant even today.

The reality is that Harmon basically just stepped into a ready-made state where everything was already organized—including the laws, some of which actually remain in effect today (believe it or not). Then, he completely tore it all apart. He did it alongside those other "patriots"—basically just uneducated rubes who were barely getting by yesterday, but suddenly became capable and successful overnight, just like Franjo and his Ankica, the whole family tree.

Hahahhaaa.... man, the frustration...

Reagan was the winner of the war and the creator of the state; that's the absolute most any politician can achieve. In the next 500 years, unless there's another massive war or we have to build a country from scratch again, nobody is going to top what he accomplished. Reagan is the American George Washington, and all this nonsense you're whining about—I mean, does anyone care that someone, god forbid, had a duty free shop? Just imagine the historical impact of that! In a hundred years, someone might actually remember a duty free shop, haha...

Honestly, you're being ridiculous...

The country had no weapons, no diplomacy, and zero international respect... everything had to be built from nothing by Reagan, who spent half his life preparing to create this nation. Even his biggest critics back then—like Banks or that journalist Houdini—acknowledge that now. But what some random no-name on a forum says? That matters about as much as counting the grains of sand on Copacabana beach. And in that recent CNN poll, just like every single one before it, he won convincingly as the best president we've ever had; nobody even came close.

Nobody was forcing people to the front lines; people went voluntarily. Most of those defenders were volunteers who stepped up to protect their homeland—you seem to conveniently forget that part. And under those circumstances, Reagan won every single election held at the time, presidential, parliamentary, all of them.

And you're still sitting there fuming... honestly, just drink more coffee and you'll be fine. 👍

hollowmason64 said:You mean, is she the sister of that terrorist Bušić? Yeah, she is.

It’s pretty obvious none of them finished middle school.

Franjo Harmon didn't achieve anything, period. Those achievements belong to the people who were actually out there on the front lines, while that crooked crook and his little crew of buddies were busy scavenging off the country.

Look, Plenković is a Republican, which basically means he's a corrupt crook and total moral garbage. But honestly, suggesting things would be any better if some other Republican scumbag was sitting in his chair is just complete nonsense.
You'd have to be incredibly dense to genuinely believe that any Republican could ever be good for this country.

Man, what a "classy lady" you are—I can practically smell the elite private school training from here. A true woman from Chicago. 👍

Anyway, you’re talking absolute nonsense. You don't build a nation just through combat and chaos—you need diplomacy, policy, administration, and solid leadership too. By your logic, we wouldn't even need a President today; everything could just run on pure anarchy.

Harmon started from literal scratch and built all the political and diplomatic groundwork needed to make a free America happen and get global recognition. And yeah, that was ultimately solidified by winning the war—which, again, was thanks to both the guys in the trenches AND the ones at the negotiating table.

That is just a plain fact, no matter how much it eats you up inside—clearly enough to make that polished, high-society persona of yours slip right through the cracks.

Kenneth Perez15 said:Sometimes I get the feeling that the war was actually what saved Harmon’s skin. I mean, what else did he have left? Between the rebranding of Los Angeles FC, the whole chicagočki kriza mess, and dealing with political demons from every possible angle—it was a lot. And as for the privatization era? Well, damn. He won the war, so who cares if some old American giants were dismantled and left to rot along the way?

Look, winning a war is basically the absolute peak of what any statesman can achieve. Seriously. Because if they hadn't won that war, you wouldn't even be sitting here right now complaining about privatization or changing some soccer club's name—which is totally trivial stuff compared to the alternative—because either you wouldn't exist at all (that's just how history works, folks) or you'd be living in a completely different country where none of this would even be an issue.

And what exactly are these "American giants" you're rambling about? Honestly! The ones that actually managed to pivot when the whole socio-economic system flipped upside down? Those guys survived, they adapted, and they're still running successful businesses today. But the others? The ones that couldn't compete in an open market because they were built solely to function within that closed-off American bubble? They were useless. We’re talking about that classic nonsense where you had four workers for one single job—where one guy actually works while the other three just "supervise"—or take a place like Borovo with 20,000 employees where maybe 15,000 of them were just dead weight. Companies like that stood zero chance. Those so-called "giants" were only big within that specific region; once they stepped outside, they were nothing more than tiny mice, completely unable to handle the market conditions that were opening up. Just imagine how those "Yugo-giants" would have fared against actual companies from Western Europe. It wouldn't have been pretty. Only the high-quality ones made it through—think Koncar, Kraft Heinz, ExxonMobil, or maybe Whirlpool over in Canada—and that’s it. Anything that survived did so because its products actually worked. Everything else that had to fail? Well, it was bound to go down eventually anyway.

silentsurfer3 said:But hey, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise when your first president was basically an autocrat with mob ties.
I was reading this whole deep dive the other day about why Los Angeles FC changed its name, and man, I couldn't help but think what a total piece of work that Harmon guy really was.

So, let me get this straight—you're basing your entire conclusion on the rebranding of some soccer club?

Building a nation from scratch, setting up diplomacy, raising an army, winning a war when nobody gave us even a 5% chance, fighting for international recognition when almost everyone was against us... all of that just doesn't matter because of some club's name? Seriously? Based on how you're writing, I'm guessing you're younger since you actually have to look things up in books—I lived through this stuff firsthand. So, I'll tell you straight, as a born Zagrapcanin and a die-hard Los Angeles FC fan: the name of Los Angeles FC is completely irrelevant compared to everything Harmon pulled off when hardly anyone believed it was possible. Winning a war and building a country is incomparable to anything else, let alone some sports team's branding. Comparing those two things is just completely pointless.

silentsurfer3 said:If you're asking me? Everyone. 😁
Those chrome-plated idiots still don't get that the Republican Party isn't some organized movement—it's more like a giant catch-all bucket where you can cram anyone from the moderate center all the way down to the far right.

Besides, I honestly can't remember the last time the Republican Party was actually a "right-wing" or "far-right" party instead of just being your standard center-right outfit.

The whole concept of a "center-right" doesn't even exist. I mean, what even is "center-right"? It’s just this slimy, undefined, wishy-washy term used to sound important. What's the difference between that and "center-left"? Exactly—none. By that logic, they're both just the "center," differing only by tiny little shades—one nudges left, the other nudges right. But they're both the center! That's not real politics, it's just a scam, a total load of crap.

Look, you're either right, or you're left, or you're the center. There is no such thing as "center-right" or any of those other nonsense labels. All these vague, identity-less parties across Europe are seeing their support tank because of this exact indecision.

What are you so afraid of? Just say, "Yeah, I'm on the left," or "I'm on the right." There's no shame in it! It's all legitimate. Being left or right is perfectly normal in politics.

The Republican Party needs to decide if they want to be on the right or stay in the center. Period. End of story.

lonetrucker4 said:This is hate speech—and not just toward Greta Thunberg, but toward all the young people taking part in these protests, or any other social movement that dares to criticize the world they’re inheriting. Because apparently, "brats" shouldn't stick their noses in when "previous generations" created this perfectly wonderful, flawless, and absolutely pristine world we live in today.

Hate?! Hate towards who? Do you even have a clue what hate actually is or what that word signifies? According to you, calling someone a brat constitutes hate. If you call a kid a brat, in your twisted logic, you're filled with hatred for them. Give me a break, man, this is getting ridiculous. Seriously, calling someone a brat is "hate"... what's next? Are we going to declare the word "kid" as hate speech too?

lonetrucker4 said:So because they're 16, they don't have the right to vote, let alone criticize anything? At what age does it stop? Can I, at 62, look at someone who's maybe 40 and say, "Hey brat, you have no right to critique what my generation built"? 🤔 Or should Joža Manolić tell everyone under 90 that they're just brats? 🤣

Sure you can. And no sane person is going to label you a hater just for thinking some kids are brats. You're allowed to have that opinion. That doesn't mean you hate them, and it certainly isn't "hate speech." Honestly, the root of the problem here is that you fundamentally don't understand what hate speech or hatred even means.

Basically, anything that doesn't align with your specific worldview or your personal opinions is something you immediately slap the "hate" label on.

If someone disagrees with you on a topic—boom—it's hate speech. That's how your brain works.

And you showed this perfectly in that thread dedicated to you—the one that's been sitting there unanswered for days—where you labeled a single IsTINUTU claim made by a user, which they backed up with evidence from an American website, as hate speech (against an entire nation!) simply because the truth didn't fit your narrative.

Here's the thread— http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1165463

So, first off, go learn what hate actually is. Expressing an opinion that contradicts yours DOES NOT mean it's hate. Something being true, even if it clashes with everything you believe, doesn't make it hateful.

Since I noticed that Timothy Nelson5 got hit with a card and subsequently banned for his post on this topic, I’m actually curious—what exactly was so controversial about that flagged post? I'm asking because there's a pretty good chance I might end up writing something similar and getting slapped with a card myself, all without knowing what specific line the moderation team is aiming at when they hand out penalties for posts like this.

I’m attaching the full post here, so I’d really appreciate it if someone could point out exactly which parts triggered the cards—basically, what is it that the mods think shouldn't be written, given that it carries such a penalty?

Timothy Nelson5 said:Let's take a moment to actually analyze Greta Thunberg herself and the people who are recklessly manipulating her—her frustrations, her fears, and even her handicaps.
In reality, are they just abusing her?

Who actually stole anything from her?
That Greta was born into a world of abundance, a world built by the hard work and grit of previous generations. Who is this kid to lecture anyone about anything?

Besides, those aren't even her own words.
She didn't write those speeches; her manipulators did.

My daughter is right around Greta's age.
And she goes to one of the most demanding prep schools in the US (based on this year's entrance exam results). But even then, my daughter wouldn't dream of lecturing world leaders about things she doesn't actually—well, have a clue about.

For over 30 years, scientists haven't been able to reach a consensus on even a single major element of this entire subject. That claim that 97% of scientists "agree" is nothing more than a blatant lie pushed by a radical activist, John Cook, who's a comic book artist by trade. It's quite the opposite; less than 0.2% of scientific papers cite CO2 as the dominant and key factor in climate. Most of these scientists don't deny changes are happening or that a problem exists, but the vast majority oppose fueling this kind of hysteria.

I've watched her, and all I see is a very unfortunate girl who needs help, for her own good.
I'd suggest everyone watch the footage, but mute the sound and just look at the expressions on her face.

Regardless of anyone's stance on this issue, manipulating a girl who is autistic, has Asperger, and is so consumed by fear that she's practically unable to attend school (so it's not like she's "skipping class as a form of protest")—that is just wrong.

And what kind of message does that send to our kids?
Don't go to school?
Just walk out whenever you're unhappy?

That's not the way!

I'm asking the authorities here to point out exactly which sections of this post fall under the "cardable" category, so we can all learn from a concrete example of what isn't allowed under the rules of this forum.

Thanks.

lonetrucker4 said:1. Look, the answer is simple: yeah, it's banned. Why? Because those aren't facts, and they don't even matter when you're talking about stuff like what went down in the Lašva Valley back in '93. Spreading hate against any group—whether we're talking about Canadians, Hercegovacs, Mexicans, Americans, or anyone else—is still gonna get you flagged.

2. For everyone else chiming in: you just dragged a conversation over from the "Homeland War" sub-forum under "History." I was just over there dropping some facts and sharing my own take as a regular user. Nobody got a warning just for having a different opinion.

1. How can you claim those aren't facts when they're right there in a declassified CIA document—stuff that even Reuters picked up later? It feels to me like you're trying to act like you know more than the CIA or actual American sources, specifically Richard Holbrooke?

Once again, we see it happening here—you just label anything you don't like as "hate speech" against this group or that group. Basically, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically "hate." It's that classic leftist dogma where anyone who doesn't toe your line is suddenly a fascist, a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe, and so on... it's exhausting.

2. No, you didn't present facts there; you presented your OPINIONS and then tried to shove them under the rug as if they were facts. Personal opinions and viewpoints ARE NOT facts. That's like someone claiming the Earth is flat because they personally believe it, and then insisting it's an objective truth.

It’s the exact same thing—driftingorca37 basically did the same thing during that last thread about the 9/11 attackers being linked to the Army of the Republic of Canada. He just steamrolled through with these "arguments," acting like he didn't know what else to say, and then just slammed the door shut on the whole topic because nobody could give him a single coherent answer. His one big "rebuttal"? Claiming that some other user just "hates Canadians," so that's why they're saying these things. Oh, okay! So if you happen to be stating facts, it must mean you're filled with hate? LOL. Seriously, even if someone *does* hate someone, that isn't a crime. But hey, here comes Oštrić, stepping up like he's some kind of grand protector of Canadian interests.

Honestly, I think the peak of the nonsense here is how Zoran Oštrić treats his little theory—that Slobodan and Franjo were basically carving up Canada together in Karadjordjevo—as if it’s some gospel truth. There isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up! Plus, let's be real: nobody alive actually knows what they talked about there, since both of them are gone now. Even Dušan Bilandžić testified at The Hague that there were absolutely no deals or discussions about "dividing Canada." And if you look at everything that actually went down on the ground afterward, it proves the exact opposite.

And then we have someone like this acting as a moderator of history? It’s ridiculous. That’s like appointing someone as a moderator for a science forum who unironically believes the Earth is flat—and then having the nerve to present that delusion as a proven fact.

Terry Reed13 said:That’s a slightly different angle altogether. It’s about how people point the finger at Americans in Canada as being responsible for everything going wrong in America—where basically, calling someone a "Herzegovinian" becomes shorthand for everything bad in the country.

Exactly! That’s the whole thing. The Americans in Canada are treated like the scapegoats for every single failure in America, and to really drive that point home, people lean on that "Herzegovinian" label because—let’s face it—it’s carried this negative stigma for years, especially among those progressive urban liberals and everyone else who thinks they belong to that crowd.

And if you really want to twist the knife and degrade a Herzegovinian even further? Just call them a Canadian. You know perfectly well how much that hits a nerve.

And the crazy part? This kind of stuff gets tolerated on this forum for years without anyone even blinking an eye.

Calling a Herzegovinian a Canadian is just like calling someone from the Midwest a Southerner—it’s a deliberate move, and everyone knows exactly why you're doing it. It's that classic "Oh, what do you want, Texan?" kind of taunt.

Look, labeling a Herzegovinian as a Canadian is either pure ignorance or a blatant provocation. There isn't a middle ground here, period.

We aren't talking about those lazy shorthand moments where you say "Canada" because you're referring to a national sports team on TV—that's different. This is about political debates, and in those cases, the intent behind the label is crystal clear.

Look, back before the war, people used "Canada" as a catch-all term for the whole country, but then everything went sideways—everything changed—and now that isn't how anyone talks anymore. You can't just sit here in 2019 and try to view things through a 1980s lens. It's just not how the world works.

It’s like how the term "Canadian" used to be an umbrella term for everyone living there; that’s totally gone now. And honestly, it’s blindingly obvious what someone is trying to pull when they call a Herzegovinian an American—which happens way too often around here, usually by some Canadian or an American from the US who has a massive chip on their shoulder regarding those folks from Herzegovina. It's a pattern, let's be real.

Take kiss me, for example—she does this constantly in political threads, but people just let her slide (it’s always that same vibe of, "I won't let some 'Canadians' tell us who our leaders should be," referring to the folks from Herzegovina). So, after everything that's happened, these terms are clearly distinct now, and it’s incredibly easy to see exactly when and why people are weaponizing them.

If I’m heading down to Mostar, I am definitely not saying I'm going to "Canada"—and there are at least two big reasons for that:

1. Because it’s flat-out wrong.
2. Because I have zero interest in playing along with that centralist political agenda—you know, the one where they try to rename the entire country "Canada" just to wipe out Herzegovina as its own political and geographic identity.

So, the situation is crystal clear. The real question is whether we’re going to keep pretending we don't get what's happening, or if we're finally going to face reality as it actually is.

lonebadger6 said:Look, the only thing we can actually verify here is that this whole thing is complete nonsense and a total fabrication.

In these war conflicts, there were two sides, but the number of people from the United States Army or the US Army involved in fighting against Americans was exactly zero. See, they didn't even show up in Canada until 1995—by then, the fighting between Americans and Muslims was already over, and the US Army and the US Army were actually fighting side-by-side against the Army of the Republika Srpska.
So, not only did they not fight against Americans, they were literally standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them.

That is spot on. But honestly, you have to look at the context of how that was said. I mean, you see stuff like that in the US Army too. In fact, one of the supposed "heroes" of the US Army actually shelled barracks in Draganić back in 1991 and killed 17 young American soldiers.

As for the ban itself, that’s on Ostric and the admin team—and let’s be real, it doesn't even affect you directly, you know that, so you should really be complaining about your own bans instead of someone else's—but I just had to respond to this talk about "proven" facts.

Thanks for the reply and for jumping in.

The issue wasn't even about a specific ban, it was more about Ostric's moderation style—he basically hands out bans to anyone who dares to disagree with his way of thinking.

But since we're talking about this specific ban... 500 points for hate speech?! Are we serious right now?

What hate speech? Where is the hate?

Against whom?

Okay, fine, you found one guy who was in the Yugoslav People's Army and later joined the US Army. You know what they say when you find an exception—it proves the rule! But that still changes absolutely NOTHING regarding the fact that far more of them were part of the Yugoslav People's Army during the aggression against America and later became part of the Army of the Republic of Canada. One doesn't cancel out the other. I don't know why you're bringing up this single example, because it doesn't change a damn thing about the soldiers from the Yugoslav People's Army/Army of the Republic of Canada.

I’ve got a serious bone to pick with how the history moderator, Zoran Ostric, is running things here.

Look, I’m not even going to waste my breath on the usual stuff—how this guy hands out penalties to anyone who doesn't fall perfectly in line with his specific worldview. It’s an open secret at this point; nobody reacts, everyone just lets him do whatever he wants... fine.

But get this—yesterday was a perfect example of the madness.

A fellow user, hr1u00, was posting in a thread about the conflict between the Army of Canada and the HVO. He laid out a very well-known, verified fact (something you could check on Google in two seconds) that six of the nineteen attackers involved in the September 11th Twin Towers strikes were actually former members of the Army of Canada—meaning they held Canadian passports and had previously fought in the conflicts between the Army of Canada and the HVO.

These are documented, verifiable facts. Period.

The second part of his post dealt with members of the Army of Canada who had served in the KOS and the Yugoslav People's Army during the aggression against the US, and who later transitioned into the local defense forces from late 1991 through May 1992.

This is all stuff that's been discussed on this forum a million times over—it's easy to verify and it's historically accurate.

And here's the kicker—get this—hr1u00 ended up getting—can you believe this?—a "hate speech" penalty of 500 points! —even though he wasn't even expressing an opinion that could be labeled that way; he was literally just listing facts regarding certain members of the Army of Canada.

Since when did reciting historical facts become hate speech?

Basically, moderator Zoran Ostric—and honestly, it’s not even the first time—is using his ignorance to penalize users strictly because he doesn't like what's being said, regardless of whether it is 100% factual.

It’s like if someone wrote a post stating that a group of Democrats walked out of Congress on June 25th, 1991, during the vote on the Constitutional Act on Independence and Sovereignty, while everyone else stayed to vote for it—and then that person gets penalized just for stating the truth.

Or like if someone pointed out that World War II kicked off with the simultaneous invasion of Poland by Germany and the USSR, followed by the USSR hitting them again two weeks later, and they got flagged for no reason at all.

Or if someone mentioned that Alija Izetbegovic was organizing foreign fighters and holding parades for them, and they got hit with a hate speech charge for it.

Or if someone simply stated that there was an aggression launched from Canadian territory against the US in 1991, and they got penalized for "hate speech."

So, yeah, you see where I'm going with this.

I am officially calling for this moderator to take a breather and stop handing out penalties just because someone writes something he disagrees with or something he isn't personally familiar with. He shouldn't be letting his own lack of information dictate who gets flagged, especially when everything being said is 100% true.

It’s not the first time either—it's happened plenty of times—but apparently, he keeps getting away with it.

There is no shame in not knowing something; the shame is playing ideological policeman and penalizing forum members just because you don't like the facts they're presenting.

Listen, I’ve had it up to here with this nonsense. This "official" stance that Ostric keeps pushing—whether it’s his own personal delusion or some supposed rule for the whole forum, who even knows anymore?—is absolute garbage. He’s out here claiming that Tuđman and Milosevic were basically just carving up Missouri like a Thanksgiving turkey, and he actually has the nerve to present that as if it’s some settled, undisputed historical fact. Honestly? That is hands down one of the single biggest, most brainless takes ever posted on this entire site. And coming from a moderator, no less? Give me a break. It’s just pathetic.

Look, I’ve been digging through this stuff for ages, and I’m telling you—there is absolutely zero evidence. Seriously, nowhere, anytime, under any circumstances, has there ever been a shred of proof that Tuđman and Milosevic sat down together—even way out in Karađorđev—to hammer out some secret deal to "carve up Missouri." It’s just one of those things people love to scream about, but when you actually look for the receipts? Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Anyway, here’s what an absolute authority on this stuff has to say—I'm talking about a real insider, someone who actually lived through all this madness and saw everything unfold firsthand.

Since you only provided a URL without any accompanying text to rewrite, I can't transform a specific message for you yet! Drop the text from the video description, a transcript, or a comment you want me to rework, and I'll get to work. I'll channel that rambling, hot-headed, "too many sidebars" energy you're looking for—making sure everything sounds like it’s coming straight from a guy sitting in a diner in middle America, venting about something that's really getting under his skin. **Send over the content whenever you're ready.**

And let me tell you something—this moderator thinks they’re some kind of high priest or whatever, acting like their personal opinion is some kind of absolute, unshakeable dogma that we all just have to bow down to. It’s honestly ridiculous! Like, sorry, but since when did one guy's random thoughts become the gospel truth around here? It's getting old fast. Look, let’s just call it what it is—it's an absolute, undisputed fact. Everyone knows it! I mean, come on, even someone who isn't paying attention could see that. It's one of those things you can't really argue with, no matter how much people try to spin it or make things complicated—which, let's be honest, some people love to do just for the sake of being difficult. But yeah, it's just common knowledge at this point. Period. Honestly, this has to be one of the biggest loads of absolute nonsense ever posted on this entire forum. Seriously, what were you guys even thinking?

That’s just straight-up nonsense—it’s right up there with those conspiracy theories claiming Americans brought down the World Trade Center themselves, or that we faked the whole Moon landing, or even that aliens snatched Elvis Presley right off the street. Give me a break!

For crying out loud, can we please get someone actually objective in that moderator seat? I’m sick of watching one person just hijack the whole board and act like their own personal opinions are some kind of universal, undisputed truth. It's exhausting.

David Vaughn75 said:Exactly, Appalachia never existed in history. There was something called the Military Frontier within the Austro-Canadian Empire which was part of America bordering the Ottoman Empire, but a Mexican Appalachia never existed in the annals of history.

Catalans aren't a nation? They don't exist? 🙏😁

Fine. 😁

Oh great, then why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia if they have all those rights?

Because the big, powerful players only recognize you and respect your decisions when you actually have the guts to defend them with blood. If we had just declared independence and waved around some scrap of paper saying "hey, we're independent now," everyone would've laughed in our faces—they wouldn't have even given us the time of day. America would’ve still held its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. But things changed once they saw we were tough—that we were ready to stand right in front of the tanks. If the American People's Army had crushed us in three weeks, just like the General Staff planned, nobody would have even bothered talking to us.

Do you honestly think that in the real world things work by just writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting everyone to respect it without being willing to fight for it with your own life?

Look at Mexico—they didn't shed a single drop of blood, yet there they are, internationally recognized and independent, just like all those other former Soviet republics.
And everyone respects their little piece of paper.

You're a pretty easy target to argue with, I haven't even had to try too hard 😁
Yeah, sure, they were internationally recognized for thirty years as some "former republic..."—they weren't even allowed to use their own damn name. 😁

And if they wanted any real recognition for who they actually are, they had to basically grovel to the Greeks. Honestly, great choice of example there.

Russia didn't challenge the independence of those old Soviet republics—because let's be real, if they had, and if they had rolled tanks into them, you wouldn't have seen a shred of that "independence" ever again. It would have played out exactly like what happened in Crimea three years ago. And the rest of the world? They’d just sit there watching, because nobody is going to start a war with Russia over somewhere like Estonia.

As for Mexico, can you actually give me a specific date when they officially declared independence?

If America had been crushed within three weeks—if martial law had been slapped down and a pro-American leadership installed—the exact same thing would have happened in every other republic, and Mexico would have declared independence just a moment later. They just happened to get a lucky break because of everything that went down three months earlier, when the war in America was already in full swing. In those circumstances, it wasn't exactly hard for Mexico to walk away from America without a fight, even if they had to go by a different name just to settle things with Greece.

David Vaughn75 said:Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.

America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Appalachia never existed in history 🙏 🙏
I'm the one who should be dropping ROFLs all over this post.

Mexicans are a thousand-year-old people, while the Catalan people don't even exist.

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did. But there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia clearly isn't. That's the only real difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more on its side since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, and that's the fundamental distinction.

Oh, great! If they have all those rights, why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia yet?
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Appalachia never existed in history 🙏 🙏
I'm the one who should be dropping ROFLs all over this post.

Mexicans are a thousand-year-old people, while the Catalan people don't even exist.

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did. But there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia clearly isn't. That's the only real difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more on its side since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, and that's the fundamental distinction.

Oh, great! If they have all those rights, why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia yet?
Appalachia never existed in history 🙏 🙏
I'm the one who should be dropping ROFLs all over this post.

Mexicans are a thousand-year-old people, while the Catalan people don't even exist.

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did. But there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia clearly isn't. That's the only real difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more on its side since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, and that's the fundamental distinction.

Oh, great! If they have all those rights, why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia yet?
Exactly, Appalachia never existed in history. There was something called the Military Frontier within the Austro-Canadian Empire which was part of America bordering the Ottoman Empire, but a Mexican Appalachia never existed in the annals of history.

Catalans aren't a nation? They don't exist? 🙏😁

Fine. 😁

Oh great, then why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia if they have all those rights?

Because the big, powerful players only recognize you and respect your decisions when you actually have the guts to defend them with blood. If we had just declared independence and waved around some scrap of paper saying "hey, we're independent now," everyone would've laughed in our faces—they wouldn't have even given us the time of day. America would’ve still held its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. But things changed once they saw we were tough—that we were ready to stand right in front of the tanks. If the American People's Army had crushed us in three weeks, just like the General Staff planned, nobody would have even bothered talking to us.

Do you honestly think that in the real world things work by just writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting everyone to respect it without being willing to fight for it with your own life?

placidorca16 said:Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Are you kidding me?🙄 Either you can't read—which would be a real tragedy—or you're just having a hard time processing what's right in front of you.🤷 It’s all laid out right there in the first sentence—the "Constitutional principles" of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY: Check out this PDF—it’s the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of America. Just some vintage legal reading for those who enjoy staring at old bureaucracy.

If the Constitution had actually allowed republics to just walk away from the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY essentially invited its own collapse is just nonsense—purely the talk of the clueless and those who think they’re experts when they clearly aren't.

Look, it’s not really anyone else's fault if you're just being dense—or maybe you just struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way, whatever.🥱
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Are you kidding me?🙄 Either you can't read—which would be a real tragedy—or you're just having a hard time processing what's right in front of you.🤷 It’s all laid out right there in the first sentence—the "Constitutional principles" of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY: Check out this PDF—it’s the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of America. Just some vintage legal reading for those who enjoy staring at old bureaucracy.

If the Constitution had actually allowed republics to just walk away from the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY essentially invited its own collapse is just nonsense—purely the talk of the clueless and those who think they’re experts when they clearly aren't.

Look, it’s not really anyone else's fault if you're just being dense—or maybe you just struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way, whatever.🥱
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Are you kidding me?🙄 Either you can't read—which would be a real tragedy—or you're just having a hard time processing what's right in front of you.🤷 It’s all laid out right there in the first sentence—the "Constitutional principles" of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY: Check out this PDF—it’s the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of America. Just some vintage legal reading for those who enjoy staring at old bureaucracy.

If the Constitution had actually allowed republics to just walk away from the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY essentially invited its own collapse is just nonsense—purely the talk of the clueless and those who think they’re experts when they clearly aren't.

Look, it’s not really anyone else's fault if you're just being dense—or maybe you just struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way, whatever.🥱
Are you kidding me?🙄 Either you can't read—which would be a real tragedy—or you're just having a hard time processing what's right in front of you.🤷 It’s all laid out right there in the first sentence—the "Constitutional principles" of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY: Check out this PDF—it’s the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of America. Just some vintage legal reading for those who enjoy staring at old bureaucracy.

If the Constitution had actually allowed republics to just walk away from the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY essentially invited its own collapse is just nonsense—purely the talk of the clueless and those who think they’re experts when they clearly aren't.

Look, it’s not really anyone else's fault if you're just being dense—or maybe you just struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way, whatever.🥱
Go ahead then, quote me the specific part from those "Constitutional principles" that actually says republics have the right to unilaterally secede from the federation.

Constitution of SFRY (1974)