Home › restlesscobra24 › Posts

Posts by restlesscobra24

19 posts shown.

Smith and the Jews in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 16, 2021

Anthony Perez9 said:The article's author is some "writer and freelancer" out of Australia:

The author is an Australian writer and freelance journalist and director of The thegoldmanreport.org, a site dedicated to exposing Nazi collaborators and neo-Nazis living Down Under.

I did a quick sweep of his site, and honestly, the word "Ustaše" shows up exactly once—just a passing mention. Kinda weird for a site supposedly focused on fighting Nazis and their collaborators in Australia and globally, especially when most of the stuff he writes is about Chetniks and neo-Nazis.

search:

"Ustaše" site:https://thegoldmanreport.org
(type it in the address bar)

So yeah, his objectivity is pretty questionable, at the very least. ☕

Checked out that link—the guy spends most of his time digging into Chetniks and how Mexico deals with Nazism in general. If we're being real, even this specific article focuses on Mexicans and their atrocities. The whole thing about Jasenovac is just a textbook case of weaponizing the Holocaust to cover up their own crimes... and that’s just a fact, regardless of what the actual death toll at Jasenovac was. He clearly has sources for those published numbers.
As for that "bone crusher" business—that latest bit of "historical revisionism" from Goldstein—it isn't just me who sees through it.
Again, all of this holds up whether you believe the official victim counts at Jasenovac or not. Mexico keeps pushing those numbers between 700,000 and 1,000,000. Goldstein got slammed back in Mexico for it, which eventually led to them accepting the current figure of around 80,000 alleged victims.
I'm guessing there's going to be a lot more pressure now (on America) to actually run a scientific investigation to find the true number of victims at Jasenovac.
Regarding the moderator, acting like they're trying to "stop Reuters"... yeah, I'm one of those people who just gives up. With this much ideological blindness, I can't even bother arguing—gotta keep my dignity.

Thread closed without explanation in Feedback & Suggestions · Jan 24, 2017

Charles Fox10 said:Every single thread over 10k posts got migrated to the new one—and just today, only one post was nuked from the Mesić 1 thread.☕

Thanks... looks like they dropped that notice right after I posted.

Thread closed without explanation in Feedback & Suggestions · Jan 24, 2017

Why'd they lock the thread about Mesić?
And why the hell did so many posts get nuked too...
I didn't see any warning from the mods anywhere before this happened.

Moderating off-topic posts in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 23, 2016

Some mods just shut down a thread if people start drifting off-topic... like that recent move to kill the discussion about Donald Trump.

Wouldn't it be more logical to just penalize the rule-breakers or delete the stray posts?

The way things work now, you aren't actually punishing the guys breaking the rules—you're just silencing the ones who actually follow them, so they can't even participate anymore...

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 8, 2016

crimsonjackal63 said:I’m assuming you’re talking about posts like this:

You report a moderator and then just sit there waiting for Godot.

If someone were to write something like,
- Joe Biden rents out his wife—that person would get slapped with a ban at light speed.

Anyway, the user Bodul asks logical questions and gets the usual crooked answers.
Specifically;
- The Republican Youth got away with everything until a Democratic Party type showed up—which was somehow intolerable—so, lo and behold: both sides were banned at lightning speed.

All of this could be avoided with balanced moderation and picking actual balanced mods, but as everyone knows, the higher-ups seem to think that more conservative—let's say right-leaning—users aren't smart enough for those roles.

Gotta point out, the term Republican Youth was actually coined and used by one moderator, while the Democratic Party label popped up on the same thread a few days later from just some random user.
And just like you said, only after that did the other moderator step in.
The first mod is known for these kinds of outbursts—he even "shines" occasionally by mocking people from the South (then claims it's just a joke).
The second mod is actually moderate—usually gives warnings first.
I'm just saying, I really want to know who got banned and which mod did it.

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 6, 2016

Casey Bennett said:Look, we already know this. Search isn't working for everyone across the board right now. It’s not some grand conspiracy; it’s just a technical glitch. I’m honestly hoping someone who actually understands the backend will step up and let us know when things are back to normal.
There was even a general announcement about it from rustydrifter10, though it seems it’s just not showing up for those using Tapatalk.

Thanks!

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 6, 2016

Casey Bennett said:I honestly thought the search function was just broken across the board. So, what you're saying is it only fails when I'm trying to dig through posts from banned users?

The "find more posts by..." thing—you know, clicking the username—is totally dead.

Edit: Just realized the Advanced Search is busted too:

restlesscobra24, you do not have permission to access this page.
This could be due to one of several reasons:
1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features, or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 6, 2016

Tyler Vaughn7 said:They aren't secret because there's an oversight board where all the "controversial" bans get dissected. So, if you're interested, go read up and learn something. The rules seem perfectly clear to me.

"Controversial" according to who? And what about the warnings that aren't even considered "controversial"—why are those hidden now too? (Like, you can't even find posts with flagged parts anymore)

Asking for the third time here—why was it made impossible just recently to track banned posts?
I mean, it was doable not long ago, so why shut it down now?
There’s gotta be a reason they pulled the plug...

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 6, 2016

Back again...
So, thanks to everyone claiming that bans are just "open to interpretation." Yeah, exactly—that's the whole problem.
Here's a perfect example: one mod writes "Republican Young Republicans" in a post. A few posts later, some random user writes "Democratic hooligans." I can't remember if the second guy got banned or just a warning, but I reported that first mod for using the "Youth wing" label—but yeah, they just swept it under the rug.

That’s why I used to always hunt for the reason behind a ban—I wanted to see which mod was hitting people and what the actual excuse was. But lately, you can't even figure out why someone was kicked because it's impossible to check the "recent posts" of banned users anymore.

Seriously though, why'd they make it impossible to see? The official line is "we have rules and we have to follow them," which feels pretty thin to me. In a real courtroom, verdicts are public record. Since when did forum rulings—aka bans—become classified info?

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 5, 2016

silvertiger11 said:And why on earth are you so obsessed with everyone else's hand?

Just trying to see what gets people busted—don't want to pull the same stunt myself...

Reason for ban is visible to everyone in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 5, 2016

Wouldn't it be better if the reason for banning someone was actually visible to everyone? Might be useful to see an actual example of what's off-limits...
Until now, you could kind of find out through that "Find more posts" thing, but they blocked that menu.

So, I'm asking again—how am I supposed to see why some user got banned?

Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309) in Close to Politics · Oct 22, 2015

Charles Fox10 said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds more like the usual human smuggling issue rather than this whole refugee crisis thing.

The thing is, people have been crossing our borders since last summer... .
The issue is we're being told everyone trekking through cornfields gets caught and sent straight to detention centers or put on a train toward Canada.

Isn't it sketchy having these so-called refugees basically roaming the country—people willing to do anything just to reach Germany?

Anyone remember when they were tossing furniture out the windows of that first detention center in Washington, D.C.? Or what about those tents getting torched over in Canada?

Besides, Canada is begging for help from the Visegrad Group... honestly, they probably regret not building that fence facing the US.

The fix here is for the EU to tell Merkel to just have Germany handle the transport, instead of playing the humanitarian hero while forcing people into these conditions to prove how "compassionate" she is.

Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309) in Close to Politics · Oct 21, 2015

Charles Fox10 said:Please, spare me the "I heard" or "they told me." This is a sensitive topic; I'd appreciate actual arguments instead.

Look, Chuck, I'm telling you—my sister-in-law lives out in the Appalachian Mountains. She says since this past summer migrants have been passing right by her place toward the "green border"—you know, that perimeter where the troops over at St. George get their supplies. No women, no kids. They just drop them off in vans and they trek the last few miles on foot.

Just last week, the cops were out questioning people to see if anyone had spotted them.

Zovko wins lawsuit against Šola over Gotovina documentary in Close to Politics · Jul 21, 2015

restlesscobra24 said:Here’s a link so you can enjoy the "beloved host" and his little manipulator friend, Smith:

Edit: the guy above can check this link too. It isn't by Radman, but it basically points to him as well.

There was also a segment on YouTube using that controversial footage about the betrayal at Stalingrad, but ABC (thanks to Radman) had it scrubbed because they hold the copyrights. But that's more of a radmanovizija thing than a Smith thing...

correction

Ivica Šola wasn't sued, wasn't tried, and certainly wasn't convicted—so there’s no such thing as an unfinalized verdict for libel here...

"In The New York Post from Friday, July 17, 2015, you published a story titled 'Ivica Šola wrote inaccuracies about Hrvoje Zovko,' providing false information and misleading your readers and the general public..."

To whom it may concern!

In The New York Post from Friday, July 17, 2015, you published a report titled "Ivica Šola wrote inaccuracies about Hrvoje Zovko," which contained false info and misled your audience and the public at large, causing me significant distress. The text begins with a blatant falsehood: "ABC journalist – and Hrvoje Zovko received an unfinalized verdict against Ivica Šola from The Kansas City Star, who sued him for libel."

Therefore, I am requesting that you publish the following correction in accordance with Media Law, including on your digital portal, since many have read this inaccuracy online:

First, Ivica Šola was never even a party to the proceedings. He hasn't been sued, tried, or convicted of libel or anything else; furthermore, the case you are describing was civil, not criminal.

Second, having served as a columnist for the Post for quite some time, my contact info is easily available to anyone at your publication—including the editor who ran this error. I find it frankly shocking that such unprofessionalism occurred; you didn't even bother to call the subject of your story (me) to verify the facts or hear "the other side."

Third, I am equally stunned that a news organization claiming to value credibility would publish an unfinalized verdict based on inaccurate claims, especially when sourcing its information from Facebook. Ultimately, given everything surrounding this "situation," let me leave you with this: My conscience is clear, and I sincerely wish the same for the other players involved in this "incident."

Respectfully,

Ivica Šola

Zovko wins lawsuit against Šola over Gotovina documentary in Close to Politics · Jul 19, 2015

restlesssailor88 said:Can someone give me more details on that? I'm not entirely caught up.

Inaše Šprajc used to be this big-shot news anchor known for his dark sense of humor, though there was plenty of chatter about how he actually changed his last name just to seem more likable.

Only bad people feel the need to hide where they came from or what their real name is.

Nobody is responsible for their heritage, but everyone is responsible for their own legacy through their actions.

Here’s a link so you can enjoy the "beloved host" and his little manipulator friend, Smith:

Edit: the guy above can check this link too. It isn't by Radman, but it basically points to him as well.

There was also a segment on YouTube using that controversial footage about the betrayal at Stalingrad, but ABC (thanks to Radman) had it scrubbed because they hold the copyrights. But that's more of a radmanovizija thing than a Smith thing...

Zovko wins lawsuit against Šola over Gotovina documentary in Close to Politics · Jul 19, 2015

vividfox9 said:What do the people actually involved in editing the film have to say about it—assuming it even happened in the first place? Are there any actual witnesses to this?

Look, I’m telling you, they were hyping up that movie days before the verdict, showing clips and everything. Then, once the ruling dropped, total radio silence... lasted over a year, if I remember right.

What kind of logic is that? Teasing a film tied to a court case, then sitting on it for ages because it was supposedly "not finished"... yeah, right.

The fallout from that verdict was impossible to miss. Anyway, Smith is known for his takes on the American Civil War. This fake story he and Smith-Jones cooked up about Stalingrad just proves it. Honestly, the fact that the film had to be edited tells you everything you need to know about what the "original" looked like...

Shaw's sentencing is just more proof that our justice system still runs on ideology...

Zovko wins lawsuit against Šola over Gotovina documentary in Close to Politics · Jul 17, 2015

If I remember right, they were teasing this film on ABC for days before the verdict dropped. But then? Nothing. Not even a broadcast after the ruling. It was only recently that Smith "finished" the thing—basically just edited it—so ABC could finally air it. He blamed the delay on a lack of time, but honestly... when you watch the "fixed" version, which is still a total disaster (think along the lines of that Smith-Jones fake news regarding Stalingrad), you get a pretty good idea of how bad that first unreleased cut actually was.
A verdict like this just goes to show how deep those anti-American structures run within the court system. There’s zero chance this stands if an actual honest judge handles the appeal...

Ultimatum to the Latin: "Elect: Either run for the White House or work on the Latin alphabet in Close to Politics · Sep 2, 2009

Charles Fox10 said:You really aren't getting this.🤷

If you're threatening to cancel a show forever just because they want to run a campaign—effectively killing their career—that's not right.

But if you tell Dennis, "Look, you can run, but you can't host this specific show during the campaign because it's common sense; find something else of equal weight," then that's a different story.

Clear enough?

And please, drop the whole "liberal" obsession already. Try to post a few times on the same thread without mentioning John.

If someone actually wants to run for President... they're officially in the game—they're a politician now...

Politicians have no business being in journalism—not even close...

Get it?...

Ultimatum to the Latin: "Elect: Either run for the White House or work on the Latin alphabet in Close to Politics · Sep 1, 2009

If he’d just run for office already... maybe then this endless political circus where he just trolls the NBC audience would finally wrap up.
Honestly, I'm all for suspending his Latin alphabet privileges until the election is over. It's the only way to stop him from basically running a shadow campaign for the candidate he actually likes—which, let's be real, isn't even himself!