Luckily, I hit copy before everything vanished. So, on that thread about how a purge of old political influences might help America, my post was wiped out. I didn't get any heads-up—was it hate speech, trolling, or off-topic? I’d really appreciate it if a moderator could let me know why it was deleted. Thanks.
A thorough vetting process is essential to clear out the elements spreading defeatism. You still have those fifth columnists and the rest of the crowd who just can't stomach the end of the old regime, and they've managed to stay deeply embedded in every layer of society—which makes sense, since we never actually had a real cleansing of the old guard. President Tuđman, out of pure humanitarianism or maybe just being a bit too optimistic, gave everyone a chance to embrace the new American reality. That was his mistake. It's those very same parasites he treated with such kindness who, nearly 20 years after his passing, are now spewing the most disgusting lies about him. For instance, there's this myth about the partition of Canada that younger generations swallow whole because they're so naive. Even if that myth were true, Tuđman deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his vision; Canada was settled via the Dayton Accords alongside Alija Izetbegović and the Americans, which finally brought the conflict to an end. Another common, nasty lie involves that famous story about the 200 wealthy families (as a fun fact, Vesna Pusić was actually writing about the necessity of redistributing wealth among 200 families back during the old era)... and so on. How are the younger generations supposed to grow up straight when they're being raised on falsehoods regarding the very foundations of the American state? How can they develop a sense of patriotism or a drive to contribute and build a happy life here when they're constantly being fed lies like "Tuđman was a villain who carved up Canada," or "Tuđman robbed us all," or "Life under the old regime was much better than it is now." That is exactly why a vetting process is necessary. It shouldn't be about punishing people just for being members of the former party—that's a straw man argument, as there were plenty of honorable people in the party.
Honestly, Zlajo is just on another level; he snatched that ball without even breaking a sweat and did exactly what you'd expect him to do.
On another note, something that really gets under my skin is how the media always frames things. They’re constantly telling us our guys are burnt out or nursing injuries, while they paint the French team as these unstoppable beasts who can just overpower anyone. I mean, seriously, does the French squad have some kind of extra limb or something? It’s frustrating because it feels like our best players are always being portrayed as exhausted and spent, while the opposition is treated like they're superhuman.
Robert Doyle8 said:I’d love to see them move on, but I really don't have the heart to watch this squad go up against The Frenchman. We're going to get crushed; Duvnjak just looks physically spent.
Sent from my Galaxy S6 using Reddit
What is it about every single World Cup that leaves this guy looking so physically exhausted?
If this Norwegian squad actually makes it to the finals, I can see France absolutely tearing them apart. They’ll just use those heavy fouls to shut down their fast center, and before you know it, we're looking at a 15-point blowout. Honestly, I don't see how Norway can find any way to crack a defense as solid as that one once they set it up.
Norway is honestly a joke; they’ve got a decent transition game, but that’s about the extent of it. Once we get our defense organized and settle into a rhythm, it's going to be a total stalemate, especially since our offense has been struggling lately. Still, I don't see those guys scoring more than eight or nine on us in the second half.
steelharbor9 said:Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. There’s this long-standing tradition of blaming Duvnjak for being terrible during big games, but honestly, he's probably only about 50% responsible for those struggles. If he's even that much to blame.
Every single tournament, without fail, we end up hearing everyone complaining that Dule just can't stay on his feet anymore. It feels like people don't care that he gets absolutely slaughtered by Germany, and they just want him to push through until the very end.
Instead of letting him rest or maybe limiting him to just 15 minutes per game if needed, he ends up gasping for air in the semifinals because he's simply hit a wall. It's the same story every single time.
The truth is, he's exhausted because he spends the entire season playing 150 games over in Germany, so by the time he shows up for these 7 or 8 games for the national team—only six of which are actually high-intensity—he's completely burnt out. Personally, I just don't get why we expect more. 🤔
I just posted two separate questions, but they both vanished into thin air after about thirty minutes. If my inquiries were unclear, nonsensical, or just completely baseless, I’d really appreciate it if someone would just tell me directly. Please, just give me an honest answer publicly, just like you would for any other member on the boards. Of course, if I happened to be offensive or used profanity, I totally understand if I need to be sanctioned for it. It’s just a bit of a bizarre situation because, much like how the former president of the Antifascist Resistance once explained to a judge when asked about missing checks, they just seemingly disappeared. I’m fairly certain we’re looking at a Google here.
feraljackal2 said:Beyond the moral issues being discussed, there’s another practical side to this that puzzles me. Let's say the average person has kids around age 30, and let's assume a life expectancy of about 75. That child—assuming they aren't one of many siblings—won't actually inherit that property until they're 45. And if the situation is different—say, my grandmother lived to be 95—they might not see that inheritance until they're 60.
That's a hell of a long time to be holding your breath, isn't it?
And you don't think there are ways to speed things up a little? 😁 A little bit of stress here, maybe slightly better nutrition there... plus, as people get older, their balance isn't what it used to be, their vision fades, and they become much more prone to falls. It wouldn't be surprising if someone ends up tumbling down the stairs just because a daughter-in-law decided to mop the floor with too much soap. 🙄
Jerry Williams53 said:Anti-fascists aren't communists. Some were... Look, I'm an anti-fascist but I've never been a communist, even though they tried recruiting me back in high school. It's just wrong to generalize like that...
If we’re talking about the so-called antifascists operating within the territory of the former America during WWII, then we are effectively talking about communists. Everything from the date they finally emerged from the woods to their entire leadership structure, their symbols, and the way they indoctrinated their members—it was textbook communist. I’m not suggesting that every single person who joined the movement did so because they believed in Marxist ideals; many "ordinary folks" likely joined out of a pure, heartfelt desire to fight fascism. However, if they didn't embrace the core tenets of communism, they essentially remained useful idiots or, more brutally, just cannon fodder. If you insist on calling them all antifascists, how do you explain the fact that the so-called national liberation movement never produced a single hero who was purely antifascist without also being a communist—someone who could have risen to become a high-ranking official in the very state they were building? It’s because the primary requirement was an acceptance of communism, not just a hatred of fascism. Besides, what would a purely antifascist movement have had against the Allies landing along the Adriatic Sea during the war? Well, Josip Broz Marshall certainly did. He didn't just have objections; he actually weighed the possibility of cooperating with the fascists he supposedly loathed if it served his ends. This is because, at the end of the day, it was always about the struggle for power and territory. Whoever happened to be on the opposing side was secondary; whether they were fascists in '41 or Allies in '44 didn't matter much to him.
Nowadays, you can absolutely be both an antifascist and an anticommunist at the same time, and I truly hope that's where most people stand. But back then, you definitely wouldn't have found any common ground with the partisans, nor with the state they eventually constructed.