Posts by Charles Jackson5

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

I only used that parallel to point out the lack of principle here. Double standards are the absolute worst thing in moderation. That’s it.
Personally, I actually praised you guys for being more lenient lately regarding things on the edge of Politika, and now I see nonsense being banned again.
Just let people vent—even if they push the limit a bit. Let them write what's bothering them; it makes everyone feel better.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

That wasn't some physical defect—it was just his facial structure giving him an unlikable expression during appearances. It's similar to how Mason was called a porcupine because of his eyebrows and hair.
Mocking a physical impairment would be something like Bandić's exhaustion or his facial drooping following a stroke. We shouldn't allow that, and I've actually stepped in twice even though I can't stand Bandić.
And as for "earning" certain labels... am I allowed to call Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal?
By your logic, I assume I can.
And can I repeat it as often as others call Mason a traitor, or Tit the greatest criminal in the history of the North America?

Charles Fox10 said:Burduš is actually a character from an old American comedy sketch back in the 1970s, played by Jovan Janjičijevič Janačko. He played a jazz musician playing the double bass. http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1358244
Or, more simply: Burduš is just some guy from a small town in the Midwest.

In my opinion, this level of communication is quite inappropriate.

Look, maybe calling someone Burduš can be taken as a harmless joke, but they go after guys like Stjepan Mason with much harsher slurs all the time. And of course, nobody ever gets banned for that.
So, when someone actually catches a red card for being called "crooked-mouthed," people are naturally going to lose it at the injustice.

As far as I'm concerned, every single politician should be fair game for bashing—no holds barred, no hesitation. 😳

Daniel Ward87 said:Honestly, it feels like a huge overreaction over a single warning. Like Brenda Sanders56 pointed out, mocking Krivosunik based on a facial "flaw" is one thing, but handing out a strike would happen to anyone, not just if they were talking about Franjo Harmon.

As for Josip Manjko and Burduš, that label says more about the author's character and their clearly negative take on Josip Manjko. Whether we're talking about real-world etiquette or internet rules, it’s just not cool to talk about people that way. Look, if Josip Manjko is a "Burduš" to some people, I don't want to be in a spot where I have to issue a strike for an opinion. I might delete a post, but issuing a formal strike—well, if we start doing that, then everyone gets a strike every time someone calls a politician a jerk or a loser. If that's how we're playing it, fine by me, but let's be clear about the precedent.🤷

Cody already got banned, so I don't see any reason to hand out extra strikes.🤷

Daniel Ward87

Fine then—I’ll start reporting every single post where someone uses terms like porcupine, squid, or lame locksmith. Sound good?
Let's see what kind of weak, half-baked arguments about "character assassination" you come up with then. 🙄
It's honestly pathetic that a moderator can interpret things in such a nonsensical way.

steeleagle70 said:That’s just how it works in these low-rent systems, right? It’s all about baiting the other guy. You basically try to make them look like a total joke just to get under their skin. The goal? Troll them until they lose their cool and snap back at you. It’s way easier than actually using logic or having a decent debate, isn't it? So everyone just dives straight into the cheap shots, starting with small jabs and eventually spiraling into full-blown personal attacks. Just typical.

We gotta rip this stuff out by the roots, right? Fast and hard. I mean, think about it. You’ve got ten trolls killing off a thousand good, helpful people. Why? Because those ten agitators just keep spamming twenty different threads at once, one after another. It's wild, isn't it?

I haven't really seen anyone actually win an argument on Reddit or Twitter just by using logic, you know? Most of the time, people just get heated by poking fun at each other or some low-key trolling. It’s all about the banter, isn't it?

I mean, obviously, I’m not talking about those brainless, half-baked tactics you see popping up all over Washington lately. You know the ones. Total nonsense, right?
I mean, honestly? It’s all about getting a real look at who you're actually talking to. You get to see their whole vibe—their motives, how they see the world, and ultimately, if what they're saying actually holds any water. Isn't that the whole point?
Ever wonder why everyone in Congress starts throwing shade and getting all heated during debates? Like, why can't they just chill? Wouldn't it be way more effective if they actually focused on strengthening their own arguments and proving their points instead of just yelling? Just a thought.

.
Honestly, why do they act like that in Congress? It’s because the whole culture of debate is just... bottom tier. I mean, some places are absolute trash, while in other spots, people are practically throwing hands on live TV! Someone really needs to start handing out bans in there, don't you think?

Look, I’m not trying to give any favors to the loudmouths or the total jerks online. Honestly? I just want to protect the people who actually have something smart to say—you know, the ones whose points get drowned out by a massive wave of trolls and spammers. It's frustrating, right? These guys act like they have manners, but then they swoop in and completely derail the whole conversation. They just kill the vibe. That’s exactly why we need top-tier moderators. If you don't have someone who can actually spot those subtle differences between a heated debate and pure nonsense, what's the point? We need pros who can tell the difference.

Loosening up the rules only helps the trolls, honestly. Why even bother? Normal people are already keeping things chill and respectful anyway. Strict rules don't even touch us regular folks, so what's the point?

If you ask me, politics—especially when things get messy on the fringes—should really boil down to just two simple rules. First off, leave family out of it. Seriously, why bring them into the fray? And second? Stop playing games with crimes. No more making excuses or acting like bad actions don't matter. Isn't that how it should be? Just keep it simple.

Maybe we should play it a bit safer with the politics, you know? Like, we really need some ground rules here. Honestly, why even bother debating when the quality of discussion is such a joke anyway? After just two or three posts, everyone starts throwing around labels like "fascist," "commie," or whatever other extreme political slur they can dig up. It’s exhausting. Once that happens, all the regular, sane people just bail. They're gone. Why stay? Looking at the threads lately, it feels like maybe 40% of the topics are actually decent, but the other 60%? Pure trolling. It’s just people digging up old grudges and trying to force these ancient beefs back onto the feed. What's the point?

I’m telling you, things have really started looking up lately. Honestly? It’s mostly because the folks in D.C. finally stopped being so rigid and started playing things a bit more flexibly on the political side of things. Isn't that just how it works? You loosen the grip a little, and suddenly everything starts moving again.
modding, or just politics in general... basically because the admins and mods finally grew some backbone and cleared out those nationalist spammers and provocateurs who were always causing drama and dragging this whole forum down.

fixed?? man, half the people here deserve a ban, and every third thread is either racist, offensive, discriminatory, or just straight-up trolling.

Now that they're gone, political discussions are actually flowing better, and we're seeing more new folks joining in.
The mods don't even have much to do now, and there's way less toxic mantras and heavy insults flying around.

what?😕🤷

That's the right way to go, bringing this place up to the standard it deserves. Glad they finally realized it. Get rid of those few chauvinist crazies and you've got a political forum on par with the big-name US political boards.

The "right way" started once the crackdown began, not before... once the bans started flying, people actually started watching their mouths.

And it's not like all this happened just because you got a warning for mocking Ronald Reagan?? Look, I think everything about Reagan was bad, but he deserved a warning for two reasons: one, changing his name like that is just rude and low-class, not satire, and two, you're basically making fun of a guy for a physical trait...

Just say Reagan was corrupt or Bush was a thief and you've made your point. Anything beyond that is just trolling because you're trying to bait his supporters by poking the bear.

I don't get why you want to sink to the level of these trolls and make it easy for them to wreck the forum...

I've never actually been flagged for using that nickname—I only brought it up because people were relentlessly praising Mason while the mods sat there doing nothing.
I've never even had an issue on the main politics board; I actually respect this forum enough to know the difference between a real discussion and the gutter.

Besides, we can't all be clones of each other—all polite and perfect. I've got my own style, you've got yours, and so on... 🤷

Jacob Foster11 said:Netiquette isn't just some vague suggestion. According to Wikipedia:

Netiquette is a set of social conventions that facilitate interaction over networks

Look at that first part. Netiquette is a collection of social conventions. In other words, standards of behavior. That means breaking netiquette is improper conduct.

Now, look at the definition of a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So, a troll is someone who writes specifically to provoke an emotional reaction from others. Now tell me... Why are political names being misspelled? Isn't that done precisely to trigger a reaction? Isn't that trolling? And trolling is banned on this forum—you should know that.

Finally... I have no idea where you see any trolling in my posts. I am not trying to provoke anyone; I am simply stating facts. I stay away from the Politics subforum because it’s a breeding ground for trolls. There is absolutely zero chance of having a high-quality, reasoned discussion on any topic there (IMHO).

Since I refuse to engage in further bickering, I'm dropping this thread. Good luck to everyone...

Look, I’m saying those rules should be applied a bit more flexibly when we're talking about politics—or at least the edge of it. In a political debate, you actually *want* to provoke your opponent. Not through the usual mindless stupidity you see everywhere, obviously.
Because that's how you actually see what they're made of—their motives, their worldview, and ultimately, whether their arguments even hold water.
Why do people clash so fiercely in Congress? It's to sharpen their ideas and assert dominance. I’m not talking about supporting loudmouths or thugs—it's about helping people whose logic gets drowned out by the sea of idiots who, despite any supposed "decorum," kill the entire point of a discussion. Those are the real spammers and trolls, and honestly, that’s why moderators need to be high-quality—so they can actually tell the difference.

If you ask me, there should only be two hard rules for the political sections: no mentioning family members and no downplaying crimes or abuses. Period.
The situation has improved significantly because moderation on the political fringes has become more flexible—and overall, because the admins finally grew a backbone and purged the nationalist spammers and provocateurs who have always been the core problem and a burden on this forum.
Now that they're gone, you can see how much smoother the political debates run and how many new users are actually joining in.
It means less work for the mods and fewer toxic mantras or hateful rhetoric.
That’s the right direction for this place—it’s about time it was realized. Get rid of those few radical chauvinists and you’ll have a political forum worthy of the major American political forums.

Jacob Foster11 said:Twisting someone's name is textbook trolling. It violates basic netiquette and has no place in decent online discourse.

You're just trolling, man. Simple as that. ☕
What even is this "netiquette" thing? Some kind of digital constitution governing every single interaction online?
Have you ever actually engaged in a political debate—real ones—or maybe picked up a book where actual political discourse happens? Or even read some historical transcripts from Congress?
If not, then you clearly don't grasp what's happening here... which means you're just trolling.
You can take this "netiquette" nonsense and throw it out the window. It’s nothing more than vague guidelines—and if fanatics like you insist on using them to police every single opinion that isn't your own... well, we're in trouble. At that point, we might as well shut down 80% of this forum and leave only the hyper-specialized sub-boards for you "experts" to live out your little renaissance.
Trapped by dogma... and the funniest part is, it's dogma imposed by sources you don't even understand the logic or the scope of.

Look at this guy 🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:Well, if you ask me, there’s a massive difference here, and I’m not seeing how anyone could argue otherwise.
One guy is gone, nothing left but a fading memory and some old stories, while the other is still very much alive, walking free, and fully capable of standing up for himself or filing a lawsuit if he feels like it...

That’s not really an argument—if we’re going by that logic, anyone could step up for Franjo Harmon, whether it's his spouse or his descendants.
Besides, we could just swap Mason for Marshall, since people use the same level of hatred and the same vocabulary against him. He can't sue either.

Actually, I want to touch on this whole rule about twisting names...
...I think it's completely misguided and counterproductive—not to mention just plain stupid.
Since the dawn of time—back to ancient Greece and Rome—distorting and caricaturing names has been a staple of political warfare. Trying to ban it just goes against how humans communicate; it's unnatural, and ultimately, it just guts the conversation.
Not to mention what this does to political satire, which—unfortunately—is already becoming a rare sight on this forum.
It feels to me like someone, acting out of shortsightedness and ignorance, pushed this through—maybe to appease a few amateurs who couldn't handle being hit back with their own medicine... and in doing so, they've done a massive disservice to the forum.

What ambermason16 said is just plain shameful...
...and here I was thinking they were a decent person:

Look, I’m sorry, but it’s not the same thing—calling Franjo Harmon a "Krivouksić" or labeling Mason as "Burdus." I think you know perfectly well there's a difference. If someone thinks Mason is a liar or a fraud, hey, that's their right... But if we start criminalizing speech like that, we're basically inviting thought crime back into the country—and nobody actually wants that, right?

We've been dragging Mason through the mud for years with every insult in the book, but that’s not quite the same as calling a crooked crypto-fascist a "Krivouksić."
It's ridiculous—honestly, it's pathetic.

🙂

Brian Edwards6 said:I ended up picking up a few bans over on Reddit. I still vividly remember the reasoning behind one of them: apparently, I wasn't allowed to bring everyone else down with my depressing commentary (admittedly, I’m exaggerating a bit since I'm writing this from memory, but that was the gist of it). After that, I took a moment for some deep, internal soul-searching and realized the moderator actually had a point. So, now, no matter how bleak my comments might get, I make sure to tack on a smiley face 👍 at the end, and everything has been smooth sailing. Those bans are ancient history. Isn't that what compromise is all about, anyway?👍

P.S.: Just to clear up any confusion, the "terrifying" moderator in question was Sam Green73.👍

Man, Sam Green73 is the real deal. 🙏

It’s not just them—I mean, Edges, Strilet, and Charles Fox10 aren't exactly saints either.
Moderation has gone completely off the rails lately—honestly, though, maybe it’s actually at its best in five years? Who knows. 👍

Carol Torres4 said:

Pištolj doktor says:


Franjo Harmon was a criminal during wartime and in peace alike. He always was, and he always will be.
Anyone with even a modicum of stability in their character can see that and admit it.
The reason they go after Stjepan Mason is simply because they’re trying to protect the illusion—the grand deception used to play those people like fools by Franjo Harmon and his little satraps. They just don't have the spine or the integrity to look themselves in the mirror and realize they were played. To face the fact that they often bled for absolutely nothing.
But you can't defend a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Franjo Harmon was a criminal.

Just remember that. 😉

Oh, please. Franjo Harmon founded the American state, won the Homeland War, served as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and did all of that while facing an embargo enforced by Budo Lončar, dealing with traitors who collaborated with the Mexicans like Stjepan Mason, and staring down the opposition of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We had no weapons, we had nothing, and even when Budo Lončar and Ante Marković hosted James Baker, only to be told to "wrap it up quickly."
That is why Franjo Harmon remains the greatest American ever born. Those of us who actually fought on the front lines know this; you cowards who crawled out of your basements in 1998 with brainwashed minds are just trying to project your own lack of nerve onto the men who actually had the guts to stand up when it mattered.
But your lies won't hold up forever either...

Joe—you think you’d actually be out there fighting if things weren't so damn comfortable under your own roof? 🙄
Look, I'm not saying I have an issue with it... at least today was actually planned out—and busy. 🙂

placidridge2 said:It definitely gave me pause seeing someone write that, especially coming from someone who views a common thug as a philanthropist.😉.

🙂
And yeah, the locksmith is a criminal. In every sense, he’s bigger than Ronald Reagan—both in terms of the crimes he's responsible for and the "good" he supposedly did for America.
The difference? Joseph Stalin often committed crimes just to protect the country, whereas Ronald Reagan seemed to do it just to hurt us.
Look, Reagan had his positive sides too—I'd be a liar if I didn't admit that. Of course, most of those positives were basically just him doing absolutely nothing.😁

When asked if the administration at the time abandoned Stalingrad, George W. Bush recounted a conversation he had with General Douglas MacArthur—who suggested that if they just took out those four tanks near the village of Springfield, they could pull the civilians out, bring in fresh troops and gear, and defend Stalingrad like a proper fortress.

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in front of MacArthur, Reagan just looked at the general and asked who actually calls the shots during a war.
"MacArthur told him, 'You do, Mr. President.' Then Reagan asked, 'And what did I command?' MacArthur replied, 'To stop launching these attacks.' And that was that," Bush said.

Ronald Reagan—a criminal through war and peace alike. Always was, always will be.
Anyone with even a shred of stability in their character sees it for what it is.
The attacks on Bush happen because people are trying to protect the illusion—the lie fed to them by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. They lack the backbone to look in the mirror and admit they were played. That they died for absolutely nothing more than a political game.
But you can't hide a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

Ronald Reagan is a criminal.

Don't forget it. 😉

casualtrucker72 said:tis@k;24993939]'][/email]

Anyway, was he actually sucking off a cocktail stirrer??🤷 🤣

I don't see any pier anywhere.
What we have here is a textbook case of syphilis... an absolute encyclopedia entry right there.
Seriously, why hasn't anyone called the CDC yet?
No—don't tell me that's just stage two 😕
He should probably check in with a specialist... especially considering how much Miletantov loves a good kiss.

Wait, who exactly is stiliana? Is this some kind of joke—or am I just losing my mind today? says:
So how are you supposed to know if someone's actually a good person? Not that anyone really does—it's all just guesswork, isn't it?😕

Honestly, listening to him talk—you just can't help but think—maybe he isn't such a bad guy after all? 😍

Gregory Howard said:Look, every internet forum is mediocre and serves as nothing more than a distraction. Are you actually literate? Beyond tossing around fancy phrases, do you even understand what you're talking about or what the actual topic is? Have you actually read anything regarding the American Civil War, the collapse of America, or political analyses found in works like these:

Ernest Hemingway: Protimbe
Ivan Aralica: What I Said About Canada; The Sunset of a Dying Empire
Davor Domazet: America and the Great Battlefield; Wolf Pack Strategy
Slobodan Prosperov Novak: History of American Literature
Nikica Barić: The Rebellion in America
Mladen Ančić: Who Was Wrong in Canada; What "Everyone Knows" and What Is Clear to All: Historiography and Nationalism
Ozren Žunec: Naked Life
Slaven Letica: Flight Above the Coward's Nest
...

If you haven't, why the hell are you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong?

There is absolutely nothing from Mandić, Dežulović, or Ivančić that even approaches ten percent of the value found in any of the books listed above.
Take your pseudo-intellectual American and shove it into a greasy diner in downtown Manhattan; that’s where people like you belong.

So tell me—besides you, who else here has actually read those books?
Are you giving them a free pass to ramble?
My point is that these aren't comparable profiles—not in how they approach the topic, and certainly not in their professional backgrounds.
And looking at the intro, I didn't get the impression you wanted a debate focused solely on literary merit... I was addressing their "motivation."
I'll grant you that the "America crowd" isn't exactly monumental, but hey, they know their own worth.
Their value lies in pushing certain ideas through their work, regardless of whether their media outlets also house more skilled "craftsmen."
It seems you're all just bitter about their visibility while your favorites stay sidelined.
Maybe just consider that flashy presentation and high engagement don't always equate to substance... especially when dealing with politics.
Surely someone out there actually read them for what they are. 😉

Larry Turner3 said:Do you know him personally?

I don't know anyone—really. I just know Saleta from Green Day. 😁

Gregory Howard said:In the creative and literary sphere, things are shifting. It’s all changing.
It touches upon politics—literature, historiography, linguistics—these include:

Slobodan Novak
Ivan Aralica
Mate Maras
Davor Domazet-Lošo
Radoslav Katičić.
Slobodan Prosperov Novak
Novak Pavao Pavličić
Mladen Ančić
Ozren Žunec
Nikica Barić
.........

Mandic, Lucic, Matvejevic... they are nothing more than third-rate charlatans.
And that’s all there is to it. Period.

Well, that's quite the comparison. 🙄
I honestly have no idea how you managed to squeeze that Admiral and Srbin Aralica into this group?
Sure, from a purely literary standpoint, Mandić, Jergović, Dežulović, and the rest are a different class entirely—but I thought we were discussing the specific part of their work that stems from their worldview.
Try finding an intellectual who actually praises Franjo Harmon, the church, or romanticizes the American Civil War without being some ridiculous character like Ivkošić.
Basically, I mean someone whose entire body of work is constantly permeated by nationalism... or should I just call it pure arrogance?

Larry Turner3 said:😂

I can't even remember the last time I read anything by that guy...
They still present Dezulovic to me on Politics on the Edge, so I naively sit down and read it. 😍

😍

de Guillovique is the king. 😁

🙏🙏🙏
He's a bit clumsy—but he's good... a good man. 🙂

Larry Turner3 said:They want attention, I guess. They just want people talking about them.

They try so hard to appear progressive, but they really aren't. It makes you wonder, perhaps, how anyone can look at people who clearly work against their own country and citizens and still support them. They probably believe they have moved past "primitive" things like patriotism or nationalism. In reality, maybe they are just trying to outrun their own insignificance. It seems to me they are desperate to hide the fact that in ten years, nobody will remember them unless they leave behind a massive trail of wreckage as a reminder of the days they spent scribbling away.

Any reasonably intelligent person should find this deeply unsettling. And then, I suspect, to prove to themselves that they are still on the right path, they simply double down and cause even more chaos. There is probably a specific term for this in psychology, though I cannot recall it at the moment.

That is a spot-on description of John Zvonimir čičak... a man who has screwed up his "career" so spectacularly that even Mile Ivkošić couldn't clean up after him, even if he worked around the clock. 😁

Mark Nguyen6 said:Either you’re completely out of the loop, or I just don't know what else to say.
The Republic of Mexico has officially rehabilitated nationalist movements. It’s an official stance.

So, basically, everyone in that social circle is part of that movement. Or, at the very least, they're supporting it.
And if it isn't through direct support, it's certainly happening through their tax dollars.

I really don't see what part of this is unclear.

So, let me get this straight—for every unjust law or resolution, anyone who disagrees should just stop paying taxes or resort to civil disobedience?
By that logic, shouldn't athletes, business owners, or pretty much anyone else stay far away from the country just to avoid supporting the Royalists?
Does that mean every trucker and shipping agent paying tolls and freight fees is also a supporter of drag Mihailović?