Posts by Larry Fox5

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

The real question is what percentage of the population actually has access to information. A hundred years ago, you’d have some priest in a tiny rural town who was basically the only person capable of reading... and you're sitting here obsessing over specific years just to try and force an argument—even though you know damn well that easy access to info is exactly what triggered this whole different level of progress...

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Yeah, kids at +6 and those older folks hitting +50. It’d be pretty interesting to see what the percentage looks like for the +15 to +40 crowd... Honestly, the whole "wealthy part of the world" thing only matters if you look at it globally—but even then, it's kind of a moot point because there are still so many hungry people on this planet today, so how can you even expect them to have internet access?

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Nah, we can't do that—but honestly, it doesn't even mean human consciousness evolves in a straight line just because geniuses pop up every now and then...

Keith Miller30 said:

Larry Fox5 Asks:
Of course, it’s nothing more than an illusion. Perhaps fifty years ago, people held onto rigid ideologies and lived within clearly defined ideological trenches, but those deep divides have largely evaporated, leaving behind little more than a sense of cultural folklore. Isn't it true that individuals themselves have become far too complex and layered to be easily shoved into a single, convenient box? At the same time, political parties are constantly evolving to suit the era they inhabit—an era where most significant questions and answers no longer fall into simple black-and-white categories.

Here is just a small glimpse into how much things have changed. Consider the Mayor of Hamburg, who served three separate terms representing the Republican Party despite being gay. It is almost impossible to imagine such a thing happening fifty years ago, yet today, it is simply our reality.

Politics should adapt to the era and the world we actually inhabit, rather than clinging desperately to the ghosts of the past. At the end of the day, what truly matters to people are their existential concerns, their general quality of life, and the vision they hope to leave behind for their children—isn't that where the real political battles are fought?

I can't really offer much of a rebuttal here because what you're describing is purely your own subjective experience. I have no idea how much time you actually spend living here in the States, nor am I certain if you truly grasp the underlying social dynamics of how people function within this culture. Take that marriage referendum we had, for instance; the fallout from that played out in a very specific way for many people—even if they won't admit it openly today. It essentially boiled down to a binary divide where those who voted "yes" were branded as mindless zealots, while anyone who voted "no" was dismissed as some sort of weak-willed, easily manipulated fool who simply let others dictate their views. You see these kinds of polarizing, black-and-white divisions whenever any controversial issue arises in this society, don't you?

Larry Fox5 Asks:
It honestly strikes me as quite peculiar that you find yourself falling for such shallow, populist rhetoric, especially since everything you’ve written on this forum thus far suggests you actually possess the rare gift of thinking for yourself.

No, nobody is actually falling for those populist gimmicks. People tend to form their own opinions based on their own principles and values. There are certain issues where I find myself agreeing with Zoran Milanović, while on others, I lean toward Tomislav Karamarko; there are moments when I align with the views expressed by Keith Miller30, and other times when I simply don't. You’re essentially doing the same thing as @ZZ—suggesting that if someone happens to agree with Karamarko on, say, two out of ten points, they must be peddling populist rhetoric, which is just fundamentally incorrect, isn't it?

I suspect you might not spend enough time here in the States to realize just how deeply divided this country is ideologically. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with someone holding a firm ideology; in fact, one could argue it’s a positive thing in the end. Of course, we have to draw the line at the extremes—like the kind of rhetoric mellowscout24 uses when suggesting we should essentially wipe out entire groups of people. That kind of talk borders on pure hatred and extremism, which is obviously unacceptable. However, if you view an ideology simply as a collection of philosophical, moral, religious, or economic ideas, why should that be viewed through a negative lens?

These aren't actual ideological splits between two opposing political camps—they're just manufactured patterns of behavior designed to manipulate voters.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, what you're saying is people were shallow for 10,000 years and parties were rigid, but suddenly in the last 50 years, everyone became "nuanced" and perfectly in sync with the times?

For the first 8,000 years, it was all about basic survival—social awareness evolved at a snail's pace—and for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a tiny elite, and not even because they were smart, just because they had the cash.
Now, in this digital age, people actually have diverse interests because information is everywhere, which obviously speeds up how fast our collective consciousness evolves.

Just look at American football... or soccer, whatever. Fifty years ago, you were lucky if you could catch a game on some grainy radio broadcast where the whole vibe depended on some guy like Blazick. Today? You’re watching with 50 different camera angles, picking your own audio, and rewatching clips whenever you want... it's a totally different world.

brightpilot6 said:Is "us versus them" really a blunder? Is your version of party-line "us versus them" somehow different from Karamarko's Red Devils?

Is claiming at Jasenovac that the Nationalists weren't part of the national military considered a "blunder"?

Are those your idea of "slips"?

You claimed the Democratic Party polarizes the nation. Well, I’ve given you more than just a few idiotic, ideological nonsense snippets coming from the Right—and that's just a fraction of it. Yet you still cling to Zoran Milanović's "us versus them" rhetoric. It is a notorious fact that in America, it's either the Democrats or the Republicans. One side is the GOP, and the other is a collection of Red Devils and Nationalists.

I am challenging you again—please, list for me where exactly the Democrats have "constantly" and "non-stop" stoked the flames of the Nationalists snake, in the same way Karamarko and his crowd did with their incessant nonsense about bringing back Communism or having an "un-American" government. Even if there is some symbolic resurgence of Nationalists sentiment here and there in America, at least Communism isn't likely to make a comeback in 2015.

Please, send me the links. For every single "Leftist" instance you cite (Democrats, media, whatever) aimed at the Nationalists, I will provide five from the "Right" that obsess over communists or "un-American" administrations.

And don't even get me started on how crude those messages are.

The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence. The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence.

It almost kills me more than the weak turnout at the elections to see how many people are falling for these Karamarko mantras today.

And mind you, that is essentially the entire opposition platform right now—a convicted criminal organization. But for the "true Americans," apparently, it's more than enough.

I wouldn't call it just a "slip-up"—it's straight-up twisting the facts...

If they weren't the American army, whose were they? Bulgarian or Canadian?

It’s like if Angela Merkel walked into Dachau, bowed to the victims, and claimed the SS were never actually the German military. 🤣

And honestly, it’s just one more sign of how incapable we are as a nation to face our own history—no matter how ugly it gets...

Keith Miller30 said:Of course ideology isn't an illusion; I'm not quite sure where you're getting that idea from. You cannot simply dictate to another person what should matter to them and what shouldn't, can you? Everyone in this forum is championing some form of ideology, including yourself, if we are being honest.

As for the second point you made, I won't even bother quoting it, as I don't believe it even deserves a response.

Let’s be clear: I wouldn't have any issue setting aside my ideological leanings and casting a vote for the Democrats if I didn't feel they were undermining the country. Or perhaps I'd find myself supporting a sensible leader like Cory Booker.

Of course it's an illusion. Maybe you had rigid ideologies and actual ideological divides fifty years ago, but today? That stuff is basically just folklore. People have become way too "complex" to be shoved into a single little box—plus, political parties actually adapt to the era they live in, where things aren't just black and white anymore.

Just look at a recent example—that Mayor in Hamburg who served three terms while being a member of the Republican Party, despite being gay. Fifty years ago, that would’ve been unthinkable, but that's just reality now.

Politics evolves with the world it lives in; it doesn't survive on the past. People care about their own survival, their quality of life, and what kind of future they're leaving for their kids—so that's where the political battles are actually fought.

Honestly, it's weird seeing you fall for such shallow, populist nonsense... especially since based on your other posts, I thought you actually had the capacity to think for yourself.

mellowotter36 said:Don't try to twist my words or change the context now. They didn't want her back when America was already a powerhouse.

Fine then, let's play by his rules. Or yours. Whatever.

Go ahead—teach me something. Explain these massive gaps in history that somehow "prove" your point. I'm just dying to sacrifice my precious time if it means getting some groundbreaking epiphany I've somehow missed until now...

Since a few of you have been pushing this exact same theory on this forum, I highly doubt you all reached this "verdict" just by flipping coins.

Keith Miller30 said:I don't think this is really about party membership—though I suspect only one person here actually holds a card ☕. It seems more like a simple case of intense dislike for the opposition, or perhaps I would even go so far as to call it pure hatred. Is it possible to dislike the Democrats or Republicans so much that you'd vote for any opponent just to see them lose? I truly believe it isn't just about rehashing old grievances, because you can always point to corruption within the GOP or claim the Democrats have abandoned the country's core values. Much of this stems from deep-seated ideology, whether people care to admit it or not, and invoking the past serves as a convenient excuse since neither party remains exactly what they once were.

If you ask me, it's all just an illusion, whether folks admit it or not.

Around here, "ideology" is just another word for a fantasy. It honestly makes my blood boil when people start whining about these imaginary divides.

And check out this logic of yours: 🤦

Keith Miller30 said:I don't think this is really about party membership—though I suspect only one person here actually holds a card ☕. It seems more like a simple case of intense dislike for the opposition, or perhaps I would even go so far as to call it pure hatred. Is it possible to dislike the Democrats or Republicans so much that you'd vote for any opponent just to see them lose? I truly believe it isn't just about rehashing old grievances, because you can always point to corruption within the GOP or claim the Democrats have abandoned the country's core values. Much of this stems from deep-seated ideology, whether people care to admit it or not, and invoking the past serves as a convenient excuse since neither party remains exactly what they once were.

Buddy, no average, sane American actually wanted this country...

brightpilot6 said:I would love for one of those folks constantly chanting the Republican mantra about how this current administration is the most incompetent group to ever hold office—looking at you, Robin Fox2 and Keith Miller30—to actually explain what makes the previous administration so much more "capable" than the present one. If there are any actual facts to support that claim, I'd be interested to hear them. Beyond that, is this mythical gap in competence truly wide enough to justify handing the keys back to an entire criminal enterprise, especially when led by a far more dangerous mastermind?

If they actually understood that they were riding on nothing more than a hollow sense of optimism—a delusion fueled by billions in cheap credit, fairy-tale IPOs, and a housing bubble as fragile as soap suds—would they ever have fallen for it? Could anyone truly believe that simply joining the global stage would magically dissolve every systemic issue we face, as if entering a major trade bloc acts as some kind of universal solvent for our problems? Perhaps not.

Where exactly are those decisive strokes of statecraft we were promised—those moves that might actually matter, even if we set aside the organized looting and the deliberate cultivation of chaos required to keep this whole system running? Where are the bold, capable economic maneuvers that could actually steer this country toward something resembling prosperity?

Who, in the final analysis, is actually cleaning up the mess that the President leaves behind—even if he’s being a bit slow about it?

And let’s be honest, there are varying degrees of evil in this world. To think otherwise is simply a profound mistake.

You’re probably right—but if you vote for the lesser evil, that’s just straight-up pragmatism. Morally speaking, you'd be better off not voting at all since you're basically giving your own legitimacy to this administration even if you see them as just the lesser of two evils.

Let's not be naive here—you're never going to find a perfect option in politics, so the real question is how many of these choices are even remotely tolerable.

Since I live in Germany, if I actually had the right to vote, I’d go with the CDU—fully aware it isn't perfect, but it's far from it... calling it the lesser evil.

There’s another way out—just don't show up to vote. By signing that ballot, you’re basically handing over your blessing to the lesser of two evils, even if you know damn well it's a trap.

That way, you can at least walk around with a clear conscience... tell yourself this isn't your government or your leadership, just whatever the majority in this country decided to pull. At least then you can look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

Jeffrey Edwards76 actually nailed it in a thread a few pages back—about a quarter of the people in this country benefit directly or indirectly from this whole rigged setup, living off someone else's sweat or credit. You can't expect anything to change when the system is built to keep them winning.

To grab the majority needed to run the show, they have to resort to lies and dirty manipulation. Just facts...

It’s honestly pathetic how even on a tiny, anonymous, non-political PDF like this, you still get these clowns trying to campaign and cheerlead for their little political parties.

Loys and Ken are clearly pushing the Republicans, while Süd and Matthew Young35 are all about the Democrats. It’s so obvious they're just stabbing at the screen with their bias...

Most of them just troll about football, but when it comes to politics—man, they really start cranking out those long-winded manifestos. 😁

Morgan Williams said:I disagree. Name one part of Mile's set where he sounds anything like MPT. He doesn't push that kind of stuff. People just hate him because they don't vibe with his style or because they clash with him on politics and religion.

Check out these three songs where he touches on political themes—tell me I'm wrong:

(I'm posting this specifically for the lyrics: "I picked up the phone

to order some pizza for home

answered the call and got confused

what if he's an idiot?

A parasite with no ideas?

An artist? A member of the Republican Party?"

Comparing this to calling for massacres or glorifying totalitarian regimes is a massive stretch.

EDIT: I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs here. I'm pointing out the difference in how Kekin and MPT deliver their views. It's not about what someone thinks in an interview; it's about openly glorifying things at a concert. Just curious how a German singer would fare if he claimed to be a patriot but started his show shouting "Sieg Heil!", praising Hitler, and celebrating the Holocaust and Auschwitz. (And yeah, he doesn't pay his taxes either.) There's a huge distinction between a person stating an opinion and someone performing songs at a concert that celebrate things the rest of the world finds revolting and condemns as some of the darkest chapters in modern history.

My metaphor wasn't even specifically targeting Kekin or MPT—it was about general perception regarding free speech... basically how we find things more palatable when they're wrapped in fancy packaging versus when they're plain and obvious to everyone.
If you ask me, those bans actually make things worse—they give these people a sense of importance they don't deserve by framing them as martyrs for absolute freedom, which just makes them boring...

It’s the same deal with the swastika—it only becomes "interesting" because it’s banned. Honestly, seventy years after the Holocaust and with two whole new generations grown up, America—and Europe too—should be confident enough to get over its own complexes...

Morgan Williams said:I'm back. Finally. 🙂

I am. ☕

EDIT:

Look, I draw a line between personal beliefs and what happened here. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but it’s another entirely to celebrate a genocidal regime at a concert, toast to the slaughter of innocent people, or start a song with a salute from a totalitarian era. That specific slogan wasn't even the official greeting of the modern United States. European nations have already made their stance on this crystal clear.

Take someone like a political commentator criticizing certain views—there's a massive difference between holding a debate and the blatant extremism I just described.

Actually, no, it isn't. Garbage is still garbage even if you wrap it in fancy cellophane—it's just a question of how bad it stinks... and let me tell you, that stench won't kill you, no matter how much it makes you gag...

Walter Grant5 said:It’s not about personal beliefs. It’s about pushing that whole warrior mentality twenty years too late. Digging up history when you shouldn't, dragging everyone's headspace back into all that negative crap, keeping the war complex alive. Shouldn't winning a war actually feel like a win? Like some kind of closure? Instead, it's just sitting there like bad takeout in your stomach. How does that help anyone? It's a total paradox.

Probably isn't positive—but you can't just decree how people think, that's not how it works and it just causes backlash. Personally, I can't even read the political threads on this forum because all this digging up old Civil War grudges makes me want to gag, but I get that collective mindset shifts slowly... it takes time.

brightpilot6 said:True, but Agassi doesn't go around chest-thumping about patriotism, nor does he build a career on it. He builds it on tennis. If he suddenly started lecturing us about his undying devotion to the flag, then we might have a point.

Peter Thompson4, however, seems to play the patriotism card quite frequently in his line of work.

Look, one's an athlete and the other's a singer. Even Ivanisevic said he was playing to promote America on the world stage. In that one article by Desulovic, you even see how in his early years he played for his sick sister, then for America, and finally for nobody because he didn't love himself enough. For Thompson, lyrics are his bread and butter, not a racket—so comparing his preaching to Ivanisevic's game is just apples and oranges...

I can't even say Thompson goes overboard in the media pushing his own ideals.

Ashley Martinez6 said:Now, just so we're clear, I'm not talking about Thompson here (though I do agree with your point), but this observation of yours could apply to almost any American, including those "great" writers you hold in such high esteem... people like DeJulovic, Tomic, or Pavicic.
Do I even need to bring up someone like Matija Babic, who made such a career out of exposing massive scandals, only to turn around shortly after and publicly call on people to dodge their taxes... while being a tax evader himself, naturally... 🙏🙏 🙏
And what about those illustrious authors at EPH? They're pulling in $50,000 net a month, and everything would be fine if they weren't working for a private corporation that the government has drained of countless billions in subsidies... a type of firm that arguably benefits from being private rather than state-owned.

It’s always easiest to sit there and moralize, to point fingers at veterans, the church, the poor, the rural folk, the religious zealots, or the stubborn types... especially when you're pulling in a monthly salary that an average American earns in an entire year.
Most of these worms' articles are just overflowing with bitterness, contempt, and pure vitriol, and honestly, spitting on others is the easiest thing in the world to do.

To be fair, DeJulovic writes quite well when he sticks to sports or topics that don't involve Americans, history, or political extremists...

Speaking of those worms, since they act so incredibly arrogant behind a keyboard, why on earth do they hire the best lawyers in the country whenever they get hit with a private lawsuit over their supposedly "brilliant" columns? 🙏

Here is the article that forced Free Press to pay out damages: http://pescanik.net/za-njih-bi-lo-...og-ne-postoji/
Just a little thought experiment: what do you think would happen if you talked absolute trash about your boss at work? $0.00 I'd be fired on the spot.
In all honesty, this piece represents the absolute rock bottom of journalism, and it certainly doesn't belong in a daily newspaper, particularly not given a salary of $50,000 $0.00 a month.

They should stick to writing on their own blogs; this kind of garbage isn't fit for a major publication. Anyway, take care... ☕

So why exactly is this article considered "bottom-of-the-barrel" journalism?

Look, I’m not saying I agree with what was written, but I'm genuinely curious—why are you calling it "bottom-of-the-barrel" journalism?

brightpilot6 said:How can one claim to champion patriotism and a devotion to their fellow citizens, yet when the moment arrives to pay taxes—the very funds required to ensure this nation functions properly and provides a safety net for those less fortunate than ourselves—suddenly find oneself inventing imaginary friends from halfway across the world to justify avoiding the bill?

They might as well start digging up Ivanisevic’s past too—he spent years claiming he lived in Monaco just to dodge his US taxes... Honestly, the guy was barely in that state for more than a week a year—it was all just a cheap stunt to keep more of his paycheck...

Nobody’s ever going to give Peter Thompson4 any credit for being straight with us—even though we all know he wasn't exactly a stickler for the rules—but sure, let's just move the goalposts whenever it suits us... 🤷

Walter Grant5 said:The way he pushes emotions around... you think it’s just cheap, low-brow stuff meant to trigger some basic gut reaction in the average American?

Whatever they are, they're theirs. A person shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions and judge others just because their views clash with what you personally believe...

brightpilot6 said:Drawing from my experience both in real life and within these online circles, I’d suggest that the right wing struggles far more than its counterparts when it comes to separating their personal disdain for someone's worldview from the actual quality of that person's work.

Take Knut Hamsun, for instance; he was such an unabashed Hitler groupie that, on a purely personal level, I find myself classifying him as either a complete fool or a genuinely malicious individual. Yet, his novel *Growth of the Soil* remains one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever encountered, and that assessment won't change just because of his political affiliations. Similarly, Thompson is a textbook nationalist demagogue who expresses his devotion to the country through almost everything except the one thing that actually matters—paying his taxes—but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that he has written some truly exceptional songs.

You could make the same argument with Martin Heidegger. I guess humanity is supposed to just toss out one of its greatest philosophers ever just because he joined the Nazi Party... ridiculous.

I wouldn't call Thompson a demagogue though—pretty sure he actually believes the stuff he sings. The guy's charismatic and a killer performer; he really hits his audience hard because the emotion is just there. Purely musically? He's terrible. He misses notes constantly and sounds like he's singing through a beer barrel...

Matthew Anderson4 said:Did you catch that one about Ivanišević? Total must-read. I don't know any American columnist who’d even attempt a conceptual approach like that, let alone pull it off almost perfectly.

Just finished reading it for the first time. 🙏 🙏 🙏

After all these years since everything went down, that article just hit me right in the gut. This stuff is top-tier, goddammit. 🙏🙏🙏

Matthew Anderson4 said:Dežulović is easily the best columnist in the US. He’s maybe the only one who actually knows how to write; stylistically, he absolutely eats the rest of them alive (subjective, I know). Everyone else is just the same old crap—identical vocab, same rhythm, probably all taught by the same elementary school teacher. Look, a journalist isn't a novelist, but a good writer is a good writer, and if you're going to bother reading an article anyway... I honestly don't think anyone would genuinely prefer reading something by Tomić or Bešker over Dežulović. If they did, they clearly don't want to read, or they just don't know any better, and both options would be a total drag.

Just finished reading a few of his pieces on http://pescanik.net/author/boris-dezulovic/ ...... seriously incredible style, regardless of your political leanings—unless you're some kind of fanatic. The humor, the structure, the sheer passion for writing....

Keith Miller30 said:Avoiding Dežulović is a brilliant tactical move. 👍 Much like the various antics involving Butkovica, Tomica, and their ilk. 👍

I also notice that Karamarko is throwing around threats of liquidation—likely aimed at forum members, which explains why they know firsthand—so this is just his standard operating procedure. 🤣

It’s just Raspudić. 👍 And Index, though that seems to be more of a habit for them.

You're a weird one. 🤔

I can't even remember the last time I picked up an American newspaper—but if anything stuck in my head, it was those killer pieces by Dežulović and Raspudić.