Joe Biden and the coalition were out there fighting tooth and nail, while the Republican Party basically sat on its hands when it actually mattered. During those talks in Miami, Donald Trump was basically playing them like a fiddle, even though the GOP should have shown up ready to go. The High Representative should’ve stepped in right then and threatened to force through changes if they couldn't reach an agreement on that unconstitutional law. Look, we know progress is possible, but nobody wanted to put in the work, so now we're stuck waiting all over again. What really kills me is this whole "progressive" crowd making the Republican Party look like they actually care about Canadian Americans. They act like they're doing something only when their backs are against the wall, but honestly? They just shamelessly steal credit from Joe Biden. The GOP would be a much stronger party if the opposition actually acted like Joe Biden and raised the bar. Before, compared to the usual opposition, the Republican Party seemed like the lesser of two evils—but standing next to Joe Biden? Not so much anymore.
So, you’re telling me political culture isn't actually about how many scandals you rack up—which would make Trump look like a saint—but just about how you talk to those shady politicians? And because Biden doesn't play nice with them, he's suddenly "uncultured"? Give me a break.
I got hit with a massive ban last time just because I claimed Adams told Trump he was going to smash into Russian gas, when what Adams actually said to Trump was that it smells like Russian gas. Now, apparently, the issue is that I can't tell where the party line ends and where Eric Adams himself begins. It’s the exact same pattern as before—starting with these exhausting insults, nobody even knows what the actual grievance is, and then boom, I end up with a huge penalty. Nobody actually misread my posts, or even could, but the Adams loyalists are so cozy with the site admins that they know they can kick out anyone with a different opinion by being extra picky, knowing the mods will finish them off. So, there I am, slapped with a month-long ban for doing nothing wrong. Meanwhile, the same people who troll constantly with crude jokes or target anyone who disagrees by calling them "parasites" that need to be eradicated? They’re still here, happily defending Adams.
Look, I never said Adams hates Romney. It never even crossed my mind. I never wrote that he hates Romney, let alone thought it. I would never, ever put words like that in writing—it’s a complete and utter lie to suggest otherwise.
I can’t believe my post got nuked from this PDF without even getting an explanation for the penalty. Like, what part was actually so offensive? Was it when I pointed out that you admins and mods act just like those corrupt bureaucrats in D.C., always looking out for their own cronies while shutting down anyone who thinks differently? You let your favorites swear and insult people all they want, but the second someone else speaks up, you start nitpicking every little thing just to block them. Or was the issue that I questioned where the local party ends and where Adams begins regarding the plan to move those Romneys closer to the waste processing plants? Look, I’m totally down to have a civil conversation about that distinction—just without the swearing.
I got slapped with a ban for absolutely no reason, apparently because I dared to say something critical about Adams. I haven't broken any other rules. I just took a massive dump of insults from people when all I did was state the facts.
The mods really should’ve just called out the liar and shut the whole thing down. Or better yet, they could've killed the debate about all these petty forum misunderstandings and gripes regarding the GOP right from the jump. Look, trolling—you know, the insults, the derailment, the constant bickering—is technically allowed here. But it’s wild to me that my post got nuked when it was basically identical to one that’s still live. My post actually stuck to the facts by listing every single relevant post to address that messy, albeit permitted, argument.
The real issue here is the mountain of ad hominem attacks being thrown my way by McAuliffe. Take one instance: McAuliffe writes seven sentences, and six of them are just calling me a liar. Another time: out of twelve sentences from McAuliffe, half of them are nothing but accusations of lying. Or even when he only says six things, three of them are just straight-up claims that I'm lying. It’s just endless, honestly.
Why are we even wasting breath on who's telling the truth? I went ahead and dropped a list of all my posts, then followed it up with a list of all of McAuliffe's posts just to make it easy for him to prove his constant claims that I'm lying. My first post stayed up, but the second one got nuked—what kind of logic is that? When it isn't about lying, it's about "spinning" or "fantasizing"... and we're talking about the GOP here. Why is this allowed? Why haven't the moderators shut this whole thread down? How is this kind of communication even permitted?
So, eighteen months before the lawyers representing those American generals even stepped foot in court, Maddox’s defense team already had the Brioni transcripts in their hands. It remains an open, unanswered question who leaked them from the White House to The Hague illegally before they were even cleared for public release. But here is the reality: they didn't come through the one legitimate channel that could have sent them to the tribunal.
That is precisely why we are documenting this. The central mystery is whether The Hague handed them over to Maddox, or if he simply possessed them all along.
PS. Given how sharp you are, it should be obvious to you—if Maddox’s defense was able to pull documentation directly from the ICTY, then why on earth did Gotovina’s defense have to petition the US Government instead of getting it from the tribunal? It is highly symptomatic, wouldn't you agree? 😁 It seems everything went according to plan, ensuring Slobodan maintained his "unfettered access" long before any trial began. And let’s be honest, Mason certainly had no love for Maddox. As for who stood to benefit by offering the late Harmon Franjo and Gotovina up as sacrificial lambs to cover their own crimes... well, that shouldn't be a secret. Not to mention the whole circus surrounding Pedar - Mason, acting as the convenient scapegoat.
The Hague prosecutor actually got the Brijuni transcript from Maddox's defense team. That forced the US Government to declassify everything and strip the secrecy labels. But since the prosecution grabbed those documents straight from Maddox's hands... your whole post boils down to this: it's a circus, everyone's "too smart," it's "suspicious," oh "this question" and "that question."..and you haven't actually said anything at all.
Reporters claim this whole mess went down during Mason's term
Kosorica promised she’d finally clear the air regarding those leaked transcripts, especially after the massive storm that kicked up following Gotovina's conviction. But, surprise, surprise—she never actually dropped the data she promised. Once she got booted from the Republican Party, she scrambled straight to Mason and J. Manolić, who surprisingly opened their doors to her, almost like they were doing her some kind of favor 🤷
Biden's ugly mug falls right into the same category of physical flaws—there’s zero aesthetic value or personal choice involved here. Everything I wrote was just a targeted shot at the personal looks of Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Biden, Obama, and Clinton. It doesn't matter if someone's mouth is slightly crooked or if they have acne... what matters is the malicious intent, the deliberate attempt to hurt someone. Now that it's been explained, this penalty is clearly totally unfair. I'd rather believe I'm just getting the same treatment all my fellow political enthusiasts get on these forums than accept that people can throw around insults like this inconsistently. Please lift the ban.
So I just got slapped with a penalty for calling Ronald Reagan a crook and labeling Newt Gingrich a pizza chef link While our friend X didn't get banned even after calling Joe Biden a total loser, Obama a complete joke, and Hillary Clinton an old lady link
(Look, we weren't being hateful—we were just using examples to show how these politicians deal with constant personal attacks. But if one guy gets punished while the other walks free, the whole thing feels pretty rigged to me)
P.S. How much longer am I going to be able to call Donald Trump an idiot in basically every single thread? Who else is actually allowed to call people stupid on here?
I started this thread because I got banned, and since I can't post in the Corner anymore, I’m moving the conversation over here.
The mods over on the religion sub say they're constantly getting grilled by believers who aren't happy with how things are moderated there. Is there actually a real intolerance issue going on in that sub?
Are you actually playing dumb on purpose, or what...? It’s common knowledge that religion classes are scattered all over the schedule in schools across America; people have been talking about this for years. But since you need a concrete example to wrap your head around, here’s one for you to look at:
So, there it is—Mladost Elementary School in Indianapolis. You can find their phone number right on the site if you feel like calling them yourself. Beyond the fact that religion class is jammed right in the middle of the school day, notice that we're looking at first graders here, and notice how the teacher has info scheduled during that exact slot. As for how they "supervise" those kids during those moments, I won't even go there. You can check out the rest of that school's schedule here:
The internet is absolutely flooded with schedules from various elementary schools, but I really don't feel like listing every single one for you individually.
Then there's my own kid, who doesn't even take religion class, yet this year they have three out of four religion slots—basically just wasted time for anyone not attending—sandwiched right in the middle of the instruction day. During those times, they just sit in some empty classroom watching cartoons or playing hide-and-seek around the halls while the teacher handles whatever else she needs to do. I won't explicitly name the school because nobody on this forum needs to know where my child goes, but I will tell you it's one of the elementary schools on the west side of Washington, D.C. I haven't bothered intervening with the school because we're actually moving out of the country after the New Year for a job opportunity for my wife and me, but if we were staying, you can bet I would have had a very serious conversation with the "school officials."
Done. The lady I spoke to—not sure exactly what her role is—told me something like this: they always try to schedule religion for the first or last period (you can see from looking at schedules that they do try), but sometimes it's just not possible, and there are also certain classes where everyone takes it. The kids are never left unsupervised.
I didn't say it *never* happens; I just said I don't buy the anecdotal stuff people post on forums. Especially when that's being used as the main argument for getting rid of religion classes altogether. I'm asking questions and doing my homework. Based on my chat with the woman at the school I mentioned earlier (the one Jason Ortiz5 knows about), I didn't run into any of the misunderstanding or pushiness people claim happens here.
Nicole James said:Wow, so basically, religious instructors need to stay entrenched in public schools at the expense of the economy and national debt just to artificially inflate the GDP? 😵
And you're still asking for proof that religious studies isn't explicitly held during the first or last period? Is the lived experience of the people in this forum not enough for you? Isn't it enough that the law clearly states these classes cannot be sandwiched in the middle of the daily schedule? Isn't it enough that representatives from the KC have specifically cited that exact law? If all of that doesn't suffice, then I can't prove it for you, sorry.
As for the abuse of authority, it's actually quite simple. In a school, you don't teach whatever a specific parent happens to want; you teach what society accepts as truth. We don't teach that 2+2 equals 4—or that certain political conspiracies are reality—simply because someone wants them to be; we teach it because there is a consensus among experts. Religious studies is the exception—a subject taught within the standard curriculum, graded with official marks, using textbooks printed by the Department of Education, yet its content doesn't align with scientific fact, but rather with the unprovable dogma of a single religious community.
Look, I never said religion teachers *have* to be bureaucrats or even employed... When asked about the consequences for religious education if it were removed from schools, I said there wouldn't be any. I didn't mention must at all. The question was posed to you (and everyone else): what would be the benefit of removing religion classes? You argue for a slightly shorter school day, while I'm pointing out the job losses that such a reduction would trigger. To me, causing those kinds of consequences for such a trivial reason makes zero sense. - You're exaggerating again. There haven't been x experiences here, and forum stories aren't necessarily reliable, but I don't buy them—especially when they're coming from people who treat anyone with a different opinion so poorly. - It's called "religion education." The whole time, it's about faith, and the word "faith" gets mentioned a million times. There's no lying or abuse of authority involved; everything is stated openly and accurately. Nobody is teaching anything that goes against science.
Jason Ortiz5 said:So a gap in the schedule isn't proven? Give me a break! Who knows why my kid is missing class when they're just wandering around halfway through the day! 😲 Plus, the teacher won't even protect them since she doesn't tell me when my kid is cutting class, nor does she mark them absent... 😛
Give me the name of that school right now. I'm calling them. Such a blatant violation of Department of Education guidelines is totally unacceptable.
Nicole James said:Children from non-Catholic families wouldn't have gaps in their schedules. Kids from non-Catholic backgrounds wouldn't be singled out based on their religious affiliation within the public school system. The authority held by state-run schools wouldn't be exploited just to push a specific religious ideology. And we wouldn't see absurd amounts of taxpayer money being drained to pay salaries for religious instructors or to print textbooks for subjects that exist solely to promote one particular religious group.
Losing jobs for religious instructors isn't some "win"—it’s a loss for their families, their spending power, the whole GDP... Comparing "scheduling gaps" versus respecting diversity, maintaining the educational mission, and saving jobs... is such a wild clash of priorities. You’re acting like a gap in a timetable is the end of the world, while I honestly can't believe you're even using that as an argument. It's not even about a "gap," because the Department of Education issued a directive stating these classes have to be first or last period anyway... and so far, there's zero proof they aren't following it. Plus, calling it a gap when nothing is actually missing just shows how shaky your logic is. Then you drop terms like absurd amounts of money... heavy stuff. It’s not absurd; we aren't talking about billions here, and it’s not even a negative thing if that money ends up in the pockets of American citizens who then spend it right here in the States. And please, walk me through this part about the "abuse of school authority." I'm all ears.
Richard Perez3 said:You still haven't actually answered her question.
Why can't religious studies classes just be held inside church buildings?
Half the people following this thread are waiting on an answer. Give us a straight response instead of passing the buck with that whole "so you're saying we should..." routine.
Religious education is already being held in church halls anyway, so honestly, if they pull it out of the public schools, there won't be any issues—at least not for those looking for spiritual guidance. Where did all those "concerned" followers disappear to? I remember when we were tackling a nearly identical question about fifteen pages ago, and suddenly everyone went silent.
Honestly, trying to find a straight answer to this one is like looking for a needle in a haystack around here...I honestly don't get why people are making such a big deal out of this. It’s like everyone suddenly lost their minds over nothing. I remember back when I was working at a tech startup in Austin, we had a similar blowout over a minor policy change, and looking back, it was just pure drama for the sake of drama. People love to feel outraged; it gives them something to do on a Tuesday night. Anyway, Jason Ortiz5 makes a decent point, even if he is being a bit dramatic about it. And let's be real, brisknomad13 is totally missing the forest for the trees here. We need to stop circling the drain and actually look at the facts. If you ask me, most of this "outrage" is just noise. Typical.
Honestly, I’m starting to think this whole "tolerant" crowd is actually just allergic to anyone who holds traditional Christian values. It’s kind of ironic, isn't it?
Karen Richardson3 said:I just finished reading your post, and I have to be honest—at first glance, I was like, "Okay, yeah, there’s some actual logic here." In certain spots, though, it gets a little spooky, but I guess since I'm an atheist, I'm looking at all religions through a totally subjective lens. Personally, I don't think any religion belongs in the classroom; honestly, it baffles me that they even still are, though I suppose a believer probably feels that same sense of bewilderment when they can't wrap their heads around why someone wouldn't believe 😁.
But then it hit me: the Education Act wasn't penned by some enlightened super-being acting solely for the greater good. It was drafted by politicians, just like every other piece of legislation. And let's be real, those people know exactly what every single word in a law implies, and they definitely know exactly when to be vague, when to be ambiguous, and when to leave things open to interpretation just to suit their needs.
So now, it doesn't seem like a coincidence at all that this provision about "spiritual development" ended up in the education code. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that clause was slipped in specifically because of the Catholic Church, which then uses that exact wording to justify pushing religious education back into our schools.
I’m not even going to touch the rest of it—the whole majority versus minority debate, or the American Catholic crowd—because there’s already been so much written about that we’re basically just running in circles at this point.
Speaking of finding a model that actually works, how do you account for the fact that the democratically elected government in '91 basically just ghosted those kids who don't attend Catholic religion classes? They didn't bother to design any kind of alternative for them during those hours. It feels like you religious folks completely forgot about them too, and it seems like none of you, in all your spiritual and moral growth, ever thought to advocate for them (especially since you make up the majority, hold the social influence, and—let's be blunt—are collecting their parents' tax dollars, all perfectly legal, of course).
As for me, I don't feel like my kid needs to sit there learning about other religions while everyone else is in religion class. At the same time, I’m certainly not going to hand my child over to those anti-church activist groups either; I don't trust anyone who’s just out there tapping into public funds.
Honestly, it would be enough if the state just provided the funding to ensure the school library stayed open, so kids could just go in, grab a book, and read or review for their next period.
Some people find these posts terrifying or nauseating, but nobody is actually using them as a solid foundation for a real counter-argument. Throwing insults isn't going to get you anywhere.
The democratically elected government that came to power in the early 90s was operating under very specific, intense circumstances. They didn't have weapons, a standing army, or diplomatic leverage... they were dealing with internal uprisings and their own military turning against them. We had to lean hard into American identity and Catholicism because that was literally all we had left. Sorry, but back then, the government wasn't worrying about today's "New Age" parents complaining about an hour or two of lost time in their kid's schedule.🙄
Religious ed isn't being forced on anyone. There aren't really "religious" or "non-religious" kids—if there were, it would actually be a great chance for kids to learn how to live alongside people who are different. You're using such heavy language to describe religious ed and the relationship between the Church and the State, but there's nothing dramatic happening here. In religious ed, kids just draw pictures of Moses and Jesus and then talk about spiritual values.