Posts by Bradley Scott2

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

I can see you have a grudge against the Church, so you keep bringing up topics where that institution and its followers should be demonized and torn apart.
First, on that other thread, you tried to paint believers as some kind of mentally impaired deviants, which didn't really work out for you.

Now you're moving on to the old reliable method of misinformation—shouting "they're robbing us."
And in a way, it is true. Citizens have zero control over the funds the government collects through taxes and other mandatory fees, while politicians scatter them on whatever they feel like.

Let's flip the script then—let's cut taxes in half and use those funds exclusively for essential societal functions and public services, and let citizens fund everything else directly.

How much goes from the federal budget to the Church, versus how much goes to, say, NBC via special mandatory levies?
How much comes out of the treasury for various channels supporting professional football?
And don't even get me started on all those associations that work against this society and our country. If groups like that receive foreign donations, they absolutely should have to report who is funding them and for what purpose.

When you finally add it all up, the Church could easily get that $300 million from the people, but NBC wouldn't get a billion, nor would the sports clubs.
And various documents and certain activist organizations wouldn't get anything at all—they'd cease to exist. Their only reason for being is to undermine society and grab budget funds for their own business activism.

Not to mention that just paying the rent for seized properties (not to talk about returning them) that the state would have to pay the Church in that scenario would easily be a bigger line item than that $300 million.

silentridge3 said:I'll try to find the energy and some time to carefully open this thread under that title, probably sometime next week.

You might want to close that other thread if having two overlapping topics is getting in the way. Personally, I’d love to keep this "Everything and Anything" thread open for all the random stuff, while keeping the discussion on "Men's discrimination by the US government and system" focused strictly on what the title says. We can leave the sociological and historical debates for this one.

silentridge3, you don't need to shut down that other thread.

Honestly, this thread should be pinned at the top of the politics section. It’s way more relevant than that other discussion about family law changes that nobody is even talking about anymore—especially since most of what we were debating there was really about the discrimination men and fathers face.
If that thread doesn't pick up enough steam, we can just move it over.
We’d actually have a meaningful discussion going on if we had a dedicated politics thread here. That way, all the trolls and constant bickering could just stay over in the "random stuff" thread on the other board.

I'm just trying to offer a constructive suggestion.
Honestly, I’m getting a little tired of the constant pushback just for pointing out such a serious social issue. At this rate, the disgruntled crowd is probably going to end up starting their own manosphere-style forum sooner or later.

Charles Fox10, what do you think about this proposal?

rule :

Charles Fox10 said:Should we figure out how to handle this topic better just to keep the discussion quality up, or... what?

Bradley Scott2, it’s not really cool of you to tell me how to....

Sorry, but I honestly don't know how to write anything anymore without getting banned, even though I'm genuinely trying to have a constructive conversation.
So, I think I'll just stay quiet for now.
☕

Charles Fox10 said:How should we call this? A massive misunderstanding, a delayed reaction, or something else entirely??

Personally, I don't think there's any misunderstanding here.
The owner sets the general rules for what's allowed on the site, and that’s their right.
The users (and even the mods, ultimately) can either agree with those rules or face the consequences.

So let's not call it a misunderstanding. We all know it isn't.

Before I go further, no one has ever—and I hope they won't—banned opening a thread dedicated to discussing the issues men face in society, ranging from political to social relations. I'm hoping this has been settled now.

Charles Fox10, you know as well as I do that isn't true. If you weren't a mod, you'd probably admit it yourself, just like I would have to defend the site if I were in your shoes.
But if I were trying to defend the site, I'd probably say something like, 'The truth is that there have been some moves recently that many users felt were unfair, and yes, threads have been moved, closed, or merged even when they didn't really warrant it, and moderation has been inconsistent at times...'
That's how a good PR expert would handle it, attempting to convince the users they're being sincere.
In reality, that's an extremely mild way to describe how these human rights threads have been handled on this site. And I'm not saying this site treats them poorly—it's just that elsewhere, it's often much worse.

silentridge3, you're right, but that agreement was made over a month ago, and we discussed it directly on the thread, which is pretty unusual.

And what happened? Absolutely nothing. You and everyone else just kept posting in both threads—the one about family law policy and the one regarding "discrimination." It seemed logical to me that since there was zero reaction, the current setup was working fine.

Charles Fox10, the politics section can handle three or four threads from this category.
For example, I started a thread once about the systematic manipulation involved in domestic violence research. That topic stays relevant and should actually be a top thread in politics, because every week we hear a new lie about it, and those lies are exactly what fuel the systematic discrimination against men.
But you quickly moved it, along with silentridge3's threads and others, into that vague "gender discrimination" bucket.

The thread Proposal for the new Family Law - comments and feedback! is staying put and won't be touched. Even though it doesn't get huge traffic, family law affects all of us, so that thread remains as it is.

This thread on Reddit is basically just a smokescreen—it’s a way to push the actual issues we want to discuss off the main political stage!
I already explained why a few months back.
Any changes to family law are completely meaningless if the underlying rules stay the same, where any father can be branded a criminal and thrown in jail based on a single phone call from a mother.
If I'm wrong, the Ombudsman's recent speech at the police academy proves my point; she was essentially calling for even more drastic measures specifically targeting men under the guise of a "gender-sensitive approach."
But we aren't allowed to make a big deal out of this unconstitutional behavior on the front page.

rule : Quote

So, what's the proposal here to finally get this done?

I don't know, Chuck.
Honestly.
I think you're still undecided on that yourself.

We'll just keep posting here as much as the site allows us, until some serious manosphere-focused organization or forum gets established here in the States. We can track the growth of those forums, organizations, and even political parties globally on a weekly basis. These topics will keep coming back, especially given the extreme rise in systemic discrimination against men.
And this platform will forever be branded as a media outlet that boycotted the fight for men's human rights—because the archives never lie.
The subculture of new generations of men raised on manosphere principles is going to become a massive new consumer demographic—a dominant group for advertising and everything else. It's already happening in places like Japan.
Whoever owns this media outlet really ought to consider these facts.

Angela Wright said:Bradley Scott2
I was wondering if your dad has been on unknown or unknown so far?
Actually, you're right—you're talking about treatments for metastatic kidney cancer, and I haven't mentioned any of those here yet.

Thanks for getting back to me.
Maybe I wasn't being clear enough.
My dad had cancer on his kidney five years ago. They had to remove the kidney, and everything seemed fine until about nine months back. Since then, he’s been dealing with this leg pain, though for a few months, he was convinced it was just sciatica (he actually had issues with his hip and pelvis). He’s always been pretty energetic for his age, but man, is he stubborn. You try to ask if he's seen a doctor or gotten any scans done, and he just brushes you off with, "I already took care of it, quit hovering."
To make a long story short, we ended up paying for his MRI out of pocket since the referral wouldn't get him an appointment for another year. They’ve done radiation on his hip now, but the cancer has spread to his liver and lungs—and who knows where else.

So, regarding those medications you mentioned...
Besides, those medications aren't even covered under the specialty drug lists yet, and the prices are absolutely insane. Even if we actually had the money, my dad probably wouldn't agree to it anyway.
And even if Medicare actually approved those medications, would you still spend the money? $100000 What’s the annual cost for an 80-year-old to get treatment?

From what I can see, these drugs mostly just block angiogenesis to stop the growth. It looks like they’ll need to be taken long-term.

Messing around with a combination therapy when you have zero clue about the right dosages, no control over the process, and no idea what the contraindications might be is like playing Russian roulette with half a bullet already in the chamber. Trust me, losing a battle is one thing, but losing it while suffering through an agonizing decline in your quality of life—knowing you're the one who caused it—is much worse.

DCA isn't exactly some obscure, unheard-of supplement.
It’s been used for quite a while now to treat a rare metabolic disorder in children. I know there are some people out there with firsthand experience regarding dosing and side effects, if anyone is willing to share.
For example, here:
Check out this page on DCA dosages: http://www.thedcasite.com/unknown_dosage.html

The most important thing to understand is that this combination works by triggering cancer cells to self-destruct rather than just trying to slow their growth. Cancer survives by essentially killing off its own mitochondria to prevent cell death. This drug activates those mitochondria, which then allows the abnormal cell to die off naturally—just like the normal process of old cells dying in our bodies. At a cellular level, the treatment is actually quite gentle.

Most clinical trials are pretty much run and funded by big pharma companies.
Even if the connection seems simple given how common this disease is, I truly believe that if they saw the results in lab studies and animal models, big pharma would jump at the chance to fund the trials and start production.

The main issue really boils down to Boldano.
Do you really think Big Pharma is out here playing the hero?
Just give it some thought.

I was wondering about the price for unknown—does anyone know roughly what it goes for? $9.75 Monthly.
How much does the monthly cost for unknown run? $12
But that's just how it goes.
The monthly cost for DCA therapy is around $200.$100

Just imagine that multiplied by tens of millions of patients over a year-long treatment course.
You get it. Corporations are staring down trillions in losses..
Wars start over even less than that.

I don't want to come across like some total conspiracy theorist.
I just find it incredible how they drag their feet on clinical trials for such an accessible and promising drug. Honestly, I can see exactly why those big corporations would want to stall things like that.
Instead of profiting from these incredibly expensive medications, there’s a chance they might actually make things worse for patients.

Here it is. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Could you clarify? It's you. Are there any open clinical trials involving unknown?I don't see anything mentioned here about kidney issues. So, it’s actually not true that the pharma companies refuse to work with simple compounds.

I've actually come across quite a few different studies, like these:
Check out this site: http://www.thedcasite.com/

I think you might have latched onto my headline because you missed my point in the last post—there’s no such thing as a "silver bullet" treatment that works for every single type of cancer. Something that works wonders for colon cancer isn't necessarily going to be effective for breast cancer. It’s all much more complicated than most people realize.

I get that there are still a lot of question marks surrounding all of this.
It might all end up being nothing, really. It could work for certain types of cancer, but then again, every patient reacts differently—some people just end up with an antibiotic allergy instead.

Has anyone here had any experience with unknown?

Has anyone heard anything about the experimental drug Dichloroacetate?
Here are a few links:
I came across this article discussing how DCA might be used in cancer treatment. It’s pretty interesting stuff, especially considering the debate it sparked back in early 2007 when it first hit the scene. It seems like a lot of people were worried because the drug was already off-patent, so there wasn't much financial incentive for big companies to fund more studies. Still, the idea that it could target how cancer cells use energy is worth looking into.
I found this interesting read about how certain natural compounds might play a role in fighting cancer. It’s pretty fascinating stuff if you have a moment to dive into it.
I was just looking through this information from the American Cancer Society regarding different treatment approaches. It’s quite a lot to take in, but it really helps clarify how things are being handled lately.
Does anyone here have any experience with this in America?

My dad had kidney cancer five years ago. Last year, it spread to his hip and pelvis—we managed to handle that part with radiation—but now he has metastases everywhere.
At 80 years old, I really feel like I have nothing left to lose.

I know it feels like every six months there’s some sensational headline popping up about a new miracle cure that's supposedly going to wipe out tumors once and for all.
I'm not really the type to fall for every little thing you read online, but after scrolling through dozens of different sites and blogs, you can't help but let your mind wander a bit.
Maybe there’s actually something to this after all.

Quote: more on Dichloroacetate
By Dr. Len May 14, 2010
Back in early 2007, a single research paper basically set the world on fire, sparking huge debates over using DCA to treat cancer. The real kicker was that because the chemical had been off-patent for ages, nobody really wanted to foot the bill for more research—there just wasn't enough money in it for investors.

So, DCA is making waves again. To be fair, the actual science being reported is pretty intriguing. But I suspect the headlines are mostly going to focus on the news that DCA might offer some benefit when treating aggressive brain cancer.

To keep it simple, DCA is a chemical you can actually buy online quite easily. It’s been used medically before to help manage conditions involving lactic acid buildup in the body. From what I've gathered, it doesn't seem to have many side effects, though there are some concerns regarding neurological issues.

Earlier studies involving animal models and lab benchwork indicated that DCA might actually be able to halt cancer cell growth. The scientific theory behind using DCA is rooted in the long-held observation that cancer cells depend on a specific metabolic pathway to fuel themselves—one that's pretty much unique to them. The idea is that if you can alter that specific pathway, you can effectively starve the cancer cells and stop them from growing. The research suggestion from the paper released back in January 2007 was that DCA managed to successfully shift that pathway, producing the intended impact on both individual cancer cells and transplanted tumors.

When this first came out, the experts were pretty quick to warn everyone not to get carried away or let their hopes get too high.
What’s really puzzling to me is how there seems to be so little drive to push forward with actual clinical trials for this drug. It’s strange because the results have been incredibly promising, starting in the lab, moving to animal models, and even showing potential in people who have taken it on their own. I should clarify, though—those individual success stories are just that, personal accounts. We really won't know the full picture until we see the data from the dozens of formal clinical trials that have finally started rolling in over the last few years.
What's the reason behind that?
So, this potential treatment is actually just a relatively simple chemical that can't be patented as a drug. You can order it in 25 kg drums from Kina for $100-$200 per kg, or get pharmaceutical-grade purity for about $150-$200 per 100 grams—which would cover about a four-month dose for an adult. Big pharma just can't make any money off of it.
To be honest, this combination has been used for decades to treat a rare metabolic disorder, and as far as anyone knows, there aren't any major side effects—especially when you compare it to the current medications out there, which can cause some neurological issues at higher doses.

Does anyone here have any experience with this experimental drug?

I think my dad is going to try it regardless, whether people have used it before or not, but I’d really love to hear if anyone actually has.

ruggedhawk5 said:I actually tried calling NBC to clear things up. I told them, "Look, I have one of your notices in my mailbox, and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Could you please explain?"

"We don't know anything about that; please call the mobile number listed on the notice," they replied.

So, basically, an official document from NBC is meant to be discussed face-to-face with whoever happens to answer the phone number printed on the paper.

Alright, so I might ignore the notice, but I am genuinely concerned about the potential fallout of initiating a misdemeanor proceeding:

Essentially, it's me versus 120 lawyers who are under contract with NBC and operating within the framework of the Law passed by the Country... Hmm, interesting...

My argument: the inspector couldn't verify the existence of a receiver.
The Prosecutor's argument: "I can do whatever I want, so prepare to get hammered!"

I worry that if this reaches a courtroom, the debate won't even be about whether I allowed the inspector into my home, but rather about the simple facts: that I pay for high-speed internet and digital cable, that I live in a major metropolitan area with perfect signal strength, and that I have a utility meter and live in a standard apartment building.

You call the number and say:
- Just so you know, I am recording this call so it can be used as evidence in court. Now, what exactly did you want to talk about?
😁

ruggedhawk5 said:I find myself unable to agree with that perspective, and frankly, I don't view it as particularly helpful advice. Why do I say that? Because paying the subscription fee is a legal obligation, and it is abundantly clear that anyone attempting to circumvent it is technically in the wrong.

The fallout from following that line of thinking could include $80 + $333 fines for failing to register a receiver, plus legal fees, general headaches, and endless runs to the courthouse.

The reality is that the courts aren't foolish; they find it far more lucrative to take the word of PBS over an individual's claim. Furthermore, there are countless ways for them to establish that you indeed possess a receiver...

What truly piques my interest in this whole saga is how a formal notice from PBS can be deemed invalid from the very outset. And why is their entire approach characterized by such aggressive, extortionate, and intimidating tactics?

From my vantage point, this notification regarding the commencement of misdemeanor proceedings isn't really a legal document at all; rather, it feels like a public confirmation of extortion, and I believe it's litigious enough to cause genuine mental distress.

Is there anyone here with legal expertise or significant experience who might be able to confirm or refute my thesis?

I’d really focus on the cost of the TV subscription itself. It’s easily three times higher than what you'd pay in other countries with a similar size and standard within the European Union. Honestly, it should probably be around $25.$10We’re paying the same amount now that Britons pay for their NPR.

Taking this advice could end up having some pretty serious consequences. $80 + $333 Fines for failing to report a recipient, plus court costs, headaches, and just being harassed through the legal system.

The point is, the courts aren't stupid; they find it much more profitable to just take PBS at their word than to listen to any one individual.

Courts tend to take the path of least resistance in these kinds of disputes. If you actually show up and demonstrate that you understand your legal rights and are willing to defend them, there's a good chance the ruling will go your way. But if you don't show up, or if you act like you have no idea what your rights even are, they'll likely just rule in favor of the collector.

Honestly, if you show them you actually know your rights, the inspector will probably just back off instead of filing a report. For instance, if you calmly ask for their credentials and explain that you'll be filing a formal complaint against them for XYZ...

From my own experience, I've spent some time giving legal advice to friends and family members during various disputes.

There are also countless ways to prove you actually own the receiver...

You think they're actually going to use that "TV receiver detector"?
😂

I’m honestly just trying to wrap my head around how PBS's official statement could be considered invalid from the get-go. I really want to understand why their whole approach is being labeled as greenwashing, extortionate, and straight-up intimidation.

They just take advantage of the situation because they can. They hide the times people actually stand up to them, mostly because they don't want word getting out and others following suit.

To me, this notice about starting a misdemeanor proceeding isn't even a legal document; it’s just public extortion. Honestly, I think it's litigious just because of the mental stress it causes.

Has anyone actually filed an official request with PBS to get the details on that inspector and the person in charge over at the subscription department? I'm wondering if anyone’s looking to file a lawsuit for false reporting based on those specific sections of the criminal code.
Really?
I mean, honestly, who's really to blame if you just let people treat you that way?

Does anyone with some actual experience or training mind weighing in to confirm or debunk my theory?

☕

slycyclist342 said:The internet can fall under any classification you want, but a laptop or a smartphone counts as a device capable of playing "audiovisual content," regardless of whether you're watching PBS or something else (and that isn't just my opinion—it's the official response from the PBS legal department, just like I pointed out earlier).

It seems you all fail to grasp that you aren't paying a fee specifically to watch PBS; you are paying a fee for OWNING THAT TYPE OF DEVICE.

Besides, PBS also streams radio programming.

But even setting that aside, you could buy a DVD at a store, watch it on your laptop at home, and because of that "capability," you are legally required to pay the fee.

Whether or not that actually makes sense is a different story... I'm simply telling you what the law states.

I mean, the PBS Legal Department is about as useful for interpreting the law as the SF Parking legal team is for explaining parking tickets (and we all know how they got shut down in court once).
They'll always insist you have to pay, even when the law clearly says otherwise—just look at how vacation rental owners get treated.

The whole idea of "reproducing" signals on computers, smartphones, and things like that is such a gray area right now.
And PBS knows perfectly well that if they let people using those devices off the hook, they might actually face a revolt that threatens the entire TV license fee system.

wiredcanyon55 said:Thankfully, I don't have a rap sheet—and I say that with all due respect to the law, because even if I did, I don't think my criminal record would change a single thing about this situation. In my eyes, I’m completely blameless here regardless of what my file says at the precinct.

I suppose I’m just looking for some guidance here. Should I just sit tight and wait for them to make a move, or would it be more strategic to get ahead of the curve and file a private lawsuit against them preemptively?
What would I even sue them for? The kid's father actually shoved me right in front of everyone there—he didn't actually strike me, mind you—but I have witnesses who saw the whole thing. I wonder if there's any way to leverage that somehow?

Is it possible that too much time has already slipped by for me to report this?

I doubt anyone will actually file a complaint against you unless those parents are incredibly persistent.
This was just a silly accident, and there wasn't even a hint that you intended to hurt anyone.
You just reacted out of fear because you thought a dog was tripping you up.

A two-year-old definitely shouldn't be running around under people's tables at a pub, and the parents could actually face a report to NASA for that. Either way, their responsibility outweighs yours by far.

Even if this ends up in court, your main defense should focus on the parents' negligence in supervising their child.
"Parents failed to ensure the child's safety" has become a universal rule.

Should I wait for them to act, or would it be smarter to preemptively file a private lawsuit against them?

Don't file a lawsuit. Instead, tell them that if they insist on pursuing legal action, you'll report their lack of supervision to Child Protective Services. They probably already realized their mistake, especially if the police mentioned it to them.

What would I even sue for? The father shoved me in front of everyone (he didn't hit me), and I have witnesses. Maybe I should use that somehow?

That's aggressive behavior and a threat, regardless. It speaks volumes about the father's character. But honestly, I don't see how pursuing that would benefit you.

James Patel20 said:We’re all just sitting here watching this endless parade of political nonsense unfold, yet it seems like nobody has an ounce of dignity left to actually step down when they mess up.

It’s not even that the public is demanding resignations anymore, nor are any officials offering them... it feels like the very concept of accountability has just evaporated into thin air.

When you have a leadership style like this, there's absolutely zero sense of responsibility left in the room.

And if that's the case, how are we ever supposed to actually make any meaningful progress as a country?

I don't even think it's worth listing all the failures and blunders of various cabinet members—because in any other functional democracy, those people would have been forced out of office ages ago, or better yet, they would have had the grace to exit public life permanently on their own accord...

Just look at the most recent debacle where the Supreme Court had to strike down an Administration mandate regarding mandatory shifts for doctors in our hospitals.

The Secretary basically issued a directive based on a legal provision that hasn't even been valid since 2006. 😂

I mean, honestly, does there exist anywhere else in the world where a Cabinet Secretary can just pretend to be incompetent, or perhaps genuinely act like they have no clue how our laws work?

And it isn't just the Secretary, either... it’s the entire Department that seems to be operating in a vacuum.

Seriously, where is the line drawn nowadays for when an American politician should be expected to submit an irrevocable resignation?

Does that line even exist anymore...

To be blunt:
1. The President should apologize to the public for this massive screw-up.
2. The relevant Secretary ought to offer their resignation.
The President could then choose whether to accept or decline it based on the severity of the mistake. If he declines, it’s on the Secretary to make sure this never happens again and to hold those responsible accountable—ideally through termination or even legal action.
3. In this specific instance, the head of the legal department, their deputy, and a few others really should just resign voluntarily.
If they do that, they wouldn't face legal prosecution.

Believe it or not, under current laws, they could actually face criminal charges. Resigning voluntarily should, in a case like this, protect them from prosecution.

But, honestly, I think we're a long way off from seeing that kind of accountability. Maybe in a few years, once the GDP drops another 10% and the whole system starts to crumble.

Ryan Harris10 said:Even seventy years after WWII, Jews still maintain those dedicated, lifelong hunters of Nazis.
Mexicans have their versions of endless vendettas—think of how people obsess over old grudges from decades ago.

Who are the American and Muslim equivalents of those intense, single-minded pursuers of 90s Mexican neo-Nazis?

Unfortunately, instead of people like that, we just have folks looking for ghosts and seeing fascists everywhere.

Rebecca Miller4 said:The statute of limitations is one year, according to section 232 of the mandatory relationship law.

Statutes of limitations are calculated based on the due dates. If more than that one-year window passes between the date the debt was due and the date they actually start the collection process, then the matter is expired.

However, if they kicked off the legal proceedings within that specific timeframe, you can't claim it's expired.

So, go back and double-check those due dates.

There's also an absolute statute of limitations, which I believe is two years in this situation.
If a judgment has already been handed down, I think the limit becomes 10 years from the date of the ruling.
It only stays active indefinitely if the claim is recorded as a lien on the property deed.

brisktinker15 said:So, the building doesn't actually have a permit yet—it’s stuck in some bureaucratic limbo trying to get legalized. Which process are we even talking about canceling? We sent an official complaint to the health inspectors, but honestly, we're still just sitting around waiting for a response that hasn't come. The whole issue is that this restaurant used those specific reports to get their operating license in the first place. Should we try bothering the Chamber of Commerce? Probably not, since they'll just point us right back to the health department, which is the same group that ordered the measurements and then used the results to shut down the violation proceedings.

I wouldn't mess with the building permit issue right now. You're a co-owner of the property, so it's in your best interest to get this settled.

You need to start making noise with formal letters to everyone involved.
Send a follow-up to the health department demanding they confirm exactly what the inspector said in their response. Write to the state agency, file a complaint against the health department's handling of it. Send a notice to the testing company—tell them they messed up and demand a correction, otherwise you'll sue through the Chamber of Commerce, report them for corruption, call the local news, blah blah blah...

Basically, everyone needs to kick up a little fuss. That's usually how I handle these kinds of headaches.

brisktinker15 said:It’s the same old story. You’ve got a bar or restaurant on the ground floor of an apartment building, and the folks living directly above are losing their minds over the noise.
To stay compliant with local ordinances, the health department ordered a full suite of checks—measuring decibel levels, soundproofing quality, speaker wattage, all that fun stuff.
But here’s where things get shady: the testing firm turned in a report that was essentially a "clerical error," a little mistake that somehow allows the venue to keep operating without actually installing any of the required soundproofing.
We filed a formal complaint with the health inspectors demanding a re-test, but now we're stuck in this legal nightmare. Apparently, there's supposedly no way to challenge a fraudulent certificate because in the US, there isn't a neutral third-party expert who can step in to settle a dispute when two different tests yield conflicting results. So, the business keeps cranking the volume while the residents just have to deal with it.
Is there any actual way to take this to court, and does anyone know a legal shark who specializes in this kind of mess?

Who figured out that the measurement was wrong, and what exactly went sideways?

bluecyclist64 said:Not by a long shot. I don't consider it hate speech, an insult, or some kind of moral outrage to point out that people like Markićka are nothing more than primitive, reactionary agitators. It isn’t an opinion; it’s a plain fact. These are the types of individuals who dedicate their lives to trying to strip away the fundamental freedoms and rights of everyone else.

Take, for instance, this whole spectacle of crowning some poor soul the "homophobe of the year." If you ask me, it’s nothing more than a calculated media lynching designed to tear someone down under the guise of social justice.

What a media lynching. Honestly, in a country where nearly 90% of the population identifies as Catholic, being branded "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite the achievement—if you look at it realistically, it’s almost a badge of honor.

It’s one thing to challenge tradition, but it’s quite another to be deliberately provocative by using imagery like two Madonnas locked in an embrace to insult religious sensibilities. It feels less like art and more like a calculated attempt to stir up resentment.

That poster is truly exceptional; it captures the essence of the play’s plot perfectly. However, we have to contend with a certain subset of people who lack the capacity to grasp either the fundamental nature of art or the nuance of what actually constitutes an offense.
Even the most devout follower of Madonna wouldn't be offended by a poster like that, no matter how provocative it might seem. But her cult of personality? Those devotees... they’re the ones who take offense at everything.

We are witnessing the rise of a sort of ideological climate terror. It has reached a point where any opinion that doesn't involve enthusiastically shouting "being gay is fine" from the rooftops is treated as something unacceptable—if not outright criminal.

A climate of terror? Are we seriously suggesting that activists are patrolling the streets to harass heterosexual people? Or that companies are handing out pink slips to anyone who refuses to march in a Pride parade?
What kind of hallucinations are we even talking about? Honestly, I find the term a bit hyperbolic when applied to these situations. It’s more like a fundamental disagreement on reality than anyone actually seeing things that aren't there. I remember back when I was working in downtown Chicago, dealing with some particularly delusional project managers—they weren't hallucinating, they were just willfully ignoring the data right in front of them. We seem to be following that same pattern here.

I find myself constantly wondering why those who hold no regard for the sanctity of marriage or traditional faith feel such an intense compulsion to impose their worldview on everyone else. It seems to be an endless cycle where people who reject these foundational pillars of society insist that those who cherish them must somehow validate their own shifting moral landscape—even going so far as to demand that religious institutions permit same-sex ceremonies within their sacred walls.

It’s because they’re a bunch of complete amateurs who don't have the slightest clue what they actually want.
On the other hand, you have those people who take issue with same-sex couples marrying in a church. I honestly don't understand why anyone would find that offensive. If we are all expected to share the same grocery stores, hospitals, and sidewalks, why draw a line at a religious ceremony? How exactly is a same-sex marriage supposed to diminish the sanctity or the validity of my own marriage, or yours? It just doesn't follow.

The crux of the matter is that none of this actually serves the interests of the gay community, nor does it contribute anything meaningful to their overall well-being. In reality, all this posturing just fuels a growing sense of resentment among the average American citizen—people who aren't even particularly affected by these issues, yet find themselves increasingly alienated by them.

It stands as it is. I know several members of the LGBTQ+ community who would agree with you completely on this point. And even if I were part of that community myself, the idea of participating in such counterproductive displays would never even cross my mind.

Exactly. It’s quite a fascinating dynamic. You tell someone who is loudly broadcasting fascist sentiments that they are, in fact, a fascist, and suddenly you're the one facing the social sanctions.
In my experience, the most exhausting group consists of these young, radicalized internet types who throw around terms like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and hate speech like they’re playing a game of Mad Libs—they toss them around with the reckless abandon of a rookie linebacker charging blindly into a line of scrimmage, yet none of them actually possess a fundamental understanding of the concepts they're weaponizing. It is genuinely disheartening to witness just how uneducated the younger generations have become regarding basic political theory.

Please, spare us the endless rambling. Pick up an actual textbook and learn the definition of hate speech.

If you said that out loud in public, there isn't a court in the European Union that wouldn't come after you.

It’s hardly a media lynching. In a country where 90% of the population is Catholic, being named "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite an honor if you look at it realistically.

It hasn't happened yet, but I've already mentioned it will soon if they keep labeling everyone who thinks differently with such senseless, arbitrary tags.

That poster is actually perfect; it illustrates the play's premise beautifully. It's just that some people don't understand the difference between art and being offensive. The gospa herself wouldn't be offended by a poster like that even in her wildest dreams. But her followers? Well, that's what offends them...

So the message of the play is—love conquers all—I assume?
And the poster that hurts religious feelings is just considered "art"?
Fair enough.

Let's flip the script for a second:
Imagine someone puts on a show where a gay Nazi and a lesbian Communist fall madly in love. The message: love conquers all. Just like this play of "yours."
Then we make a propaganda poster showing a top lesbian activist and a top gay activist in a passionate embrace, with a Nazi flag and a Proletarian flag tied together as a curtain above them.😁
Now tell me—would you call that offensive, or would it be "art"?

Because, you know, my mom is a very peaceful and incredibly tolerant believer, and she couldn't wrap her head around the pure malice driving people to create a poster like that.
Neither could my dad, who doesn't care much for the Church or priests, but still respects everyone else's faith.

A climate of terror? What, are gays patrolling the streets harassing straight people? Are people losing their jobs because they don't march in Pride parades?
That sounds like pure delusion...

I know several gay guys who completely agree with you on this. And even if I were gay myself, it wouldn't occur to me to join in on those counterproductive spectacles.

You say there's no climate of terror?
Fine, look: your gay acquaintances actually agree with my view that this aggressive behavior and insulting dissenters is counterproductive.
Just tell me, what would happen to those friends of yours if they spoke up publicly—if they refused to be represented by a small, noisy crowd parading through the streets?
They’d be branded homofob too, and probably worse...

bluecyclist64 said:Yeah, and?
Where exactly is the hate speech in that?
What, if someone said they wanted to drain Central Park, would you call that hate speech too?

It’s nothing more than mindless bluster. Calling that hate speech is a stretch, for heaven's sake...

It feels like this whole movement by these small activist groups is really just about spreading animosity and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, labeling someone the "homophobe of the year"—that’s basically just a media lynching, isn't it?
Then there's the disrespect toward religious beliefs, like using an image of Madonna in that way.
It creates this atmosphere of fear where if you don't join in the loud chanting of "gay is okay," your opinion is treated as unacceptable, or even criminal.

Why are people who don't value traditional marriage or faith trying to force their worldview onto those who do—even pushing for gay marriages within the church?

The bottom line is that none of this actually helps the LGBTQ+ community. All it does is stir up more resentment among everyday Americans who aren't even directly involved in these debates.

Quentin Tarantino

Charles Fox10 said:

Secretary of the Treasury: Charles Fox10 (everyone loves him, which is arguably the most thankless job there is)

I'm a crowd favorite, apparently 🤣🤣🤣🤣

It seems like everyone just wants to see the Secretary of the Treasury hanging from a gallows or on a spit.
😂

Quentin Tarantino

Maria Booth96 said:It’s not the most heavy-duty topic, but does everything always have to be so serious?😍

So, look, we've got the current administration in Washington; honestly, I can barely tell them apart—it all feels pretty much the same to me, up or down.

I say we start our own little forum government right here on this politics board.
Alright, let's hear it. 😍

President, obviously, Pizvo
Vice President: Vacant

Secretary of Agriculture: Aunt Elsa—she actually knows her way around a farm, unlike the deputy coach.

Secretary of the Treasury: Charles Fox10 (everyone likes him, which is usually the worst job in the cabinet).

Secretary of Health and Human Services: felixx—it's his life's calling, with north wind as deputy.

Secretary of Sport: McAuliffe—easily the biggest sports nut among us.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Zionist (has some right-wing views, but he's a solid doctor).

Secretary of Labor: Gilda

Secretary of State: MC Ozy (better to be number one in the North America than last place in Europe).

Secretary of Defense: judolino

Secretary of European Integration: Rendolf (more moderate than Powerlock, but without London, we aren't going anywhere, so let him take the lead).

Secretary of Environmental Protection: Katarina riječki

Secretary of Commerce: somied

Secretary of Science: Ego

Attorney General: Vojky, no need to waste my breath.

Chief of Staff: Michael Minister

Secretary of Tourism: nasmijanonebo—she runs the tourism subforum and knows every vacation spot there is. Deputy is a realist.

Secretary of Homeland Security: drot13

Way too few women. 🤷

I'll bet we'd actually see some success, maybe even better than what we have now. 🤷

Who's stepping up for these roles?

😂

Well, look what the cat dragged in...

I think I could have this sorted within two or three months. After that, it would be something the Department of Housing or the Small Business Administration might actually want to get behind.
🙂

mistymason1 said:Bradley Scott2 wasn't complaining, he was just asking why the criteria are inconsistent. I already told him he's being a bit naive—someone smart should realize how things work, and honestly, by looking for justice, he's just showing his own weakness.

I’m definitely not being naive here.
I know there's basically zero chance of getting a card overturned.
But having solid arguments for an appeal still carries some weight.
More importantly, it shuts down the argument of "why didn't you appeal?"
Well, I did.

This whole appeal thing is a habit I picked up in my real life dealing with government bureaucracy. I always present them with facts that make them trip over their own feet. By the time I walk into their office, they're usually sweating.😁 Sometimes I can shut them down with a single letter—not even an official appeal, more like a warning—that forces them to fix the issue immediately.
It's a bit of a tangent, but it's just to show I'm not clueless.

The naive ones are the women on these forums who think feminism is actually going to do them any favors.
Also, this site might want to consider opening a dedicated Manosphere subforum before someone else does and everyone starts migrating there.

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:Exactly. That's why using terms like "man + vagina = mangin" or translating it as something like "little guy" feels just as ridiculous. I don't see why we even need English slang for something that isn't even polite to begin with.

Look, whether you like it or not, the term "mangin" is going to be everywhere in the next couple of years. It's just like how the manosphere is spreading all over the US. Trying to stop it is basically like trying to stop the tide.