Posts by Karen Rodriguez3

Richard Richardson68 said:It’s just bad parenting. Period.
And then, I guess, that’s exactly how they end up being treated by their own kids later on.

Just like that old saying goes: what goes around, comes around...

Look, I love my mom. So yeah, I'll take care of her if she needs it, but it's not some transaction or paying back a debt. It's just what you do.

gentlestag3 said:That's exactly my point. I'll pay back that "debt" by having my own kid, and then they'll pay it forward by having theirs. I don't want a child just so someone can look after me when I get old. I'll just go to a nursing home or something.

Even under US law, you're basically expected to step up for parents who can't handle things on their own.
I don't really get how anyone could say they wouldn't take care of their mom if she couldn't manage. I mean, what kind of upbringing leads you to think like that?

Angela Newman33 said:while guys with five kids under their belts have nothing better to do than hang out on this forum
since we all know most people are just scrolling through this stuff on their lunch break at work

I mean, I've said before that I use my time at work to unwind😁
Sure, they're older now and don't need me running around after them constantly, but sometimes, having just 2 or 3 hours of peace in my office... man... and there are only two of them.
But honestly, I guess it all just comes down to how much effort you actually want to put into your kids, regardless of how many you have.

Richard Richardson68 said:Or put it this way: you're better off having one or two standout examples rather than five mediocre ones (and I mean mediocre in terms of resources and gear, obviously, not necessarily their manners or brains...).

Nah, it’s not really about the equipment.
Just try checking the homework for three kids every single day (assuming two of them are somewhat independent) without stepping in to help or explain things if they get stuck. You're looking at at least half an hour per kid. Plus, one is on the morning shift and two are on the afternoon shift, so you don't even see them until around 8 PM.

Andrew Watson59 said:So, you want to play the martyr? You want to "help" or make the world a better place? Fine. Then go adopt a kid from an American foster home instead of having your own. What have you actually contributed to this planet by bringing a new life into it? If I ever decide to become a parent, I’m going straight to adoption. Where’s my guarantee that my DNA is somehow superior to some kid sitting in a group home right now? For all I know, my grandfather could have been a total psycho or a predator. Who's to say? Are my genes perfect? Please. Yours aren't either. You won't do anything special for society or yourself just by cranking out five more kids. Sorry. (Look, if I offended anyone, that's just my honest opinion 🙂)

The whole urge to have kids is just instinct, I guess. Without it, we wouldn't even be here.
Plus, the number of people looking to adopt is like ten times higher than the actual number of kids available for adoption.

Angela Newman33 said:I’m telling you, you’re totally romanticizing the whole thing—you honestly have no clue what this looks like from a woman’s perspective.

I was watching this documentary about moms with big families lately,

and man, these women are just completely spent. They’re running on maybe a few hours of sleep, totally drained and chronically exhausted.
They're basically pushed to the absolute limit, both physically and mentally.
They can't even afford to have a breakdown because if they do, the entire household just collapses... plus, they know they've got years of this ahead of them until the kids are finally grown.

But nobody ever talks about it. It’s like a total taboo.

👍
Back in the day, having five kids was one thing when most people lived in tight-knit communities where there were always at least three or four other women around to help with the house and the kids while the men did the heavy lifting. I mean, wealthy families always had nannies, obviously. But now? Now it's standard for couples to live on their own, and usually, both partners are working at least eight hours a day. It's not even the same thing—it's basically an impossible mission.

Lisa Gray94 said:..but do you honestly believe the government is to blame to such an extent that your boss can't handle rising overhead or variable costs, dropping demand, a surplus of labor, or a total lack of market liquidity? 🤷

Look, forget about my company for a second. You gotta look at the big picture of how things are going in the country, not just one or two businesses. We've been running our shop for twenty years now, thank God, and I don't think it's ever been this rough as it has been these last few months.
And what, you think everyone suddenly became incompetent just because they're laying people off right now?
Just look at the broader landscape, man.

briskbison55 said:That’s interesting... I know a ton of people who run their own businesses; everything from design firms to software dev, consulting, PR, you name it. Everyone is doing pretty well for themselves, honestly. They all seem to be expanding year after year, and they're always scratching their heads wondering why others aren't jumping into sectors where there's a massive shortage of experts. So, who's really holding you back from growing? I guess it’s kind of silly to blame the government for absolutely everything.

Quincy:

And yeah, a country that doesn't export much—let alone rely heavily on exports—isn't going to get hit by a global recession nearly as hard as you're trying to make it out to be. We basically tripped ourselves up; we didn't even need a recession to cause us trouble.

I mean, we messed things up a long time ago, but that doesn't change the fact that this crisis hasn't wrecked us the way it would have if we were a more developed nation. Like, what could actually happen to us? Will foreign-owned banks just hike up interest rates? And then what? If they lose their customer base, they lose it. There's really no way.

Maybe ask them how business is going *right now*. You know, specifically this month. I mean, sure, if they're mostly working with companies here in the States.
You want me to tell you what it's like in manufacturing?

briskbison55 said:I mean, I don't think any administration since the 90s is actually to blame for the fact that we aren't producing anything or exporting much—it's more like we just encourage imports and grow stuff nobody even wants. That's really the point I was trying to make before... I guess it's not really the state's job to micromanage and develop everything. Once the legislature sets the rules, it's all on the entrepreneurs, right? I mean, why else do you think the top 200 families basically run both American domestic and foreign policy? And then we just sit here and laugh whenever someone tries to call it out, instead of relying on those old-school relics from previous regimes to somehow "save" us.

Seems like you might be missing the bigger picture here.
If you're stuck working in an environment that's constantly draining you, how are you supposed to actually grow?
The government's gotta ensure a healthy foundation. I thought that was obvious.

And yeah, a country that doesn't export anything—let alone rely on exports—isn't going to get hit by a global recession quite as hard as you're trying to make it sound.
We kind of tripped ourselves up; we didn't even need a recession.

briskbison55 said:I cut out all the nonsense from the original post—just answer why the Democrats and the rest of the coalition didn't do a single thing to change the situation during their four-year term.

How did they not? It’s just that whenever they try to pass anything actually useful, people call it unpopular and—surprise, surprise—they lose the election.
I'm not even a member of the Democratic Party, just so we're clear, and yeah, they definitely made some pretty stupid moves back then. But man, what this current crowd is pulling... jeez.

briskbison55 said:I mean, you're still blaming the current administration for a global crisis, but okay, whatever. My point stays the same though—we've never actually had more opportunities than we do now, whether it's for jobs, education, traveling, or stuff like that.

It's just like how people said everything would grind to a halt if we didn't allow intervention during Desert Storm...

Exactly. Reagan wouldn't let anyone question the defense effort, but Clinton did. And, well, look—the gridlock happened. Have you actually finished reading up on how much of a mess Clinton's leadership was?

Honestly, this year you’re probably gonna realize this whole situation isn't about some global meltdown. It's just straight-up incompetence from the people running the show right now.

Even without any of the stuff you're bringing up, there would still be a blockade. They'd find a way. I mean, we aren't joining the EU until things in Canada are sorted out first.

@briskbison55
We actually started out pretty strong back in the 90s, even through the war years. If people had just been a little less foolish... Gamad managed to screw everything up. Just everything. Seriously, open your eyes for once.

briskbison55 said:That’s exactly it, and I guess that’s really why the coalition under the Democrats didn't lock up a single soul back then. It makes you wonder, right? Like, why was the Department of Justice just sitting on its hands during that whole period? And honestly, maybe it's because the leadership personally pulled the plug on that entire investigation into the top 200 wealthiest families. It just feels like everything was intentionally stalled.

But, I mean, look... twenty years isn't everything, right? It's not like this just started recently. I guess you could say this kind of situation has actually been hanging over us since the end of World War II. Maybe it's deeper than that. It feels like it's always been there, in some way.

Oh, give me a break. What else am I supposed to stay quiet about? Maybe we should just go ahead and blame Joseph Franjo too, right?🤣

Anyway, I'm pissed off. I feel cheated, honestly. Just stuck. I look at businesses all around me. People waiting outside hospitals—those are my people. Everything is stalled. Everyone is just waiting. Debts are piling up. Nothing is actually happening. If I told you all which companies sent their employees home to wait for a paycheck today, you'd be shocked. And I'm not talking about some shady fly-by-night startups. These are solid companies that have been running smoothly for over 20 years.
It's a coma. Total coma. Nothing else.

Yeah. But then there’s always those people who just don't get it. Usually, they act like this because, I don't know, people around here tend to take any kind of criticism as a direct attack on their patriotism or their way of life...
Do you actually have to be some kind of genius just to grasp what an intellectual is trying to say?
I mean, can these intellectuals ever just step down from their high horses for a second and let regular folks see things from their perspective?
Because, honestly, most people are just scared of whatever they can't wrap their heads around.

Mark Nguyen6 said:So, he’s now playing on an even deeper weakness of ours—the fact that we tend to look the other way when pseudo-intellectuals feed us the same garbage, as long as they can dress it up in fancy rhetoric and claim, "Well, this happens everywhere else too." For instance, calling anarchism a valid excuse.

It's just typical small-town mentality—people who can't seem to come up with a single constructive thought all week without finding something to mock instead. I mean, my grandmother could do better than that.

I wonder what Freud would have to say about those who insist on living in an environment they constantly ridicule, only to start acting like grumpy old men with back pain while they're still in their thirties?

I mean, historically, the whole point of intellectuals has always been to point out flaws and critique individuals, society, and general values.
Since we're constantly being fed garbage presented as gospel—from the government down to the church—the only people actually capable of looking at things critically or making fun of them are the ones who stand out. And yeah, maybe that's why they get under our skin.

It’s not really about cheap imports from overseas hitting Germany; it’s more about how cheap labor out east makes it worth moving the whole factory there, which obviously kills local jobs. Sure, people buy cheap stuff from abroad, but that usually hits the mid-range market, and honestly, there's always someone willing to pay for luxury goods too. The reality is that the big industrial players who moved production away aren't even selling their products any cheaper than if they'd kept them at home. Just look at Nike, Adidas, those high-end designer brands, or even our own Magma. It’s all about padding the profit margins, not lowering the price tag.

Regarding why manufacturing is tanking here, I’m with Thomas Fowler84 on this one. Local production has been systematically gutted from the get-go, regardless of what's happening in the rest of the world.

Lawrence Wilson35 said:Putting outlet covers in might not be considered "parenting" by some, but let's call it what it actually is: common sense. Is it about discipline? No. It’s about basic care. Why should we debate whether it counts as active upbringing when it clearly falls under looking out for your kid's safety?
Tell me, if your partner kept touching something they know is strictly off-limits, would you just sit there? Would you actually let them get away with it, or would you give them a sharp smack on the hand?
Of course, you can sit an adult partner down and explain why certain things are off-limits. A two-year-old might not grasp the nuance of your reasoning, sure. But there isn't a second option involving hitting.😉
Since you brought up the two-year-old:
I know from both theory—backed by extensive research—and firsthand experience that a two-year-old:

He just doesn't get it. He fails to grasp that being an influencer—along with a dozen other reckless behaviors like darting across traffic—is inherently dangerous. It’s as if he can't wrap his head around the fact that the human body is a terrible conductor for electricity. He seems to think that current flowing through insulated wires is harmless, yet he completely ignores the reality of what happens when you make direct contact. Does he truly believe he's invincible?🙂😱😁
Personally, I didn't even grasp how electricity worked until seventh grade.🤣
What’s the point in trying to explain it over and over? It’s incredibly difficult for a child to grasp something like that.
Kids at that age are naturally curious, which is perfectly legitimate. They’re just exploring.
At the end of the day, you can't predict how a kid is going to react. One child will actually listen when you tell them something is off-limits, while another will ignore you entirely and touch it anyway—for all the reasons we've already discussed. What exactly do we expect from them?
The likelihood of a child actually listening increases if they trust their parents—and let’s be clear, trust isn't built through physical discipline. Of course, you can't just paint everyone with the same brush here. You have kids who trust their parents completely but still push back because they're naturally curious, which is perfectly fine. Then you have kids who don't trust them at all yet follow instructions anyway. There are a hundred different variations to every situation; after all, every individual is a unique case.
Let’s be real: if your kid doesn't trust you, they aren't going to listen to a word you say. It’s that simple. Why bother barking orders if the foundation isn't there?😉

Probability is just probability. In this situation, we should be talking about certainty.😉
The only way you'll ever be truly safe is if you put outlet covers in every socket and keep a constant eye on your two-year-old. Is that really too much to ask?
And let's be honest—you can't take your eyes off a two-year-old for even a single second. Constant supervision isn't just a suggestion; it's a necessity.
If you can't see eye to eye on this, are you even ready to be a parent?
When I look at myself, I realize that I want to be with my child constantly. It isn't just about ensuring their safety—though that matters—it’s more fundamental than that. I simply want to be by their side at all times. Is that really such a radical thing to want?😉

So, you see your kid heading straight for an outlet, and you react by swatting their hand away. What happens then?
All you're doing is teaching them to fear punishment. They won't have any clue why they got hit in the first place. What's the point?
And once he loses sight of you—once he realizes there’s no authority around to hold him accountable—I wonder what happens next. Is it even possible that he’ll just shove a metal rod into an outlet? Just a thought.
The real issue here isn't the incident itself; it's the underlying message you've sent your child. You've essentially taught them that violence is an acceptable way to settle scores, provided they have the physical advantage. Is that really the lesson you want them to carry?
Keep this in mind: children aren't born with prejudices. They understand perfectly well that hitting them on the hand is still physical abuse.😉
Why? Because no one has conditioned them yet. They see the world for what it actually is—without forced opinions or a manipulated mindset.
They know it’s not about how hard you hit—it’s about the fact that you hit them at all.
Whether the strike is heavy or light, it strips away human dignity and damages the integrity of everyone involved—both the aggressor and the victim.
When we are out in public or traveling far from home, we need to be especially vigilant with our kids. A new environment means new risks.😉

It is perfectly normal for children to learn; let's not humiliate them or strip them of their dignity in the process.

Yeah, I’m totally on board with you there. I mean, I might have swatted my kids maybe two or three times in my life, but yeah, I did. And never without explaining why. Slapping isn't even in my vocabulary—honestly, I don't think they'd ever find a reason to get a slap. But hey, I won't say "never" because, well, life happens. You can't always predict how you'll react in the moment. But the main thing, like > mentioned, is that kids know we love them. They know everything we do is for their own good (and obviously, I'm not talking about physical abuse). So if we do snap or overreact sometimes, as long as we sit them down and explain what happened, I don't think it leaves any lasting trauma.
Isn't it also kind of weird when parents just yell at their kids for no real reason? Like, how many of us haven't done that? Not every day is perfect, and hormones are a real thing. I taught my kids a long time ago that moods change and it's okay to show emotions. If I'm sad, I cry. If I'm mad, I yell or just talk louder. I honestly think that's way healthier than acting like some robot who stays perfectly calm and monotone all the time. I feel like I'd probably be more traumatized by a mom who suppresses everything than one who actually shows how she feels.
Talking things through with kids is huge. They grow up fast, and pretty soon they realize exactly what they're doing and start testing those boundaries we set. Not every parent handles that well, but physical stuff? Definitely not the move.

Matthew Morales17 said:Goodness, why is this so incredibly simple, yet so few people seem to actually get it!?🤷

Raising kids isn't exactly easy. Honestly, it’s pretty tough and complicated, if you ask me.

redviper17 said:AMEN! 🙏

Yeah, I’m with them on that one.

There are people out there who have never once laid a finger on their kid, yet they’ve messed with them mentally so badly that, honestly, a little spanking might have actually been better if it could have saved the damage.
Being a decent parent isn't something you can just pick up from a weekend seminar. Sure, you can sit through lectures and listen to all the experts, but at the end of the day, you’re going to react based on instinct. Plus, everyone processes information differently in their own heads. No one can hand you a manual that covers every single possible scenario while also accounting for your specific child's personality.
And I think the folks here saying they’ve given their kids a swat aren't talking about being abusive or leaving bruises. Obviously, actual physical violence is just straight-up abuse and has zero place in parenting—that's not discipline, that's just being a jerk.
But look, putting outlet covers in so a kid doesn't hurt themselves when they're obsessed with poking things into them? That isn't really "parenting" either. It's just damage control. The kid hasn't actually learned anything, and they might go over to a friend's house for coffee and try the exact same thing because there aren't any covers there. How are you supposed to explain to a two-year-old that they shouldn't stick stuff in electrical sockets?
Or what about when they bolt from your hand and run toward the street? Like, am I just supposed to grab them and pull them back? They’ll probably just turn it into a game of tag with me the next time.
I guess I figure it's healthier to give them a quick swat to scare them away from danger than to let them get hit by a car. Obviously, this applies to those little ones who can't talk yet, but even then, you've got to explain why you reacted that way once the initial shock wears off.