Charles Lopez3 said:Americans aren't doing a damn thing about it. They’re too busy worrying about trash bins and garbage cans sitting right next to the church gates.😁
Meanwhile, those folks from the old country are sitting pretty in offices for some "non-profit" organization set up just to benefit them.
The communists always had their sights set on dismantling the Catholic Church. And honestly, it feels like today’s power players are just carrying that same torch. So, what is the average American actually doing about it? 🤷
I'm currently running an Intel Core i5 on an ASRock 970 Extreme3 motherboard, paired with a Radeon R7750 graphics card. I haven't really dove into any super demanding titles lately—so I can't say for sure—but I have been thinking about giving Battlefield 4 a shot. Since we're already on the subject... do you think it would actually run smoothly for me? I don't need to be cranking everything up to max settings or anything.
I’ve gotta say, I’m feeling pretty let down by this movie—honestly, just like a lot of what I've seen lately. It feels like sci-fi flicks are just rolling off an assembly line these days, and most of them? Total junk.
I get it—really, I do. But honestly, who among you was making such a huge deal out of it when some beta female wrote two entire posts about me just because I typed "nobi" instead of "not"? It seems like there’s a massive trend here of people claiming they don't understand something, simply because *other* people don't get it either. Actually, let's make that three posts:
And now we're talking about ad hominem attacks? Please. It feels like all you really care about is finding ways to shut me down because you've run out of actual arguments.
Kate Foster12, any "tangents" I took were really just me circling back to address points that had become indirectly relevant. For instance—Lastan veered off into discussing whether government officials are insured, so I jumped in just to correct his claim that they’re never in danger; I mean, how could he possibly know that? From there, the conversation spiraled into debates about literacy levels just to eventually turn into personal insults directed at me. Pointing out that those insults were offensive isn't "derailing" the thread—it was them who derailed it! That didn't seem to bother you, did it? As for my actual arguments: I brought up human rights by citing a major federal court ruling, and regarding the negative fallout seen after all the activists' demands are met, I shared a link in my reply to Timothy Jackson2 that everyone seemed to ignore. I also touched on how the parades are funded, only to be told they run entirely on donations—which, let's be honest, just isn't accurate.
Look, I’m just here to discuss the topic at hand—I’m definitely not the one derailing this conversation. If anyone is steering things off course, it’s the people writing entire paragraphs about me instead of actually addressing the subject! It seems like since there aren't any real rebuttals to my arguments, the goal now is just to try and shut me down and kick me out of the thread. I haven't insulted a single soul here, even if I have been targeted myself.
I'd only use that line of reasoning if we were talking about a masquerade ball, a big game, or some other social gathering that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Hope that answers your question. Now, please, stop dragging me into these kinds of arguments. This isn't the place or the time for it. We're here to discuss how to manage heated topics on the subforum, not debate who wears which political hats to rallies.
Sorry, but you asked the question, and now you want to shut down the conversation just because you don't like the answer. So, does a concert count as a political event in your book?
Karen Rodriguez3, this isn't actually about having a difference of opinion—it's about being insulted. When someone writes that I'm incapable of learning or things like that, that's an insult. These people don't know me, they don't know my education level, and honestly, neither do the others reading this thread. The fact is, it's purely personal attacks. There isn't even a "different opinion" happening in those posts, since they aren't even addressing the topic—they're just targeting me.
Timothy Jackson2 said:How much longer are we going to tolerate Nathan Brooks4 constantly bragging in almost every single thread about how he reported someone to the moderators? Honestly, it’s such a power trip, acting all high and mighty just to say, "Oh, I flagged your post." It’s basically him saying, "My dad is tougher than your dad."
In my experience, those reports usually go nowhere, and in six years on this site, I haven't even bothered to report ten posts myself. This kind of behavior totally derails the conversation and it's honestly enough to make you want to cry. Someone gives him a little bit of virtual slap, and he immediately starts whining... 🙂
Well, they're virtually slapping me with insults that are both baseless and false. I know you might be fine with that, but according to the rules, it isn't. Unlike everyone else, I don't hide behind things—I tell them straight up that I've reported them for harassment.
Bradley Sanders4 said:To answer your question: no, I still don't see it. What I see is just a shitty, counterproductive attempt at being provocative.
Why on earth would such an isolated incident be lumped in with Pride marches and the broader LGBTQ+ community and their general rights? It’s weird how this specific image gets dug up every single time opponents start fighting against holding these events. It just shows that the person who posted it only wants to drag the conversation down into trolling territory. Once you let one person's provocation steer the debate toward things like Nazis versus partisans, you're basically inviting a wildfire that's nearly impossible to put out.
I'm curious, though—do you use this same logic when you see a photo in the news of some disheveled teenager wearing extremist gear at a country music concert?
Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, there’s a massive difference between bringing up old-school communist regimes and pointing at organized religion. The church still refuses to accept homosexuality today, which directly fuels intolerance and discrimination in our society. It’s a continuous political pattern, whether you like it or not. Honestly, I hate making comparisons to the Middle Ages or witch hunts, but it’s pure hypocrisy to ignore this when the media is constantly flooded with priests pushing blatant discrimination. On the flip side, communism hasn't been a state ideology here for decades. Arguing about what those guys did forty or sixty years ago is just pointless because you're debating a ghost—there is no continuity there. It’s like trying to debate what the Nazis did; sure, maybe some twenty-year-old's grandparents were influenced by them, but we all know exactly where that line of reasoning leads. And let's be real: communists weren't some isolated weird case. Homosexuality was treated as an illness and criminalized throughout the entire Western world well into the mid-seventies. So, if we’re going to drag up the horrors of America, then fine, let's talk about the legacy of Thatcherism and Reagan, too—because unlike communism, that stuff is still very much alive and kicking today. Sure, the relationship between the church and the party was tense, but I don't see how that translates to their stance on homosexuality when both sides were essentially against it back then. I just don't see it. If someone can actually explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I’ll gladly change my mind.
Finally, someone actually asked the question. Is there an actual method to separate religion from politics, or are we just stuck in this endless loop forever?
It isn’t always like that, and honestly, it depends on how the conversation is going. I haven't noticed anything on the Zodiac Killer forums that strictly forbids mentioning politics. At the end of the day, this entire debate is rooted in politics anyway, since secular marriage and constitutional issues are political matters, not religious ones. The only thing explicitly mentioned in the moderator warnings is to stay away from discussions about Marshall or America—basically avoiding those endless Godwin-style shouting matches you see over at the New York Times comment sections. I’m all for them banning the mindless insults and sweeping generalizations that Megalodon warned us about, but I’m definitely not in favor of censorship. As far as I understood their warning, they aren't trying to shut down topics; they just want to keep people from dragging in subjects that have no business being part of a discussion like this.
Are you still not seeing the connection? Look, Gay Pride—and the whole movement for gay rights itself—inherently includes a political component that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual gay rights. So, at its core, it functions as a political movement, even if that isn't how it's supposed to work.
Scott Allen10 said:Nah... "poor circulation" is just one of those vague terms grandmas use at the local farmers market or when they're chatting near the clinic here in San Francisco, and honestly, it doesn't really tell us much. It could mean a million different things, so if anyone wants actual help, you really need to be way more specific in your opening post.
Could you maybe dive into that a bit deeper? See, I just got back from an eye exam where the specialist mentioned my circulation was poor. Looking at the symptoms online, it seems to fit my situation perfectly. Up until now, all my lab work and tests have come back totally normal—neither I nor my doctor ever linked my issues to circulation (probably because I only go in for specific complaints, so she never really saw the big picture). Which specific tests should I be looking into? And honestly, I'm more curious about how to actually fix it. Everything I find online is just advice about getting more exercise or taking supplements. I want to know how a doctor can actually help me, and if there's a single underlying cause for poor circulation.
