Posts by Morgan Rodriguez57

If you actually managed to sit through the second movie, you’ve gotta check out the third one—it’s honestly way better...

Hey OP, just a quick tip—next time, make sure you squeeze all that air out of the little reservoir at the top before you roll it on... it's one of those small mistakes that actually ends up causing them to pop more often than you'd think... ☕

wearyowl29 said:The movie is decent enough, except for the female lead—she’s totally unlikable and comes off as just plain gritty. As far as the writing goes, I found it a bit hard to swallow, especially when they start digging into financial records from fifty years ago. Maybe—and I highly doubt this—but perhaps there's some rule out there requiring those documents to be kept for half a century, though I don't think that would fly here in the States.

Well, if that’s how you feel, then the Swedish creators really nailed it... because in the books, the characters actually think she's messy and they question her hygiene too... she’s basically rude to everyone, honestly... it’s just that only a tiny handful of people are smart or empathetic enough to see what’s actually going on beneath the surface...

My current Stieg Larsson status update... 🙏

- finished the first Swedish film
- watched Fincher's version
- read the first book
- currently halfway through the second one
- still have the rest of the Swedish movies lined up to watch

Which movie is better? The Swedish one, obviously! And which Sally is superior? Rooney Mara, hands down! Why? Well, I already laid it all out in "that other" thread—I really don't want to repeat myself... 🙂

Why? Well, that’s just how the forum rules work... honestly, this whole PDF religion thing feels like a direct reflection of a mindset where regular believers are constantly being labeled as fanatics... I wonder if it's actually possible to teach the owner to be a little more compassionate toward faith? I mean, I really doubt it...

On all the other PDFs on this forum, during "those days," you can start a thread to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year without any drama or incidents at all... except for on the main religion PDF... 🙏

Daniel Ward87 said:It's true that there isn't much connection to the Christmas we celebrate today. Also, while Sol Invictus isn't tied to Christ, as I mentioned in the link, the idea of bringing Christ closer to pagans by blending religious foundations is an old story—anyone with even a basic understanding of religion knows how that works. Okay, I get that this is a bit off-topic for a holiday greeting thread, but I just wanted to clarify that there was no intentional trolling going on here.

One thing is for sure: Nicole James wasn't trying to be provocative, believe me. However, I suggested keeping the Christmas greetings and similar stuff to a more basic level just to avoid any unnecessary drama.

haha, yeah right, that's just not how they roll... 🙏 😁

Nicole James said:Look, this isn't some exclusive club reserved solely for believers or high-level theological debates—you can find plenty of those forums out there, whether they focus on Islam, Catholicism, or whatever else. Here, everyone is welcome to dive into discussions about religion regardless of where they stand, and honestly, I think the best conversations happen when we look at things from different angles, not just through a strictly theological lens.

Besides, it seems a bit strange that you're taking issue with the greeting, especially since your access to the religion forum was revoked. I really hope you aren't resorting to using clones again to get around things.😉

that argument doesn't really hold water... all those other specialized subreddits try to maintain certain standards, whereas this religion forum feels more like a random message board that just lets the usual spammers run wild...

- dictatorship
- keeping less developed regions of the USA held back
- suppressing American leadership (like during the '71 crackdown)
- Mexican dominance within the federation
- the military being dominated by Mexicans and Mexicans
- painting Americans as fascists
- overcompensating for the rights of certain groups just to make up for past violence—as if we owed them something because of historical conflicts

Marshall actually pointed out once—quite smartly, really—that the USA couldn't survive unless the Americans were kept under a tight thumb... well, I’m not exactly a fan of that kind of "tightening," and honestly, that’s why I wasn't a fan of the USA either...

The movie is honestly quite good... what really stuck with me was how incredibly spot-on the corporate atmosphere felt—you know, those office dynamics and the whole vibe within a massive corporation... anyone who’s ever spent time working at a big firm—a private one, obviously—will totally get what I mean...

Master Oogway said:I'm still pretty young and haven't seen much of the world yet—just a guy with a few questions bubbling away in my head—so I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some answers... Thanks!

1. Are liberals mostly atheists?

2. Is American society generally more liberal or conservative?

3. Which political party is the most conservative, and which is the most liberal?

4. Why does it seem like most atheists tend to attack the Church?

5. Why do people say the Democratic Party didn't actually want a sovereign America?

Sorry if this is random, but I'm genuinely interested in politics—I just don't really have anyone to ask these kinds of things...

1. Historically speaking, liberals were often the ones viewed with suspicion by those in power—and yeah, there’s traditionally been a lot of atheists in those ranks... though things have shifted quite a bit lately when it comes to faith and belief...

2. Well, it's kind of a leftover mindset from certain regions... purely by circumstance, the U.S. hasn't always moved in lockstep with global shifts, starting back in the 18th and 19th centuries... some areas are more stuck than others... which is why even today, you'll find folks in America who haven't really left the 1800s behind, or maybe they're still mentally living through the mid-century eras... it varies...

3. It's honestly tough to pin down who the absolute most conservative party is in the truest sense... maybe some small agrarian group? As for the most liberal among the big names, I'd say groups like the Libertarians or certain West Coast factions...

4. It's hard to speak for what every single atheist thinks... but the loudest voices are often led by guys like Dawkins—who might be an expert in his own niche, sure, but he's totally clueless when it comes to actual theology... not only does he lack understanding, but he pushes some pretty wild ideas, like separating kids from parents just because they're being taught faith... his followers can be just as uneducated, intolerant, and frankly, rude... we see plenty of them around here too, if you ever look at the religion sub-forums...

5. Back in the early 90s, the Democratic Party did want a United States, but they envisioned more of a loose confederation or a union style... nowadays, they fully support a sovereign America...

As for why people say otherwise? That's mostly just Republican spin designed to trick gullible or uninformed voters into choosing them over Democrats... mark my words, during the next election cycle, you'll hear all that old "red menace" scaremongering again... I'd love to measure the IQ of everyone who falls for that Republican rhetoric...🙂

Carol Diaz said:Picture this: you, me, and a hamster stranded on a deserted island. To survive, someone has to be sacrificed and consumed. Do you kill me and split the meal with the hamster, kill the hamster and share it with me, or simply succumb to starvation?

Picture this: you, Johnny Štulić, and a hamster stranded on a deserted island. Survival requires a sacrifice. Do you kill Štulić and share him with the hamster, kill the hamster and share it with Štulić, or just die of hunger?

That hamster is gonna be a cold-blooded killer... 😁

Anthony Garcia19 said:You make killing sound way too easy, and you aren't the only one thinking that way.
Still, if most people actually had to slaughter their own livestock just to eat, they'd change their tune pretty fast. It's easy to act like it's "fine" when you just look away and pretend the meat on your plate isn't connected to killing sentient, feeling creatures... I'm not sure what's worse: the constant looking away or the killing itself.
Unlike you, I genuinely hope that kind of slaughtering eventually stops altogether... 😢

I wouldn't have any trouble at all with the slaughtering part—mostly because I already know exactly what's coming next... yum... 🙂

Man, you really know how to trigger a craving at this hour—my mouth is watering just thinking about it... now I'm definitely going to be thinking about steak all night... 🙄

I can’t say I’m surprised this went down at all... honestly, looking at what happens in my own neighborhood, it seems like there are plenty of people who call themselves "animal lovers" but are actually just deeply unstable—it's like they need any tiny, microscopic mistake in how someone handles an animal to justify completely tearing into someone's life... they go full scorched earth with constant phone calls, personal insults, and those desperate attempts to ruin someone's reputation in the community... just totally unhinged... ☕

To say I’m confused by how everyone is handling this topic would be an understatement—I honestly don't get the hesitation. Is this a political issue? Of course it is! And why are we avoiding naming names here? (I mean, looking at how things went down with Prince Harry, it feels like we're following a certain pattern...) For me, this is just another political question that deserves a totally open, wide-ranging debate without all the walking on eggshells...

p.s:
I just caught wind of what actually happened... I was actually wondering why the thread had gone so quiet... He really shouldn't have let it get to him, you know? Being a public figure means you have to develop thick skin for everything—even the nasty comments...

Honestly, you guys are just recycling the same old, empty rhetoric over and over... if you think a moderated forum is actually meant for deep dives into religion, well... guess again... ☕

Fun movie—I actually found myself laughing out loud at one point, though I can't quite pin down which specific scene it was... 🙏 😁

While I was watching, I honestly thought Hayden Christensen was playing Fabio (Franco)... now that I see it's actually James Franco... he's got the exact same look, and that same wooden acting style too... 🙂

I remember back when I actually went out of my way to complain about some guy's profile picture—you know, that one with the stylized icon of Ante Pavelić—and they actually ended up removing it... man, what a total killjoy I turned out to be... 🙏 😁

So, I actually filed a complaint about a username—something like "Bene Dick of 16" or whatever it was—but honestly, nothing really came of it... 🙂

If this is some kind of troll, then they’ve got quite the imagination—honestly, I have to hand it to them... 🤣

But if it isn't a troll, it's just living proof that sometimes having too much information actually does more harm than good—especially when your brain starts lagging and glitching out like an old PC... 🙂

Just a little piece of advice for the OP: nobody is coming to save you, you really can only rely on yourself... sometimes being polite doesn't cut it, and you might actually need a bit of shock therapy... yeah, it's uncomfortable, sure, but maybe then people will finally leave you alone regarding your faith...

Chris Peterson53 said:You're being biased, Morgan Rodriguez57!
There’s plenty of trolling, insults, and twisting words happening on both sides—from the believers and the non-believers alike—so there's more than enough of that to go around...

And which side are the moderators actually favoring?
Sanctions get handed out to everyone, if you've bothered to notice...
Are you falling into that trap where people equate a user's personal opinion with the official stance of the site—which is a tactic used to claim moderator bias—thereby trying to strip everyone else of their right to speak as just regular users?
What, should a religious moderator ban atheists from sharing their views? Or vice versa?
That’s exactly why we need rules—just to keep things within the bounds of civilized conversation...
I don't know about you, or how you'd be categorized—if you're considered a fundamentalist, or what that even means to you personally...
but I can't help feeling like you have this specific version of the Religion section in your head, one that's totally different from how it was actually designed, set up, and approved. And honestly, that's something you really need to figure out for yourself... then decide if you even want to stay...
As for this whole "empire" thing...
I’d say the entire CNN is basically its own little kingdom, and you either agree with the rules—written or unwritten—or you move on...

exactly... the Religion section wouldn't be any different, because even on other parts of the site, you don't exactly have absolute freedom of speech... try expressing total freedom of opinion on a politics thread, or try talking nonsense about global warming on the science board, and boom—you'll see the sanctions come flying... on the religion board, anyone who's just a bit out of line—sorry to the outliers—can get called out... that's why religion can't ever rise above the level of middle school textbooks, internet memes, or media hysteria... it just ends up being a pamphlet for a small group of protected, chosen people...