Posts by Lawrence Rodriguez11

lonetrucker4 said:Look, Ivo Josipović is a professor at the Law School.

And as for prof.dr.sc. Ivo Goldstein—trust me, he’s not out there teaching students to follow him like sheep.

What about that Raspudić couple, also professors over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences? You think they’re demanding total blind obedience from their students too? 🤔

Now, I never actually attended UC Berkeley myself, so I can't speak from firsthand experience. However, based on my conversations with people who have studied there—or are currently studying there—as well as listening to various public figures who came out of those halls, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a pretty strong sense of groupthink prevailing there.

Sam Martinez9 said:The whole point of a College of Arts and Sciences education is learning not to take anyone’s word at face value, including your own. Every philosophical or scientific authority is subject to scrutiny. When we discuss a specific philosopher, the goal isn't just to praise their insights, but to examine where they fell short. Scientific theories aren't sacred texts; they are tools provided to researchers specifically so they can be tested—and ultimately dismantled.

I have to say, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what philosophy actually is. It isn't a tragedy, though; it's all something that can be learned, especially nowadays with the internet at our fingertips.

My personal take on philosophy is mine alone and doesn't really have anything to do with this specific point. What I was actually trying to get at is that a huge number of graduates from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences hold these pretty terrible views that mirror the irrational and immoral attitudes currently spreading throughout the world.

William Cooper11 said:If you ask me, this whole situation was totally predictable, and I’d bet my life it won't be the last one we see. This is the kind of person who hangs on every single word Damir Stojić says. They'll end up marrying some guy just like them—probably someone working for the FBI or an engineer from MIT—who spends his Saturdays kneeling in a public square. Both will have high-end salaries, a big family, and they'll think life is perfect, provided everyone else in Rhode Island starts living exactly according to their moral compass.

You could probably draw a similar parallel with the students over at the College of Liberal Arts. They follow Goldstein and Josipovic blindly, only to come out the other side demanding equality and tolerance—but strictly for people who already agree with them.

Back when the census was being conducted during the America era, I always identified as an American rather than an American. Living in America didn't mean we all automatically embraced an American identity. It’s a lot like how plenty of people living in America today don't necessarily declare themselves as Americans.

They aren't going to turn on themselves or their own people. To actually break this cycle, we need leadership that isn't tethered to all that old baggage. The real issue is how voters here play it—people vote for the Republicans just to keep the Democrats out of power, or they swing toward the Democrats just to prevent the hardline conservatives from taking over. Or, let's be honest, some people just vote based on what they can get out of it personally. It feels like nobody is looking at the big picture; everyone is just focused on their own immediate interests. You can't even tell which side has more holdovers from the old guard or people working against our national interests—it’s probably just as bad in the GOP as it is in the DNC. But the worst part? It’s the ones pulling the strings from the shadows. These are the people you don't even realize are there, quietly shaping our entire future. They don't even need an official party affiliation; they just manipulate whoever happens to be holding the reins at the moment. In fact, they probably hand-pick those leaders to begin with.

Ethan Ross said:It’s not just the grandkids; honestly, most of the time, even the very first generation loses it. And sometimes, the original immigrant wants to forget it all anyway! But hey, what can you do...

God forgive them, they really have no idea what they're talking about.😵

Morgan Cook10 said:It really depends on where you're heading.
If you move to somewhere like Germany, for example, you obviously need to respect the traditions of the people providing you with a livelihood. You can keep your own heritage alive within your family, provided you aren't being disrespectful to your hosts.
But if you're just moving from one city to another within the States... there's no real reason to change who you are, because those customs are basically the national standard anyway. If someone has an issue with that... they're free to move out of the US.

The third scenario is when you move to a place that doesn't strictly "belong" to any one group—take places like Australia or the USA, or any sort of multinational melting pot. In those cases, you should definitely hang onto your roots, because in a country where everyone is a guest, everyone is also a host.

You’ve written a lot here, but I don't think you're quite grasping the point.

Bradley Sanders4 said:The hypocrite finally spoke up. 🤣 Isn't it funny? His ancestors were the first ones to show up in a FOREIGN land, bring their own customs, their own religion, and their own flag, STEAL the land from the natives, and HUNT them down for sport.

Honestly, what kind of nonsense is that? If we're following that logic, then Americans are just guests too, since they arrived and pushed out the Illyrians who were the original inhabitants here. That’s all ancient history at this point. This is the USA now, or Australia... whatever. People moving here need to respect the local laws, the traditions, the culture, and just the general way of life. The Prime Minister is spot on—everyone should approach it with that same mindset.

Jeremy Scott said:If you’re bringing up Josip Juraj Strossmayer, then you really ought to realize that about 90% of the American intellectual elite back then was actually pushing for American and building a unified state alongside Mexico.

So, does that make it okay just because a large chunk of the elite agreed with it? Not really—a significant number of people actually fought for total independence or at least much broader autonomy. Strossmayer wasn't just looking for a joint state; he was essentially suggesting that Americans give up their own national identity. And if you think he was bad, Ante Supilo was even worse.

I honestly feel like we should rename any streets across the USA that are named after people who didn't actually contribute anything meaningful to our country. This shouldn't just apply to streets, either—I'm thinking about squares, boardwalks, waterfronts, you name it... For instance, one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. is currently named after a bishop who actively worked to undermine our national identity and heritage. There's even a street right in the heart of downtown D.C. named after another individual who pushed for the exact same thing. When I talk about streets named after communist criminals, I’m referring to those types of figures, though as far as I know, besides Josip Broz Marshall, there isn't much else left to change.

steellynx91 said:The solution is straightforward:
1. A full purge and restructuring of the intelligence agencies to ensure they actually serve the interests of America.
2. Drastic budget cuts targeting unnecessary expenditures—things like legacy veteran pensions, the former president's office, various special interest groups, and parasitic organizations like the Chamber of Commerce.
3. Territorial reorganization to reduce the number of local government units...
4. Implementing much stricter hiring criteria for public service positions and state-owned enterprises.

That sounds like a solid plan to me.

When I talked about Christian democracy, I didn't mean that the clergy or the Church should just do whatever they want without any accountability or special privileges. To me, Christian democracy means having a state with a government that actually respects our traditions and honors the faith of the people, rather than demonizing it the way the current administration does.

I don’t really see America as a left-wing country, even if the current administration leans that way. People voted for them because they were tired of the tyranny coming from those "right-wing centrists"—they thought this change would actually shake things up, but honestly, they feel pretty let down by the results. In my view, most Americans are fundamentally patriotic; we want what’s best for ourselves and our families, which naturally extends to wanting what's best for the country. Being a patriot doesn't mean you automatically align with the far right, though I suspect many in power would probably prefer to see a solid Democratic alternative on the scene.

cosmicotter13 said:

I suppose we’re finally at this point. The "demon" has arrived. Or perhaps it was always here, lurking in the periphery of our collective consciousness, waiting for the right moment of instability to manifest itself fully. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? In a grim, nihilistic sort of way. One can't help but wonder what triggered this specific descent. Is it the systemic decay of our institutions? The sheer, unadulterated chaos of modern life? Or is it something more primal—something buried deep within the American psyche that we've spent decades trying to ignore with consumerism and cheap distractions? It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers are too busy checking their phones to notice the tracks have been pulled up miles back. We talk about progress, about moving forward, yet we seem perpetually haunted by these recurring shadows. It’s exhausting. Truly. You try to build something stable, something meaningful, and then... *this*. The demon appears, and suddenly the foundation looks a lot more like sand than granite. Is anyone actually surprised? I find myself asking that more often than I care to admit. Most people act shocked when the inevitable occurs, as if they didn't see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon for years. It’s a peculiar kind of American denial. We stare directly into the sun and then complain about the glare. The user says:
Well, let's be real... if you actually look at what a true right-wing platform would entail, we're talking about a massive, powerful state. I mean, think about it. You’d see tax rates for workers climbing, while corporate profits get slashed. And here’s the kicker—those companies wouldn't even have to pay taxes on their earnings if they were actually putting that money back into the economy by hiring more people. It’s a concept, isn't it? A real, functional idea.

Cut out those damn luxuries. Honestly, how much did you actually manage to squirrel away? If you tucked enough into savings, you’d actually have something to show for it. But without that cushion? You’re just sitting there waiting for the government to hand you the absolute bare minimum. We wouldn't even be talking about actual cash at that point—it would just be food stamps. Just vouchers for groceries and nothing else. That's the reality.

Housing and pensions for veterans? Please. It’s all just subsidies—handouts that would disappear the moment the budget takes a hit. And those specialized VA hospitals? They’d probably start cutting beds and slashing funding faster than you can blink if the money runs dry. It's all conditional. Everything is tied to the bottom line. If the treasury says "no," the support vanishes. Typical.

Maternity benefits? Honestly, they shouldn't even exist. Or if they did, they should be purely symbolic at best. I mean, think about it—why on earth would anyone choose to just sit around, have kids, and live off the system? It’s absurd. And then you have the people actually out there grinding, working their tails off, and they're the ones stuck footing the bill for it all. It makes zero sense.

Elementary school? Mandatory. High school? Not necessarily. As for universities—those elite institutions—they’d be paying full price, plain and simple. We’d need a robust scholarship system in place to actually incentivize the brilliant and the driven, rather than just subsidizing mediocrity. No more "eternal students" drifting through academia for a decade without ever contributing anything to society. The average person wouldn't even bother with college unless they had parents wealthy enough to bankroll their degree. If you're born into poverty in this country, forget about higher education... unless, of course, you possess some truly exceptional, undeniable talent. Otherwise, the gate stays closed.

They’d just hike up the budget for the military and the police, obviously. Throw more money at those massive state development projects... you know, the kind that actually move the needle. Instead of bleeding cash into pensions, social welfare, or the crumbling healthcare and school systems—money that just disappears into a black hole—they’d redirect it all toward paying off the interstate highways. Imagine that. If we actually cleared the debt on the interstates, they could be completely free for everyone to use. Just imagine driving without constantly reaching for your wallet.

Now, listen... the true-blue conservatives? They’d sign this in a heartbeat. But those so-called "right-wingers" who’ve spent their whole lives wrapped up in this bloated social safety net system—they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They aren't actually conservative; they're just comfortable. ☕

I mean, sure, there are all sorts of right-wingers out there, but this whole package? No way. I wouldn't dream of signing off on this if I were part of any American patriotic right-wing movement. Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Old-age pensions, health insurance, workers' comp, even laws banning child labor—all of that was actually introduced by Otto von Bismarck. And let me tell you, that man certainly wasn't some bleeding-heart leftist. Far from it. It was about the welfare and the health of his own nation. It was about justice, stability, and ensuring the future of the population. It's just common sense, really.

It isn’t exactly a stroke of genius—nor is it particularly wise—to suffocate the workforce with crushing taxes just to ensure they live in a state of perpetual discontent. If you strip away their ability to actually buy anything, you end up with a population that can't even function as decent consumers. What's the point?

Social Security benefits ought to be indexed to previous earnings—it’s common sense—but they also need to actually be decent and fair. We can't just let people starve in their old age. And look, if we want this whole system to stay solvent, we have to fix the employment situation. We need a massive, broad tax base of active workers contributing to the pot; you can't run a fund with a shrinking pool of contributors. But more importantly? We need to stop the bleeding from these bureaucratic absurdities. It’s pure madness. Why on earth should the Social Security Administration be burdened with honoring service credits for certain rebel Mexicans during the occupation? They didn't contribute a single cent to the American funds back then. It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You can't claim the rewards of a system you never helped build.

Aside from the CIA, you’ve got housing for veterans and then there's nothing. Just... nothing. Look, I’m not CIA, nor am I some former camp inmate, so based on that alone, I can't even qualify for a basic loan, let alone get my hands on an apartment. It's all just a closed loop.

The birth rate of the American people... it’s got to be a top priority for the patriotic right. Period. We shouldn't even be debating whether maternity and paternity benefits are "too much"—that's nonsense. Instead, we should be looking at how to expand those rights even further. It’s just common sense. And frankly, it's only fair that someone who hasn't had children—yet expects, quite presumptuously, that other people's kids will fund their Social Security or change their diapers in a nursing home one day—should be the one footing the bill. A youthful population isn't just a social good; it’s an absolute engine for the economy. You need workers. You need consumers. Without them, everything just... stalls.

Primary and secondary education? Mandatory. Non-negotiable. But higher ed... that’s where the government needs to actually start thinking ahead. They should be planning based on actual labor needs and footing the entire bill—I mean the full price—for the specific specialists we actually require. We’re talking tuition, housing, supplies, meals... the whole nine yards. And if the state is paying for those professionals, they shouldn't just be allowed to drift wherever they please. The government could direct those graduates to work in any corner of America, and they would be obligated to serve here for at least twice the duration of their schooling. It’s only fair. The alternative is students paying the full market rate themselves. If you pay your own way, fine. Once you have that degree in hand, you’re a free agent. Work, don't work, move to another state... do whatever you want. But there’s a massive ethical gap here. When a nation is facing a crisis, and every single worker—every farmer, every laborer—is essentially subsidizing the training of, say, a doctor, they expect that doctor might actually show up when things get dire. It is fundamentally unacceptable for those people to pay for a specialist's education only to watch that person take their diploma and flee to another country immediately. It's a betrayal of the social contract.

The federal budget needs a massive, urgent purge of pure stupidity. We’re hemorrhaging cash on niche minority subsidies, "cultural" vanity projects, blatant corruption, political party handouts, luxury perks, and endless diplomatic fluff. It's madness. Now, investing in our military—modernizing equipment, ensuring our troops actually have decent living standards—yes, absolutely. But throwing billions into foreign "missions" and fighting someone else's wars? Absolutely not. We need to focus on domestic infrastructure: highways, switching to a vignette system, cutting the bloated bureaucracy, and making things affordable for actual Americans while letting tourists pay their fair share.

Now, this is something I could actually get behind; there are some really serious points here.🙂

Henry Myers3 said:You aren't a true conservative because you clearly don't grasp political theory or what a modern GOP platform actually looks like. You were raised on the leftovers of the old socialist era, and you probably only claim to be right-wing because of family ties to the old guard while viewing any opposition as pure treason. That’s all there is to it. ☕

It’s pretty wild to see someone spouting nonsense when they don't even know who I am or where I'm coming from. Maybe try introducing yourself first before you start lecturing me. You honestly don't have the slightest clue what defines the right wing or what our actual goals are.

Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

So, do you consider yourself a true conservative? Would you actually sign off on this vision? Personally, I consider myself a genuine conservative, yet I couldn't sign this as it stands. It's just too rigid. While I basically agree with the core sentiment of what you're saying, I think the implementation needs to be softened quite a bit.

Roughly speaking, the definition of a state is a community of people where everyone contributes to the national standard, and in return, the state ensures security and prosperity for everyone. It’s an idealist, almost utopian concept, but it’s a beautiful one. In theory, every working person pays taxes that should fund our collective safety net and well-being. Of course, in reality, some people take a lot from the system, some take a little, and some take nothing at all. Complaining about funding someone else's education feels a bit pointless to me—it's no different than me saying it isn't fair that I pay into healthcare premiums when I rarely ever step foot in a doctor's office. I’m essentially paying for someone else who needs frequent medical attention. There is definitely plenty of room for improvement, but building a better system requires a healthy, stable nation. We aren't quite there yet, but we'll get there. Even the American healthcare system is widely considered a disaster, and they'll be the first to tell you that.

Look, I agree that what’s happening with modern pop-folk is pretty extreme, but calling it a Lemkin cultural genocide feels like a massive stretch. It’s not like anyone from Mexico showed up here and forced this music on us; we embraced it ourselves. Some people try to blame the influx of refugees from Canada during the war, but honestly, I don't think they're to blame. If anything, it’s on us for letting it become the dominant sound. Generally speaking, I feel like people in our country don't take much interest in the actual foundations of our own culture. We live in times where everyone is just looking for any kind of escape from a harsh reality, and unfortunately, it seems many have chosen the worst possible distraction. That said, I don't believe anyone should be dictating what others listen to, what movies they watch, or how they spend their free time.

Hello everyone,

I’ve been getting all my tests ready for a standard surgery to deal with some kidney stones in my renal pelvis. A few of my results are sitting outside the normal range, and I'm also a little confused by what my urine culture is actually telling me.
On top of having kidney stones on both sides, I’m also managing hypothyroidism with a diffuse goiter, so I take 100mcg of Synthroid.

Urine culture results: several gram-positive bacteria >1000 < 10000 CFU/ML

Urinalysis sediment: leukocytes 8-10 (ref 0-2)
erythrocytes >50 (ref 0-2)
mucus 1+ (neg)

Blood work: chlorides 110 (ref 97-108)
CRP 5.4 (ref
Basically, I was wondering if any of these numbers might impact my upcoming surgery.

rowdypilot22 said:Could anyone recommend a good place for a kidney ultrasound in the Chicago area?
Thanks in advance!

Just speaking from experience here—if you're actually in pain, your best bet is probably the ER. Everywhere else, you'll be looking at at least a two-week wait.