Why are you guys still voting Republican?
in Close to Politics ·
electricgardener8 said:I’m from Chicago, highly educated, unshaven, and I vote Republican
and there are plenty more of us
Fine. But go ahead—give us the reasoning.
Home ›
Zachary Kelly55 › Posts
Posts by Zachary Kelly55
16 posts shown.
Fine. But go ahead—give us the reasoning.
Grab a test! (For anyone wondering if they're pregnant)
in Pregnancy ·
Sarah Cox3 said:So, here’s the deal... I went to see my OBGYN, and the exam didn't really show anything out of the ordinary. But when I brought up the morning-after pill, she told me that those aren't even available here in the States—apparently, they aren't authorized. Honestly, how on earth are people getting them?! I even checked with the local pharmacy, but no luck. Now all I can do is grab some Rosary beads and start praying until August 5th.
What do you mean "doesn't exist"? Sure, there isn't one single magic pill for everyone, but the doctor should have prescribed emergency contraceptives—taking two doses every 12 hours. A few years back, I had a condom fail, went to my doctor first thing in the morning, and they prescribed Stediril, specifically two at a time. You just have to buy the full box.
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:🙂
It won't happen! You're the one who started the insults in the first place... And I can say with total pride that I haven't sunk down to your pathetic level of communication.
Way to go.😘
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:Slow down, kid. I know more about 20th-century American and world history than you've managed to read in your life—mostly because I'm older and have a higher degree—but arguing about it here is pointless. You're acting like you're the only historian in the country, but we have plenty to spare; more students enroll every year than there are actual jobs. You think you'll be someone when you graduate? You'll realize you're a nobody. Hundreds of people like you end up wandering into the Employment office, and you'll be lucky if you even land a job at a rural schoolhouse. Most likely, you won't work in your field at all. That’s reality. I don't have an issue with anyone from that university; I know them all quite well, personally, since I actually work in the scientific community. I've taught types like you before. The student who always has something to say, always has those "brilliant" questions, sitting in the front row hoping the professor notices them so they can be taken under their wing. It's pathetic to watch, especially knowing how slim those chances really are. My advice? If you have those ambitions, drop 20th-century history. There's almost no room left in that field. Unless, of course, you have some very strong connections—and judging by your arrogance, maybe you do. In that case, enjoy yourself.☕
Slow down, kid. I know more about 20th-century American and world history than you've managed to read in your life—mostly because I'm older and have a higher degree—but arguing about it here is pointless. You're acting like you're the only historian in the country, but we have plenty to spare; more students enroll every year than there are actual jobs. You think you'll be someone when you graduate? You'll realize you're a nobody. Hundreds of people like you end up wandering into the Employment office, and you'll be lucky if you even land a job at a rural schoolhouse. Most likely, you won't work in your field at all. That’s reality. I don't have an issue with anyone from that university; I know them all quite well, personally, since I actually work in the scientific community. I've taught types like you before. The student who always has something to say, always has those "brilliant" questions, sitting in the front row hoping the professor notices them so they can be taken under their wing. It's pathetic to watch, especially knowing how slim those chances really are. My advice? If you have those ambitions, drop 20th-century history. There's almost no room left in that field. Unless, of course, you have some very strong connections—and judging by your arrogance, maybe you do. In that case, enjoy yourself.☕
Sorry, girlie, but it looks like you're living in some kind of parallel universe... Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm still a student, or that I haven't graduated, or that I have a higher degree than you, or that I'm going to end up teaching at some little rural school? Seriously, thinking clearly just isn't your thing, and it makes you look ridiculous...
If anyone is acting full of themselves here, it's definitely you. All I have to do is look at your last couple of posts. The arrogance is through the roof!!! It's like communicating with someone at a dive bar. Your fragile little ego is bruised just because I didn't bow down to your "unbeatable" arguments, so now you're starting to spit venom. And if you "work in science" (maybe as a janitor at NASA), then God help the scientific community!
As for me, thanks for the concern, but you don't need to worry. I'm doing just fine with what I do, and it has nothing to do with teaching at a school or my history studies.
Sorry, girlie, but it looks like you're living in some kind of parallel universe... Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm still a student, or that I haven't graduated, or that I have a higher degree than you, or that I'm going to end up teaching at some little rural school? Seriously, thinking clearly just isn't your thing, and it makes you look ridiculous...
If anyone is acting full of themselves here, it's definitely you. All I have to do is look at your last couple of posts. The arrogance is through the roof!!! It's like communicating with someone at a dive bar. Your fragile little ego is bruised just because I didn't bow down to your "unbeatable" arguments, so now you're starting to spit venom. And if you "work in science" (maybe as a janitor at NASA), then God help the scientific community!
As for me, thanks for the concern, but you don't need to worry. I'm doing just fine with what I do, and it has nothing to do with teaching at a school or my history studies.
z
You were the first one to start throwing insults. While I was busy discussing a specific disagreement that had absolutely nothing to do with you, you decided to take a direct shot at me. This "janitor" comment is a playground insult, something a second grader would come up with. I assumed you were a student based solely on what you wrote. And since you've apparently graduated and I might be arguing with such a profoundly important individual, please accept my deepest apologies. 🙏 I'm not usually an arrogant person, but when someone resorts to such shallow insults, I have no choice. Honestly, I feel foolish even debating you. I should have remembered the old saying: "Don't wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it." 👋
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
QUOTE=Linda Hughes88;12534728]Am I foaming at the mouth? 😍 Read your own post. It reads like it was penned by some puffed-up hen with an ego bruise. There is no absolute authority here; a professor isn't Bogomdan. Please. This is the first I've heard of it. You possess a "phenomenal" critical mind. Listen, people, this is the new Nada Klaić.
It didn't occur to you, sweetie, that some people don't just memorize textbooks? That they actually care about 20th-century world history and American history, and draw conclusions based on what they've read? Apparently, your peak level of criticism is repeating three phrases even a sparrow knows and endless whining about indoctrination. You should probably learn something about 20th-century global and American history before passing judgment, though it seems you can't say a word about it.
Slow down, kid. I know more about 20th-century American and world history than you've managed to read in your life—mostly because I'm older and have a higher degree—but arguing about it here is pointless. You're acting like you're the only historian in the country, but we have plenty to spare; more students enroll every year than there are actual jobs. You think you'll be someone when you graduate? You'll realize you're a nobody. Hundreds of people like you end up wandering into the Employment office, and you'll be lucky if you even land a job at a rural schoolhouse. Most likely, you won't work in your field at all. That’s reality. I don't have an issue with anyone from that university; I know them all quite well, personally, since I actually work in the scientific community. I've taught types like you before. The student who always has something to say, always has those "brilliant" questions, sitting in the front row hoping the professor notices them so they can be taken under their wing. It's pathetic to watch, especially knowing how slim those chances really are. My advice? If you have those ambitions, drop 20th-century history. There's almost no room left in that field. Unless, of course, you have some very strong connections—and judging by your arrogance, maybe you do. In that case, enjoy yourself.☕
It didn't occur to you, sweetie, that some people don't just memorize textbooks? That they actually care about 20th-century world history and American history, and draw conclusions based on what they've read? Apparently, your peak level of criticism is repeating three phrases even a sparrow knows and endless whining about indoctrination. You should probably learn something about 20th-century global and American history before passing judgment, though it seems you can't say a word about it.
Slow down, kid. I know more about 20th-century American and world history than you've managed to read in your life—mostly because I'm older and have a higher degree—but arguing about it here is pointless. You're acting like you're the only historian in the country, but we have plenty to spare; more students enroll every year than there are actual jobs. You think you'll be someone when you graduate? You'll realize you're a nobody. Hundreds of people like you end up wandering into the Employment office, and you'll be lucky if you even land a job at a rural schoolhouse. Most likely, you won't work in your field at all. That’s reality. I don't have an issue with anyone from that university; I know them all quite well, personally, since I actually work in the scientific community. I've taught types like you before. The student who always has something to say, always has those "brilliant" questions, sitting in the front row hoping the professor notices them so they can be taken under their wing. It's pathetic to watch, especially knowing how slim those chances really are. My advice? If you have those ambitions, drop 20th-century history. There's almost no room left in that field. Unless, of course, you have some very strong connections—and judging by your arrogance, maybe you do. In that case, enjoy yourself.☕
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 Asks:
Yeah. So I have to become some expert analyst just because I don't agree with you? Please. 😵 😵 Is it him? Or maybe his buddy? Pure genius. I guess I'll try to figure out who you actually are when you're being such a thorn in my side. Are you Radovan Vukadinović himself or what? His associate? Just a guess. 🙂 Neither, if you really must know. And since you brought up "access," I’ve got plenty of gripes about that too, but indoctrination? That's nonsense. You probably wanted him to claim the USSR and the USA are equals, or reduce the Vietnam War to a simple battle of good versus evil just to satisfy your view. Maybe the issue is you. Maybe you're the one who's been indoctrinated.
Give me a break, it was just a joke. I don't get why you're getting so worked up over this. There’s really no need to get insulting when I haven't even insulted you. Honestly, I doubt you've actually listened to his lectures, let alone understood them. Maybe in a few years, once you've matured a bit, you'll learn how to think for yourself instead of just parroting whatever professor tells you in college. You might eventually realize that professors aren't absolute authorities—they aren't Bogomdan or some kind of deity. As for Tvrtko, he isn't a thorn in my side at all. I only decided to post this to offer a different perspective, since you were busy trying to sell nonsense to everyone else who didn't attend Georgetown.
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:Yeah, sure, he studied there, but that doesn't prove anything at all... I mean, aren't all historians specializing in American history usually educated right here in the US? There are academic standards and scruples everywhere, both at home and abroad, especially in Western countries and definitely at those elite Ivy League universities...
but you didn't actually tell us anything useful other than just throwing out that phrase about him needing to think for himself... no shit?! And how on earth do you know he isn't thinking for himself? Just because he doesn't agree with your specific version of history? It seems like anyone who doesn't see things exactly your way is automatically "indoctrinated" in your book... real convenient logic there...
I don't get why anyone would put someone like Tvrtko on such a pedestal. Unless you're Tvrtko? Or a close friend? He's been in the US several times on fellowships. Spent a year at Georgetown, a few months elsewhere, etc. If anyone cares, just check the FF website in Washington, D.C., and his CV is right there. As far as I'm concerned, he's definitely indoctrinated. I won't comment further; it starts feeling like gossip, especially since I know him personally just as well as you do. I'm not going to sit here and dissect his personality. To be clear, I have nothing against him. I'm not questioning his research, his intellect, or his knowledge. He's an engaging lecturer, articulate, and approachable. All that holds true. But in my view, he's indoctrinated by American ideology. He might not even realize it himself.
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:Regarding his answer, I’m actually on board... Honestly, the world needs a global police force, and it’s definitely best if that role falls to America, because the absolute worst-case scenario for our future would be if the USA decided to retreat back into isolationism. I wouldn't go as far as saying those questions were meant to just get under his skin, though, because I know plenty of folks who genuinely believe the things they say... But anyway, that's not really what we're here to talk about.
The manual—let me be clear, I haven't even seen it, nor am I defending it. I was just reacting to the mindless politicizing and the way some of you guys on this forum are twisting the facts...
And look, this isn't the first time there's been this kind of massive uproar. Just think back to Jurčević's attack on the textbook a few years ago. Based on how he spoke, you'd think Vojislav Šešelj and Štrbac practically wrote the thing themselves... But when you actually sit down and look at what's written in there, there's really no reason for all this noise and anger...
I don't even follow Jurčić. It's only here that someone can manage to get that much exposure. As for the USA, I disagree with you, but like you said, it's not the topic at hand, so it doesn't matter.
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:Well, I guess it really all comes down to how you personally view American ideology and what "being critical" actually means when you're looking at the history of the States... because honestly, if the US isn't being painted as this ultimate empire of evil, some people immediately jump to conclusions and claim there’s no real critique happening or that it’s just straight-up propaganda. It would be great if you could lay out your actual grievances, though... just a heads-up, I actually sat through his lectures myself, so don't try to pull anything past me... I still vividly remember the endless stream of incredibly stupid questions and comments coming from students that would make even a bunch of internet trolls blush...
Budak only got brought up because Sophia Bishop39 mentioned him, and honestly, I don't even know why... just because he was part of the KP. That was basically her whole beef with him...
I haven't actually sat down and read the manual, so I can't really defend it or tear it apart... I was just weighing in on what Sophia Bishop39 had to say...
Based on what was written, I’m guessing Snježana Koriti has her hands in this since she's always been all about those kinds of methods... and honestly, I don't even think they're that bad. You shouldn't just lead kids by the nose and expect them to blindly parrot everything they're taught, you know? In fact, the earlier they start grasping things, the better it is for them... though obviously, it can definitely swing too far in the other direction if you aren't careful. But whether it actually does or not, I really don't know...
Sure, there were stupid questions, but back in my day, people mostly asked them just to get under Jakovina's skin because he’s so easy to bait. I don't have anything against him personally, he's just not exactly my idol. I wasn't trying to push an agenda on you. Everyone has their own perspective, and as a student, you experience professors and lectures in your own way. We don't all have to agree. Let me give you an example. When someone criticized American policy regarding playing global policeman and forcing dominance, Jakovina completely lost his cool and yelled, "Well, what would you have us do? What would you want? Should Russia be number one instead?" I think that reaction really stuck with me. He acts the exact same way whenever someone criticizes the Manual. That was the vibe at the presentation too, at least from what I heard, since I didn't feel like attending. He could stand to be a bit more parliamentary. When you're an expert, you shouldn't fly off the handle every time someone disagrees with your writing; otherwise, people will just stop engaging entirely. It makes no sense. As for Snježana Koriti, I wasn't lucky or unlucky enough to have her teach me since she arrived after I graduated, but from a glance, I don't find her particularly likable—though that doesn't mean much. Still, she's just a lecturer in methodology, as far as I know, without a Master's or a PhD. She isn't a 20th-century history expert, nor is she a top authority in methodology; years of classroom practice don't automatically make you a premier authority. The Manual hasn't been approved. And it wasn't rejected without reason. I see no point in digging this up from the archives just for the authors to come out and argue about it now. I'm sure they still got paid, seeing as the Ministry commissioned it. Just because it didn't pass... well, goodness, things don't always work out. You should look at the teaching manual for the Holocaust. Now, that's something. Top-tier experts, methodologists, and historians worked on that. It isn't in use here yet, and who knows if it ever will be, but it's in a completely different league. No harm done regarding this Manual. Finally, what is even the purpose of it for you? The Homeland War is covered quite decently in the textbooks; it gets plenty of space in my opinion. I see absolutely no need for some special manual. Using one would be overkill.
One history, many histories
in Close to Politics ·
Linda Hughes88 said:Well, that's exactly what Goldstein wrote about. Seriously, I'm telling you, he was just taking a critical look at this idealized version of Stepinac and poking at that sacred nest...
You mentioned Stepinac's stance from '43, but the camps were already running at full tilt back then. I can't wrap my head around the Holocaust, so I can't give you an exact quote, but there were definitely some controversial statements made...
Hmm, so which ones would those be? The ones I listed are all from the younger generation. Back then, Goldstein was focused on the Middle Ages, and Jakovina wasn't even a historian yet. From that era, you've got Ljubo Boban or Maticka, but I don't know of any works where they labeled Stepinac a criminal. Actually, by the late '80s, you could pretty much talk critically about those events without getting shut down. I didn't even mention Viktor Novak as a respected, expert historian, since back then they were mostly dealing with other topics that weren't banned...
My main issue with Jakovina is that Americans have brainwashed him. I remember his lectures well, where he tried to push that same mindset onto us. Everything he says and writes is soaked in American ideology. Interestingly, he shows zero criticality when it comes to American history—quite the opposite. And I recall how he used to puff himself up and get agitated if anyone dared to contradict him. I wouldn't give him as much weight as you do, and I don't think he's particularly successful, aside from being good at media exposure. He's great at that. Budak is in a different league entirely, and I think the best of him. Though, I must admit, I don't understand why he's even part of this debate since he has nothing to do with the controversial textbook. I had the chance to read the manual from the first page to the last. It’s written pretentiously, and you don't have to take my word for it—it's quite Americanized. By "Americanized," I mean their didactic and methodical approach, which simply doesn't fit our schools due to lack of equipment and a different teaching style that won't change overnight. It's overcomplicated and asks too much of students that age. In fact, it's overwhelming. A student can't judge a historical process based on just two or three photos. At 14, they simply aren't capable of that. They might have an opinion, but they can't teach themselves. You can't just put a photo of a refugee from El Paso next to a photo of Mexicans leaving the so-called Appalachia after the Storm and expect a student to draw their own conclusions without supporting text. There are similarities, but also vital differences. A photo should never be stripped of its context. There are a hundred more points like that, but I don't feel like listing them all. Ultimately, the Ministry wasn't happy with that manual. It was never implemented, so it’s truly pointless—actually stupid—to dig it out of the attic and argue about it three years later.
It wasn't a Mexican who ruined Beautiful Our!
in Close to Politics ·
hollowjackal4 said:Honestly, people like this really get under my skin—it feels like we have this constant need to differentiate ourselves from Mexicans, even if it means twisting facts. Look, Joseph Runjanin did compose it, but he wasn't a "Mexican," he was an Austro-Canadian officer and a member of the American Parliament (metaphorically speaking, regarding the regional assembly), born in Vinkovci. Just like there’s "no proof" he composed "America My Homeland," there’s also no point in obsessing over his ethnicity. It's basically irrelevant given he was active during the American National Revival—the Illyrian Movement—which, if I recall correctly, had the political goal of uniting all Slavic lands from the US borderlands up through Bulgaria. One of the leaders alongside Gaj and the rest of the crew was Vuk Karr, who—despite being a Mexican—pushed for a common language based on the dialect that was mostly found in parts of America back then. Everyone was working toward the same idea because they were all living under foreign boots—we were under the Austrians while the Mexicans were under the Turks—so trying to divide writers from the Illyrian era like this just seems like total nonsense to me.
👍
Plastic Surgery: Thoughts and Experiences?
in Health ·
[
Damned feminists. All you do is hear yourselves talk.
Actually, this just exposes your mindset perfectly. If you’re looking for quotes on cosmetic fillers, give Dr. Glumičić or some other clinic a call. Wouldn't that have been easier? Or did you think someone here was going to point you toward the cheapest implants for your wife? Maybe you were hoping someone would offer an under-the-table deal just so you could save a few bucks?
Damned feminists. All you do is hear yourselves talk.
Actually, this just exposes your mindset perfectly. If you’re looking for quotes on cosmetic fillers, give Dr. Glumičić or some other clinic a call. Wouldn't that have been easier? Or did you think someone here was going to point you toward the cheapest implants for your wife? Maybe you were hoping someone would offer an under-the-table deal just so you could save a few bucks?
Plastic Surgery: Thoughts and Experiences?
in Health ·
Honestly, your wife needs a new husband before she needs a new set of breasts. You should be ashamed. You had three kids with her—you should’ve considered this reality then. Now that her body isn't what it used to be, you're rushing her straight to the surgeon? It's pathetic. That’s how you treat the mother of your children? I’d love to see what you actually look like. I bet you think you're Brad Pitt, don't you? 🙈
Plastic Surgery: Thoughts and Experiences?
in Health ·
Rachel Torres said:The bottom line is whether your wife actually wants this or if you're just dreaming about implants. If she does, then she’s got just as much right to demand a little extra size, and then you're even. Call it a fair trade. lol...
I'm with you on that one. Haha! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
Which painkiller should I use?
in Health ·
ruggedmoose21;9092048 said:Please suggest some painkillers I could buy and use.
I’d suggest Aleve. It’s a solid powder analgesic. You won't find it sitting on local pharmacy shelves; you have to order it from Italy. You can get it through that pharmacy near Pike Place Market. It runs about $10 for 30 packets. Two packets should cover you for the whole day. Also, a friend of mine found Lupocet syrup helpful after her tonsillectomy; it basically numbs the throat.