Posts by hollowmason64

Adam Collins4 said:Exactly...

The real issue is that everyone is just looking out for their own skin and their own little interests...

If someone actually brought a virus home because they felt they absolutely had to see some girl or hit up the grocery store—since, you know, there's better selection there and plenty of germs—then we’d really see what happens...

I was out on my bike today over at Mrežnica, checking out my favorite brewery and those waterfalls—those cascades—just sitting there thinking how nice it would be to sit down and have a glass of some perfectly chilled Škrlet... and remembering how I used to manage to pull that off from time to time this time last year...

But damn it, it's just not happening... and I'm sure as hell not going to play along...

Exactly, that's just how it is—there’s almost nothing left.
I honestly think about everything people have to endure in life when they're actually pushed to their limits. Here, though, it feels like all this drama is just because people are hitting a breaking point simply because they're back home.
Honestly, the people who complain most are the ones whining about going crazy at home with their kids because "the kids are bored." For crying out loud, entertain them yourself. Talk to them, play with them, read to them... It’s always the same thing. Everyone is constantly bellyaching about work hours or whatever else, claiming they "never have any time for family," but then the second they're actually stuck at home with that very same family, they act like they're losing their minds.

Joshua Gray75 said:I find myself wondering—and I’d love to hear what the rest of you think on this—what exactly drives people to pull the trigger? It isn't just about the impulse... there seems to be something deeper, something more complex behind that split-second decision to resort to violence. Why does it happen?
Well, why don't you just go ahead and ask them... there are plenty of comments right there in the article—I read through them myself, after all—so just ask them why they’re losing it...
I was reading through some reports regarding the upcoming June developments—specifically those concerning the priority shifts within the local government—and it really makes you wonder about the direction we're heading... There seems to be a significant push from the administration to reorganize certain regional priorities, much like how federal agencies might shift focus during a transition period. It’s one of those situations where the bureaucracy moves at its own pace, regardless of what the public actually needs on the ground. You see these high-level discussions in Washington, D.C., and they trickle down until they hit the local county level, often losing all their original intent along the way. It feels a bit like watching a slow-motion collision between policy and reality. One moment everything is supposedly under control, and the next, the entire framework is being restructured under the guise of "optimization." It’s quite a delicate dance, isn't it? One can only hope that the actual impact on everyday citizens isn't as disruptive as the paperwork suggests... though, based on past experience, optimism might be a bit misplaced.

But actually, what I really wanted to write was this: that whole statement about a "quarantine until June"—or however Capak phrased it—feels to me like nothing more than a series of "test balloons"...
Once the restrictions start to ease up—likely well before the middle of May—and Capak becomes the hero we’ll all be cheering for from our balconies...
We would be grateful.🙏

I've seen this play out more times than I can count—but clearly, it still works. It’s that classic "carrot and stick" approach... effective, if nothing else.
Most times, a quick fix just isn't enough to spark lasting change in people—not when you're trying to cultivate genuinely positive attitudes toward their work, their daily routines... or really anything else, for that matter.
But for some reason—it seems to have left its mark on our national mentality...
But then again, I’m certainly no sociologist... let them deal with that side of things.

I really, truly hope you're right about this. But honestly, looking at what's happening right in front of me every single day, I can't help but worry that they might actually be correct.
I mean, honestly, folks, I think it should have been pretty obvious from the get-go when the Government immediately decided to provide pay for workers who aren't going to be working for at least three months—with the option to extend that, too. What were people thinking? Did they suddenly assume the government was just going to start throwing money around like they've got endless pockets?

casualgardener3 said:Look, most people are freaking out because they're terrified for their lives, not because they're comfortable. If things stay this way until June, we're looking at a total catastrophe.

So yeah, while I have massive respect for the healthcare worker who absolutely lost her cool there, she still shouldn't have to worry about her job security.

I'm not a medical professional—thank God, because it sounds like they’ve got it even worse than the rest of us—but my work is tied closely to transportation and everything involved in logistics, including all the cross-border stuff.
Every single semi-truck rolling into the country to restock the shelves passes right by my place. Every one of those drivers is coming from out of state, and honestly, any one of them could be carrying the virus. But here’s the thing—they do this job, and I do this job, just so you can have the luxury of picking out specific brands of ground beef or whatever other junk you feel like buying. We keep things moving so you can walk down an aisle and hand-pick exactly which chicken breast you want, yet people still act like staying home is some impossible task.
None of you have any clue how much of a grind it is for people doing jobs like this, but jbte, you just have to try and keep things as normal as possible.
Those poor drivers are on the road for days on end, practically forbidden from even stepping out of their cabs, and they haven't seen their families in ages—who knows how much longer it'll be. They’re essentially living through something reminiscent of the early '90s, except nobody is shooting at them. But still, nobody gives them credit and nobody seems truly grateful for what they're doing.
What do you think? Would they swap places with those who are about to "snap"?
I'm pretty sure they'd make the switch in a heartbeat.

I get that people are scared for their livelihoods, but most people actually have some kind of safety net, even if it's just the bare minimum.
Honestly, nobody is going to starve, because at the very least, we are a really empathetic nation and someone will always find food for someone in need. Everything else can just wait.
Let's just get through this.

Sandra Thomas39 said:Hey there.
Got a bit of a random question for the group.
We’re currently hanging out at our weekend spot up in the Appalachians while everything back home is shut down for the weekend.
The kids are having an absolute blast, and honestly, we’ve got total privacy—it feels like we own this whole mountain...
I’m not even itching to get back to the city since my job is fully remote, but my wife’s salon is locked up tight until Monday.
Of course, we aren't officially registered as being at this location.
So, here's the real kicker: do we actually have to head back to the city right now?

You don't really have to, but you can always check in through the e-visitor system just so they know you've arrived.

George Murphy12 said:Yeah, exactly—meat, chicken, frozen stuff... they just don't have it. 😁

I don't obsess over every cent or every sale, and honestly, considering gas prices are $4.00 it's better to just head out and buy what you need. Between the small grocery list and the price of produce, the gas cost pays for itself pretty damn fast because you actually have options. You don't have to settle for whatever random crap is on the shelf just because it's there.
Bottom line: in a big city, you've got choices. In a tiny rural town? You don't. More people means a higher chance of catching something...

I honestly feel like in small towns like this, people could just work out a little agreement. It wouldn't be hard to arrange for everyone to get a pass once a month just to handle those big, massive shopping trips. For all the everyday little things, the local corner stores are perfectly fine.
I mean, there's really no need to make a trip to the next town over just to go shopping every single week. It feels like a bit much.
At the end of the day, you've got all these small family farms scattered all over the country. If you look through those local Facebook groups, they’ll offer you just about anything living—I'm talking everything from fresh produce right down to little chicks.
Honestly, you might be better off just ordering from one of those local guys. They’ve already got all the passes sorted out, so they can handle the delivery without any hassle.

Joseph Taylor11 said:Getting to the center of town - 3.7 miles
Driving to the next city over - 1.6 miles
Heading to the nearest major metro area - 6.2 miles.

And right now, you're definitely in the minority here—so let's skip the demagoguery.
Go check out the news sites where they published that interview with Capak—he mentioned that things MIGHT start easing up by early June—and just look at the comments. People are already losing their minds.
I'm genuinely curious what's going to happen, say, at the beginning of May?

Are people actually losing it? Why on earth are wealthy people resorting to violence? Is it because they don't have to lift a finger, just sitting around at home all day staring at the TV or playing video games? It’s honestly a tragedy. Just imagine what kind of chaos would break out if things really went south.
What @Alfie was getting at—just put more politely—is that they’re nothing but a bunch of spoiled brats.
I already mentioned this on another thread, but honestly, it feels like nobody really gets what it’s actually like working under these conditions. Imagine being wrapped up in a mask and rubber gloves for eight hours straight, constantly spraying yourself down with different types of alcohol just to survive. You can't even take a sip of water from a bottle without being paranoid; if you touch that damn plastic bottle with hands that haven't been properly disinfected, and there's a virus on it, it’s going to sit on that surface for three days. It's just a matter of time before you accidentally ingest it. Then there's the mental toll—you find yourself looking at everyone else as a potential carrier. You start getting scared to even touch your own head because you lose track of whether you actually sanitized your hands or not, and then you end up just dousing yourself in more alcohol anyway. Jbte, if they tried to give me a breathalyzer test at work, I’d probably blow a massive number just from breathing in all those alcohol fumes.
It’s like, once you finally step through your own front door, you just want to strip everything off. All that weight, all those layers—you just shed it all the second you're home.
You end up wasting an entire free day just standing in line at the checkout counters.
But honestly, the biggest issue is whether you actually have enough variety at the grocery store to make things bearable. It’s tough because you can't even get together with your friends for a backyard BBQ or grab a few drinks to blow off steam, and that's when people really start to crack.
It’s just selfish, self-imposed isolation.
"Out there," there's a massive group of people working their tails off just to keep the system barely functioning. They're paying a hell of a price with their mental health, praying to God this all wraps up as soon as possible. For everyone else, the struggle is being stuck inside waiting for it to end, fearing they might lose it first.
To anyone claiming they’re about to "snap"—I’d love to see you try working under these conditions. I'd ask you exactly how long it would take before you started whining to be locked back inside your house.
Don't you feel any shame?

briskjackal5 said:There’s only one hearing left on the docket today.
Just the one.

https://www.telegram.us/politics-crisis-commission/
So, because of the pandemic, the Administrative Court pushed back every single hearing scheduled for tomorrow—except, get this, Plenković's appeal regarding the Commission's decision.

And the ruling.

http://us.n1info.com/News/a492481...prime-minister.html
The Administrative Court actually overturned the Commission's other decision against the Prime Minister too.

Honestly, it's just gross.👎 👎 👎

I mean, the way the Republican Party is just tearing down our institutions and basic civility here in America... it's just getting worse and worse.😢

-briskjackal5

And what did I say just ten days ago? These thieves behind all this nonsense are going to destroy this entire country.

Jason Fisher59 said:Quoting:

Joe Biden's local county official and his son, who happens to be the head of the local FEMA office, gathered with a few other folks at their usual hangout spot in Mobile this past Saturday. Naturally, the police showed up and broke the whole thing up.

The absolute clowns from the Republican Party are out in full force.😁

If only they’d just disappear... maybe some higher power will step in and liberate us, just enough to wipe them out once and for all.

Eric Ortiz3 said:🤦 Losers have every right to be angry.
Thank God the actual members are actually thinking for themselves and living in the 21st century.

It really doesn't matter who comes out on top in the Republican Party—they're all just bottom-of-the-barrel types. Honest folks don't stand a chance among that crowd.

Charles Fox10 said:Over the last few days, both of these headquarters have been acting incredibly irresponsible with all the handshaking and hugging. You really have to wonder what’s going through their heads.

They're just a bunch of idiots... honestly. And it's not like that's some new realization either.

urbanrider8 said:They were all making such a big deal during the previews about how there would be questions regarding the cooperation with Bandić, but then she ended up not even bringing it up at the end

Honestly, Gregoret just isn't cut out for hosting debates or doing interviews. She’s great at deep-dive reporting and analysis, sure, but when it comes to managing a live discussion... 🤦

Brenda Taylor13 said:How can you say that?! He was a step ahead the whole damn time! Plenković was stuck constantly playing defense and trying to justify himself, but he was doing it so clumsily. Kovač was throwing out legitimate, logical questions that this guy just couldn't answer. Everything Kovač asked hit the nail on the head—from dodging responsibility for failures, to that coalition with the Democratic Party, to pushing left-wing policies, shifting left, drifting toward the Democratic Party, and all that nonsense... Plenković had zero answers; he just kept whining about how Kovač was "going low" or "using cheap shots," which is basically what people say when they don't have an actual answer. Personally, I was expecting Plenković to tear him apart, but I got the exact opposite. Kovač totally won the debate—he was direct, precise, and hit exactly where it hurt.

By the way, it's pretty interesting how when Plenković was asked point-blank if he could promise his Republican Party members that they wouldn't form a coalition with the Democratic Party, he dodged it completely. Instead of giving a straight answer, he just started dancing around, claiming "the first criteria will be global in scope, and then others if they serve the interests of America"...

When you're debating guys like Plenković, you really can't win for one very simple reason—the guy is the living embodiment of a bureaucrat. He never gives a direct answer to a direct question (unless he’s reading off a script prepared by some incompetent staffer who can barely memorize a sentence), he just talks about whatever he wants. You ask him about the water supply, and he starts explaining why it hasn't been a dry year so there should be plenty of bourbon to go around.
I honestly lose my mind with people like that. They're such slippery characters, but on the other hand, you can never truly pin them down because you never get a clear response.
Like I told you, Kovač actually held his own and was clearly well-prepared. Sure, he’s a bit of a social misfit (that's not an insult), but when you're dealing with someone as greasy as Plenković who just slides away from everything... he squeezed out as much as he possibly could.
Though, to be fair, he came off looking pretty hypocritical regarding that Istanbul bill too. He acts like he's against it now, but just a few years ago, he was the one on camera lecturing everyone else about why they needed to pass it immediately.

At the end of the day, though, none of this really matters. The party members don't give a damn about ideology or core values. All they care about is whether the guy at the top lets them stick their dirty hands into the federal treasury and state assets.
All this talk about spikes and traditional values and whatever else isn't meant for the semi-literate crowd that watches that trash on Vinkovci TV—the stuff DJTcro occasionally posts links to here—who happen to be their entire voting base.
And that's the cold, hard truth.

Carol Newman2 said:If you think Plenković is being rude, just look at what Kovač is pulling.

From what I could see, Kovač started off acting pretty decent regarding the schedule, but once he realized this guy wasn't going to back down or shut up—and saw that Gregoret was actually letting him speak—he just started playing along with the rhythm of the room.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Kovač absolutely tore him apart. He kept throwing these pointed questions his way, but instead of just giving a straight answer, he just started dodging and playing word games—you know how it is. It was the same old story: that whole messy alliance with the Democratic Party, the deal with those leftovers from the old coalition, the ratification of that Istanbul treaty, even the fact that he didn't join the Republican Party until 2011. And don't even get me started on him writing those glowing tributes to Edvard Kardelj back in '89! He refuses to take any responsibility for losing the presidential and European elections—even though he keeps trying to convince himself and everyone else that the Republican Party actually won them. He just shifts the blame onto everyone else except himself, ignores his plummeting approval ratings, and laughs off how Bernardica outsmarted him in the last two election cycles. Then there’s the ridiculous move of putting total nobodies on the list for the European elections. And the kicker? When asked point-blank if he’s a Mason, he hesitated for like ten full seconds before answering. That’s suspicious! If you aren't, you say "No" immediately—you don't pause and hope the questioner will just let it slide... but no, he waited until Kovač practically forced the answer out of him. Too little, too late.

Look, Kovač had every single argument lined up perfectly, but honestly? It probably won't even matter tomorrow. The party machine will just spin its wheels and do its thing regardless.

To be fair, calling him a far-left extremist was actually pretty spot on. I mean, that's just who he is. Maybe "extremist" is a bit much—that might be an exaggeration—but he is definitely leaning hard into those left-wing views.

Yeah, maybe, 🤣
I mean, honestly, I don't really care who ends up running the show at some corrupt organization because, at the end of the day, you always get the same bottom-feeders left in their wake. But saying Kovač crushed him is just plain silly.
He held his own quite well—surprisingly well, if I'm being honest—and he even landed a solid point with a sharp remark and a question, but "crushed"? Not really.

Robin Jones2 said:It seems to me that Kovač fits the Republican Party much more naturally; there’s an authenticity there. The Republican Party has always had a soft spot for leaders from places like rural Nebraska.

Half of them can't even wrap their heads around Plenković because he doesn't really fit their social circle, but they tolerate him simply because he delivered both victories and funding. They will endure him until the next election cycle, but if they lose, Plenković will be out on his ear immediately.

It was the same old story, just a bit of a mess. It’s not about the President’s character or his worldview; it’s more about that brainwashed mentality you see with the Republican Party crowd. As long as things are going well and they're winning, they’ll let him do whatever he wants—they'd probably sit there and smile while he insulted them to their faces, just to stay in his good graces. But the second he stops giving them access to the taxpayer-funded piggy bank, they'll all start scrambling and sucking up to the opposition.
All this talk about whether the Republican Party leans one way or the other is just pure nonsense.
The Republican Party isn't some cohesive group with shared principles or deep convictions. It's just a collection of crooks and opportunists who care about one thing and one thing only: staying in power so they can keep their hands in our pockets.

Jonathan Phillips4 said:Plenković is being completely out of line, constantly cutting Kovač off mid-sentence.

Yeah, he's being incredibly rude and arrogant.

Calling this a "debate" is honestly a stretch. A better word for what we just watched would be "remote-control poking."

Mark Hughes36 said:Man, just go jump off a bridge... 🤦

Man, you are an accomplice to this country's decay. You are one of those people enabling the Republican Party—which hasn't met basic democratic or civilized standards—to stay in power for nearly 30 years. Not only have you fueled the nationalist rhetoric that allows them to behave this way, but by pushing that agenda, you ensure America fails to establish a functional democracy and market economy, leaving us lagging behind everyone else. And yet, you actually think this nationalist path is the solution. 🤦

Man, you are one of the undertakers of America... 🤦

Don't get so worked up over it. 🤣
You're dealing with one of those people who somehow thinks they've been appointed to judge everyone else—deciding who qualifies as a good person and who doesn't, or what people should or shouldn't be allowed to do. They act like they hold some higher moral ground, usually looking up to fossils like Glasnović, who basically lived off two different pensions by playing the patriot card, or that slippery guy Škoro, who never actually gave anything to the Republican Party and just happened to be standing in the right place at the right time.
Honestly, you just have to laugh at people like that.
Based on how they write, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a huge fan of Sun Tzu or part of that crowd back in 2015 that spent their nights dreaming about getting a supermajority... though I doubt this person complaining about someone taking power would actually know what that looks like. 🤣

Lisa Perez50 said:This whole "inside the Fox News evening news" segment is a joke. They really should have just slotted in a solid 60-minute special right after the main broadcast, maybe from 7:15 to 8:15 PM. Half an hour isn't nearly enough time to actually say anything intelligent. Plus, they don't even have sports on right now—it's just endless COVID updates. A longer slot would have fit perfectly into the schedule.

Because, let's be real, would we actually hear anything intelligent from them if they had a full hour?

darkhawk30 said:You really think they won't jump ship to another equally profitable party the second things get shaky?
People used to believe that once the old guard was gone, everything would be pure as honey. Instead, we're drowning in it.

It’s tough. I honestly don't think we'll ever see another criminal organization quite like this one.
The whole point of holding them accountable is to actually throw them in jail and strip away everything they swindled from the public.

I can't tell you how many people actually believed life would be perfect once we broke away from the old guard, though I suppose there were plenty of optimists—there's always a crowd of dreamers out there. At the end of the day, that old system never truly vanished; it just rebranded itself under a different name.

On the flip side, all that panic over the virus basically acted like a smoke screen for them. It allowed all sorts of shady business and questionable court rulings to slip right under the radar. For instance, an administrative court just ruled that the oversight commission didn't actually have the authority to question the Republican Party leader's close ties when it comes to making appointments. Then you have the Supreme Court, which just handed down a reduced sentence to a Republican official today—even though he funneled $120,000 into his wife’s company. By cutting that penalty, they’re essentially making sure the official stays in power.

Honestly, who knows what other even bigger messes are being swept under the rug? They’re banking on the fact that everyone is too distracted to notice what they're doing now.
I'll say it again—as long as this one party keeps running things without any real accountability, nothing is ever going to change in this country.

I honestly don't get how anyone here can still expect any kind of real movement from the Republican Party.
The government and the party leadership were essentially the same people twelve years ago, telling reporters there was absolutely no crisis happening. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was already deep in the trenches, actually fighting the recession and taking real steps to fix things, while this group of clowns just stood in front of the cameras smirking and acting like nothing was wrong. They were basically just laughing off the whole situation.

I truly can't wrap my head around how someone could look at this crowd of incompetent idiots and expect anything positive to come out of it.
It feels like we're completely on our own at this point—just a matter of who manages to scrape by.

Adam Collins4 said:Not exactly...

Growth was pretty much steady during the George W. Bush era too...

It wouldn't work.
Here's the data breakdown

Amy Nguyen18 said:Calling things unoriginal and exhausting, then following up with four paragraphs? If I had actually written something original and effortless, you probably would have responded with a whole book. Hahaha.

But let's get back to the point. We're trailing behind Romania, and Bulgaria is catching up because of the Democrats who have been running the show for ages. Since 2000, practically, with the sole exception of that one high-performing administration where the economy actually breathed for a second, it's been the same story.

Just wait until we finally swap out the Democrats after twenty years; you'll see how the country wakes up. We don't need a miracle, just to replicate that one successful term and actually follow through on those policies for four years straight.

Just a little bit of trivia for you—the biggest economic boom in our history actually happened under the Ivica Račan administration.
I know this isn't exactly your cup of tea, and you probably don't have the bandwidth to dive into it right now, but... those old-school Democrats were actually quite successful at what they did. 😁

Adam Collins4 said:Sure, anyone can ask for whatever they want... the catch is the legal framework...

And again, they're just looking out for themselves—they want something they simply cannot have through natural means... at all.

There is absolutely no way to know that for sure...😉

You've got your wires crossed here... first off, I never claimed my lifestyle was a guarantee for anything...

Second—and this is important—couples dealing with infertility are facing a medical condition. Now, if I wanted to play your game, I could twist the narrative and start linking homosexuality to illness...😉

So, using sick hetero couples as an argument against a gay population that wants to have kids is just a complete miss...

Once again, you're just swapping arguments and throwing out fallacies...

It is not the same thing when you actually HAD a mother versus when you never had one in your life... and it's certainly different when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

And here we go again—it’s always about the system, the system, the system... look, you can't just point to some systemic glitch or one person's individual failings and try to use that as a justification for gay couples and their adoption rights...

What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.

Adam Collins4 said:In my view, that's your first flawed premise right there...

Because if the system were actually functioning properly, you wouldn't have these "broken" kids in the first place... instead, the system would be doing its job through its employees to ensure kids develop normally—not like the example you gave...

Or mine—where a kid nearly three years old is practically screaming unless every single lightbulb in the house is turned on when it's dark... one was a situation you could actually work toward improving, while the other was an absolute nightmare until we finally sorted things out...

And honestly, the best part is that the fear wasn't caused by the other kids—it was quite literally the fault of the system itself...

The issue is that they don't share the same lifestyle, the same values, or even the same worldview... or any kind of shared perspective on life...

You were recently talking about people only looking out for their own interests...

And frankly, the only adoptive parents I see who are purely looking out for themselves are gay couples... mostly because it's the only way they can have kids...

And again, it comes back to the system being the problem...

The answer isn't to hand children over to just anyone or letting just anyone have them... it's about the system reacting promptly and effectively...

No, their life isn't "equal" to mine... okay, maybe "equal" isn't even the right word here...

But if our lives were truly identical, we could have children... but we can't...

So, there's no parallel to be drawn...

I can do everything they can, but they can't do everything I can...

And what about a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

P.S. I wasn't talking specifically about this one couple...

I don't know, somehow the loudest outrage seems to be focused on the gay couple...

If this weren't a carnival, I'd condemn it...

Since it *is* a carnival, it passes as satire—just like how person's "performances" pass as art, I guess...

Just apply the same standard to everyone... nothing more than that...

Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

Larry Walker24 said:THE MOMENT THE COMMUNISTS REALIZED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS GOING TO WIN. A witness tells Time Magazine: just a few days before the election, Ivica Račan turned down an offer from four US Army generals at the Little Cube

The '90 elections were peaceful solely because of Bill Clinton.

Brandon Chavez28 said:The Republican Party crowd needs to wake up and realize that casting a vote for Biden is essentially handing a win to Vrdoljak and Pupovac. They can go ahead and make their choice, I suppose...

I honestly feel a bit bad for you lately. You guys keep trying so hard, but nothing is clicking..
No, John McCain isn't going to win, just accept it. Even those of us with zero ties to the Republican Party can see that clearly.

Robin Jones2 said:In my view, it should be standard practice today for everyone to be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.

That includes the adoption and fostering of children who are legally eligible for such care.

Same-sex couples and communities, as well as individuals, ought to be treated identically to heterosexual couples and individuals—you are either eligible to foster or adopt, or you aren't. Period.

If you are a decent citizen, financially stable enough to provide for a child, and not a psychopath, an abuser, a criminal, or a deviant, then you should have the same opportunities to adopt children who are waiting for someone to take them in and give them a better life than the one they currently have in the system.

That is precisely what these two experienced—they were rejected by the system solely because they are homosexual, even after it was established that they meet every other requirement for fostering or adoption.

It would only be satire if one of the burned homosexuals resembled Stazić or some other political or public figure.

When they involve a child—clearly alluding to the controversy surrounding adoption and fostering by same-sex partners—it ceases to be satire; it becomes incredibly tasteless and borders on being revolting.

One of those two men in that couple put it perfectly—has anyone stopped to think about how children feel having parents or foster caregivers like that? How does a kid feel when they see a bunch of hillbillies and primitives thinking it's funny to burn them and their family?
And on top of all that, there’s still a decent number of idiots who find it hilarious.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Yeah, I suppose from that perspective, pointing the finger at Kovač and Stier regarding clientelism is pretty much a swing and a miss. Their members want exactly that—an easy life without doing any actual work and landing themselves the best possible government gigs. On the flip side, the leadership is just as hypocritical because they wouldn't be half as successful without that whole patronage system anyway... It’s probably a party that should just be shut down entirely; maybe then this country would actually stand a chance...

That’s what I keep saying—until that criminal organization is shut down, there is no hope for this country.
Honestly, until the bottom-feeders who gave them votes back in 2011 die off, we're stuck. And then you realize that very same crowd is raising more people with that exact same mindset... and well, it is what it is.

ruggeddrifter85 said:I don't have any direct experience myself, but I’ve watched two close friends go through the whole adoption process firsthand.
Once they finished all the assessments, they adopted their kids almost immediately.
It wasn't because they were picking and choosing, though.
The kids were over 8 years old.
They had behavioral issues.
On top of that, they were pretty far behind academically.
According to the social worker, these were the kind of kids that hardly anyone wanted to take in.
My friends worked their tails off until they finally saw real progress in how the kids behaved and learned.
It was an exhausting, years-long journey to get things back on track, even though the kids—by their own choice—started calling them Mom and Dad right from the start.
They were just deeply unhappy kids who desperately needed to belong somewhere.
One of my friends adopted a boy who still has a younger brother and an older sister.
After two failed attempts where people tried to adopt all three siblings at once (which was the condition), families actually ended up returning them to the foster care system because the kids fought so hard for affection that it became overwhelming.
Eventually, the agency decided it was best to split them up.
They were adopted into three different families, and even though those families aren't related, they all hang out now just to support the kids. Today, the siblings act like brothers, even if they live in different homes.
You really need an incredible amount of love, grit, and pure dedication to help a child heal from so much trauma and find happiness.

Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

driftingtinker said:I didn't think it was possible for someone to be more full of themselves than Biden, but honestly, Smith is giving him a run for his money.

I can't wait for the election results to roll in and see that stupid look on his face when he finally realizes he totally folded.🙂

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Adam Collins4 said:It’s not about being blind to your own shortcomings—it’s about how incredibly sluggish this whole system is and the deep-seated issues baked right into its foundation.

It’s not just about adoption and foster care, either—this goes much deeper than that. It’s true across every single layer of the bureaucracy that is supposed to actually serve the citizens of this country...

But look, the answer isn't just throwing kids at the first person who happens to wander by...

Someone put it pretty well—first we focus on getting everyone settled in at home, but then what? What comes after that?

Especially when you consider that this gay couple actually tried to seize control of everything—and then, after getting shut down, they went ahead and sued the USA, all while the court case is still dragging on indefinitely...

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... and honestly, I don't have anything against religious folks or anyone else who doesn't see eye to eye with me either.

It’s fine until they start trying to sell me on the idea that their lifestyle, their opinions, and their entire worldview is the only "correct" way to live—once they hit that point, we’ve got a serious problem on our hands.

My involvement in this whole thing started out pretty simple—I just asked why everyone loses their minds when someone burns effigies at a parade, claiming it’s "offensive," yet they call it satire. But then you see the exact same people who are acting all outraged by the bonfire suddenly jumping to defend stuff like Frljić’s antics, or those insane stories about Jesus violating a Muslim woman, or even pulling a flag out of a woman's anatomy... and they claim *that's* culture. It's a joke.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

Adam Collins4 said:1. I'm not a believer, I'm an atheist.

2. Two out of my five kids were adopted, so save your half-witted lectures, much like this one, for someone else...

And yeah, as long as there's even one last heterosexual couple left wanting to foster or adopt, homosexuals aren't going to be getting any kids handed to them...

If they want kids, they should try loving someone of the opposite sex... I hear that's a pretty damn good way to have children...

But then again, women say that all the time, so maybe it's not true...

When I mentioned believers, I wasn't talking about you personally. I was referring to those various organizations and individuals who constantly parade their Christianity around, acting like everything happens because "it's God's will." Honestly, I find it hard to believe that God actually wants any child to grow up in a foster home without parents. It feels like they just love pinning all sorts of things on Him to justify whatever they want.
I’ve gotta say, I’m totally with you on this one. You have my full support.

I’ve been chewing on this idea lately—the thought that maybe heterosexual couples should be given some kind of priority. But then I hit a wall, because if we go down that road, aren't we just stepping on the toes of single people? It feels like a slippery slope. Think about it: if we start prioritizing certain types of unions, does that imply that single parents are somehow less capable of raising their biological children? Or that kids growing up in a two-parent household are automatically going to be happier? Honestly, they aren't. I've seen enough to know that isn't always the case. You see stories pop up all the time about the absolute nightmares kids endure within what society calls those "ideal" traditional families. It’s definitely not as simple as it looks on paper.

Honestly, the idea that pairing up with someone of the opposite sex is some kind of guaranteed way to have a baby is just pure nonsense. It’s not like there's any certainty you'll actually be able to conceive just because you fit that mold. That's exactly why you see so many heterosexual couples looking into adoption—because, at the end of the day, they can't have biological children of their own.
Maybe you should try doing a little more reading or catching a few news segments lately. It’s worth listening to what the adults who actually grew up in the foster care system have to say about their experiences today. I saw one woman being interviewed recently, and she said something that really stuck with me. She mentioned that if she could have chosen her own path leaving the system, she wouldn't have just left with two guys—she would have happily taken an octopus and a man along with her, just if it meant finally having a place to call her own. It really puts things into perspective when you hear how much people crave that sense of stability.

Honestly, you guys are really starting to frustrate me. It feels like everyone is just looking out for their own interests and focusing on what makes them feel comfortable, rather than actually thinking about what’s best for these kids. If we really sat down and thought about this, wouldn't it be better for them to stay in the foster system until they turn 18 and then head out into the world? Or better yet, find their way into a loving same-sex household where parents will actually cherish them, raise them right, and provide some real stability. At the end of the day, those kids just need to know they have someone in their corner who truly cares about them.

Brenda Taylor13 said:And that’s it. I’ve said my piece on the whole thing, and frankly, I'm done talking about it.

Look, I know where I stand on this one—I’m clearly all for letting same-sex couples adopt children, but honestly? I am just not on board with that.

That’s just how democracy works, I guess—the people with the most votes call the shots, and that’s the end of it. Simple as that.

Honestly, there are way more couples out there dying to adopt kids than there actually are children sitting in foster care. It’s crazy when you think about it! But what stops them? It’s that damn bureaucracy—just this slow, clunky, totally useless red tape that seems designed specifically to make the whole adoption process as complicated and painful as possible. It’s like they’re actively trying to trip people up at every turn.

Look, if they just simplified the whole damn process, we’d see way more people actually adopting—it’s that simple! It's all about cutting through the red tape, honestly.

I’m right there with you on this—we absolutely need to simplify the whole process. Honestly, the current rule is completely backwards. The idea that a parent can just make one phone call every three months to check in on a kid, and suddenly that's enough to block an adoption, is totally broken. I wouldn't go as far as calling it idiotic, though it certainly feels that way sometimes.
The real issue here is that because of this kind of stupidity, so many kids have already aged out of being "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh, I know, but that’s just the reality of the system. A former classmate of mine actually works within the foster care network, and she’s told me firsthand that everyone is looking to adopt infants or, at most, kids who haven't hit preschool age yet.
I've been thinking about this lately, and honestly, why aren't we just placing these kids with people who actually want to give them a real home? It shouldn't matter if it's a single parent or a gay couple looking to adopt. At the end of the day, having a family that genuinely wants you is so much better than growing up in the foster care system. There’s just no substitute for a real home environment.
It honestly doesn't matter if Džoni, Alfijo, or some guy named Perry happens to like the idea or not. What actually matters is making sure those kids aren't stuck in a group home. I think you’d have to agree with me that keeping children out of state care is way more important than whether or not an idea sits well with someone.