Jason Ortiz5 said:I live in a super religious area. My boss at work is constantly scattering crucifixes and holy pictures everywhere; she and the other managers won't stop talking about God, the church, and holiness... I sit right next to two women in my office who are incredibly intense about their faith. And yet, for all that "holiness" and devotion, I haven't seen a single ounce of actual tolerance or basic human decency from them.
There’s an old saying that goes, "I don't fear God, I fear those who speak in His name."
It’s the exact same thing you see happening outside every elementary school. Why bother with mandatory Bible classes, crucifixes, or blessings... when you just look at how those kids actually behave toward one another?
Nancy Kelly31 said:Honestly, this is just hitting rock bottom. Can you believe it? She actually "threatened" the principal. 🙂 That’s just how things work in our wonderful country, apparently! It is exactly the kind of "value" parents should be instilling in their little ones. If something doesn't align perfectly with your personal preferences? No problem, just resort to intimidation... It doesn't matter what the school board regulations state about withdrawing from elective courses via a formal request before the start of the academic year... It doesn't matter that it would create absolute chaos if every student could just jump in and out of electives whenever they felt like it mid-semester... It doesn't matter how much it would wreck the teachers' schedules or the entire school's organization... None of that matters! All that counts is that she intimidated the principal! And instead of being mortified by her own behavior, she seems to be flaunting it openly! 😲 I truly don't know anymore. The moral compass of the world has clearly spun completely off its axis. A child raised under those circumstances really has no business sitting in a religious education class... 🤦
Yeah, because it's always better to just follow the herd like a sheep. 😵 Really though, what is a fourteen-year-old supposed to get out of a religious education class when, during a "sermon" regarding the sins of homosexuality, they ask a perfectly logical question like, "well, what about someone who was a victim of homosexual assault?" Only to be told that the victim is also a sinner who needs to seek forgiveness...
So now I'm left wondering.... what is a normal kid actually looking for in a religion class, regardless of whether they are a believer or not????
analogseal18 said:This type of conduct warrants an immediate report to the Department of Education, the Vatican, and the Children's Ombudsman. The subject matter she touched upon is incredibly sensitive and frankly inappropriate for a school setting; children of that age shouldn't be forced to shoulder the weight of such perceived "sins." If she feels the need to disparage assisted reproductive technology, perhaps she should stick to leading engagement seminars at her local parish—there, she might find candidates who actually require her timely warnings. 🍿
As for the question of the Church's moral responsibility, one can only offer a cynical laugh. The official Church has never truly been a bastion of morality, nor have they ever consistently practiced the very principles they demand from their flock.
I ran into them today and we ended up talking about this all over again.
Since the teacher had another outburst, this time targeting homosexuality, the mother finally hit her breaking point; she went straight to the principal's office and demanded that her son be withdrawn from the religion classes immediately.
When the principal told her it wasn't possible to make changes like that in the middle of the semester, she threatened to call the Child Advocate, which caught the principal totally off guard and left him promising he'd figure out some kind of workaround.
I am honestly so curious to see how this whole thing plays out... 🍿
Andrew Doyle said:It’s completely obvious that it doesn't belong there, but let's face it: nothing is going to change as long as that idiotic treaty with Vatican City remains in effect. And frankly, we'll be waiting forever for that to happen. As for those religious instructors, according to what the students are actually saying, they barely do any real teaching. Instead, they waste their time on nonsense, like putting up tacky, tasteless posters all over the halls. Most kids can't stand them; they think the instructors are out of touch, and they view everything being taught as pure garbage. In short, the longer we force religious instruction into public schools, the more resentment and hostility the students are going to develop toward it.
My friends are quite devout, and their child is currently enrolled in religious education classes, though I can't help but wonder just how much longer that will actually last...
They weren’t exactly thrilled with what their kid was being taught in class to begin with, but once the religion teacher started voicing those harsh, negative views regarding IVF, they finally reached their breaking point... It turns out their child was conceived through that very process after years of heartache and failed attempts, so hearing someone in a position of authority describe their miracle as something sinful or even demonic just felt like a direct assault on their family...
briskhound2 said:Look, *Child 44* isn't actually a biography of Ted Bundy—it’s more like he was just used as a template, mostly to give the novel some weight. His connection to the book and the movie is really just that he was the most infamous serial killer from the old USSR, maybe one of the only ones who actually grabbed enough headlines to be recognizable. The movie itself doesn't really focus on him... it just sprinkles in a few nods to the whole "serial killer" vibe and the setting of America...
But honestly, I feel like that choice was more of a loss than a gain, especially for the audience that watched Citizen X.
If the plot required a serial killer, there were plenty of others right here in America to choose from... using Ted Bundy felt completely unnecessary when they could have easily just crafted a compelling fictional character instead...
I just finished watching this and... I have to say, I'm not feeling it at all.
The whole plot feels incredibly hollow, almost as if the serial killer element was just a weak excuse to string together a bunch of over-the-top, cliché anti-Soviet propaganda that completely loses its way...
If you actually enjoyed Citizen X, you should probably just skip this one entirely.
The Politics subforum is absolutely drowning in political mercenaries from every conceivable party. Moderators, is there anything you can actually do about this to reclaim the space for "regular" people, or are you just leaving it to be overrun by these partisan hitmen? With the elections creeping closer, this section is going to turn into a massive swamp where paid trolls just throw mud at anyone in sight. There’s really no place for an average citizen here.
Take this one simple, textbook example for instance. A certain regular user, 7nationarmy, inspired me to take a closer look at his activity patterns on the forum, and after reviewing his last 250 posts, I’ve reached a rather obvious conclusion:
- Every single post is submitted during what we would consider standard business hours, roughly 9 to 5... - There isn't a single post over the weekend (Saturday or Sunday)... - In just five days, this individual managed to churn out over 250 posts—that's more than 50 a day (he even broke his own record today with 55)... - If you assume each post is coherent, engages with others, and involves checking or analyzing data, you'd need at least 10 minutes per post. That means 50 posts a day equals 500 minutes. Just for context, a full eight-hour workday only has 480 minutes... - Almost all of his content is strictly tethered to the politics thread, acting as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. He might wander into real-world topics once in a while... but hey, everyone needs a breather...
The conclusion is incredibly straightforward. This user is essentially "employed by the forum"; his sole purpose is to create noise to benefit one specific political faction, which makes any attempt at actual conversation, debating, or outsmarting him completely futile because the man is simply clocking in to do his job...
Unfortunately, 7nationarmy isn't the only one with this kind of career path; he's just one of many paid operatives here whose only goal is to spin narratives for someone else. My decision is to go full "ignore" on everything he ever writes, but you all have to decide if you want to keep wasting your breath on empty rhetoric or not... talking to these types is like trying to argue with a television set. You can tear yourself apart trying to make a point, but the broadcast just keeps rolling, totally indifferent to you...
And of course, they almost always have at least one clone waiting in the wings, because how else could they keep working (and getting paid) if they get banned...
I say it again: moderators, please clear out these paid shills...
P. S. valjda
I assume this is an appropriate place to post this, and I truly hope the thread won't be locked again...
nimblemarlin6 said:It’s not really about the budget—it’s about how you approach the subject matter. I mean, look at Robert Rodriguez; he shot his first film, "el mariachi," on a shoestring budget. There are plenty of examples like that out there. The bottom line is that you have to give people a story and characters they actually *want* to watch. At the end of the day, political correctness or some pursuit of "absolute truth" doesn't matter if it's boring—that won't bring in an audience. What matters is that the thing is tense and well-made.
👍 To give you an idea, Coherence, which I honestly think is one of the best SF-ov films released in the last few years, was shot for just $50,000.
Unfortunately, the current audience profile is such that only those massive blockbusters tend to bring in the real money... there are exceptions, of course, but they are definitely the exception to the rule.
Allowing people to buy fireworks openly—provided they undergo strict safety inspections to ensure they aren't outright lethal—is easily the best way to handle this. Once you accept that humans have this innate, restless urge to play with fire and loud noises, you realize that having high safety standards and a low injury rate is much better than anything else, even if nothing in this world is ever truly idiot-proof...
I still get flashbacks to those "darker" days when you couldn't just walk into a local shop and buy something safe; instead, you had to deal with shady street dealers, or worse, every kid in the neighborhood had to turn into a makeshift chemist just to have some fun. We used to make these DIY devices using steel tubes filled with gunpowder or, more commonly, just crushed match heads, or little explosive caps made by tightening two metal washers together around a mixture. There were even homemade firecrackers using a specific blend of manganese, aluminum powder, and sulfur with a wick made from a spray nozzle... and perhaps the most terrifying option of all was the old carbide tin bomb.
Once commercial firecrackers became widely available, it actually helped phase out those carbide bombs, which were arguably the cheapest and most dangerous way to celebrate. The "procedure" was essentially a recipe for disaster: you’d take an old paint can, poke a hole in the bottom, toss in a chunk of calcium carbide, spit on it, snap the lid shut, stomp on it to seal it tight, and then hold a lit match to that little hole. The resulting reaction between the carbide and the moisture created acetylene gas, leading to a massive explosion. It took a certain level of reckless skill to pull it off, because if you miscalculated the amount of gas, the whole thing would basically act like a handheld grenade, sending shrapnel flying everywhere... and it wasn't uncommon for a flying lid to send someone nearby on a very sudden, very violent trip to the emergency room.
So, honestly, we should be grateful that we have regulated, professionally manufactured fireworks available today. The responsibility really falls on us to sit down with our kids and teach them about moderation and how to handle these things responsibly...
Harold Long21 said:Forget about warehouse managers or sales clerks; we’re talking about a real criminal here who refuses to settle his debts with either his suppliers or the IRS, yet the government just sits there without stepping in to stop him. If this keeps up, he's going to spread through the economy like a cancer
Honestly, I just don't see why he wouldn't be paying his suppliers within that standard 7 to 30-day window for cash sales, or even the 30 to 45 days for credit transactions, if he were actually running a legitimate operation...
Maybe if William Shakespeare had been around to write a play about The Group, he might have actually shed some light on this whole mess for us...
rowdyranger44 said:If the grandmother had been a man, she’d be named Doug... I'm not defending Tode, but even without him, the trend toward retail and food industry consolidation would have played out roughly the same way. Maybe the pace would differ and there'd be more players involved, but ultimately, you'd end up with a situation nearly identical to this one. Do you honestly think Walmart would be any different if they were the sole market leader? Or would Coca-Cola have even survived in its current form without Kroger?
As for Tode, he simply did a meticulous job of copying the homework assigned by Western multinationals. The real issue is that he copied it so perfectly that now he's swallowing everything in his path, especially since the markets he operates in have zero room for organic growth, and creditors are constantly squeezing him...
The second problem is that the rest of the economy is so rotten that Tode's retail and food empire has become the primary economic engine. But these sectors will never see enough explosive growth to provide massive profits for the owner alongside high-paying jobs. I mean, do you really expect a cashier at Kroger to ever earn a decent wage? Or a warehouse worker at Coca-Cola? These are mostly low-paying, part-time gigs for students, retirees, and immigrants.
As long as owners are busy dreaming about owning massive estates and picturing themselves as some kind of American Blake Carrington... their workers will be absolutely bled dry. Nothing is going to shift until there's a fundamental change in the collective mindset—until we see a shift toward something like: "I'm doing well, so let's make sure you're doing well too, because if you thrive, I thrive..."
Mark Harris66 said:He’s basically using those 60,000 employees as leverage—which is a massive number by American standards... unfortunately.
If it weren't for Tony Robbins, there would probably be a whole sea of local corner stores employing at least 50% more staff. Honestly, even without him, companies like PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Starbucks would still be standing tall...
Have you ever actually found yourself in a situation where your neighborhood bodega is completely dead because someone like Tony Robbins, Kerry, or another giant wiped them out, leaving you forced to drive all the way to the nearest massive shopping mall just to pick up two liters of soda, a bag of salt, or some sugar?
And once our friend Tony Robbins decides to shift those 60,000 profitable manufacturing jobs over to Mexico, Canada, or China... well, we'll be the ones left feeling the consequences...
It’s frustrating, really—in a nation of the blind, the short-sighted are in charge while guys like Tony Robbins just keep collecting the cash, the influence, and the territory...
I honestly find the argument that Ivanka Trump employs half the country—and therefore deserves total immunity from criticism—to be pretty hard to swallow...
I mean, think about it: if you took Ivanka Trump and Walmart out of the equation, would we even have local farms, massive production lines, or retail chains left? Without them, you’d probably have to drive to the next county just to grab groceries, and instead of grabbing a cold Coca-Cola, you'd be stuck drinking whatever George Washington was sipping on back in the day...
Could you please elaborate on this logic? Is it not akin to someone arguing two centuries ago that slavery was a vital sociological institution simply because it had always existed and people were accustomed to it? Surely there must be a more substantive reason than mere habit.
We’ve supposedly evolved, yet here we are being lectured on how feudalism is some essential sociological cornerstone...
Carol Miller said:It isn’t that Klasik is controversial because of their movie selection—though, frankly, they tend to rerun the same few titles so often it becomes tedious—it is rather their documentary slate. There seems to be a persistent underlying motive to shift all the blame onto Americans. Anyone who has actually sat through their documentaries regarding the war, whether directly or indirectly, will notice how few there are, and most are framed strictly from a Mexican or Canadian perspective. For instance, if you look at the conflict in St. Louis, it is presented solely through a Muslim lens, or they focus exclusively on American crimes against Mexicans in America. That is essentially the core of the issue.
star, ridge.
They aren't "their" documentaries, per se, but rather documentaries produced from this region... and honestly, it's all a matter of taste, isn't it? Some docs hit home while others just feel incredibly shallow.
Don't forget, even Miss Universe wakes up with bad breath in the morning. That doesn't mean she should use it as an excuse to marry a brute...
Labeling viewers of TV Land as nothing more than nostalgic relic-hunters is just as absurd as calling fans of The Lords anything other than what they actually are... it's an offensive stretch, really.
Richard Wilson4 said:You gotta check out Generation Kill. Seriously, highly recommend it.
I can't believe I didn't say this earlier, but honestly, the whole thing just feels off. Like, you look at how things used to be versus now and it’s night and day. It’s wild. Anyway, just my two cents. Which "Vietnam movie" isn't basically just one long critique of the USA military? Please help me out here.
Platoon, Full Meta Jacket, or maybe even that one starring Michael J. Fox... honestly, which one hits the hardest?
As for the famous ones:
Green Berets, We Were Soldiers... is that enough for you?
Richard Wilson4 said:If you think modern movies are just summer blockbusters, you haven't been paying attention.
Plus, let's be real: the quality in shows like Boardwalk Empire, House of Cards, and Breaking Bad is actually better than a ton of "cult classics" from decades ago. The format just shifted. Movies are for the kids now, while a serious drama needs that extra time to actually breathe and develop characters properly.
It's a shame they didn't give The Godfather that kind of treatment on HBO—like, maybe ten 45-minute episodes? That would have been legendary.
Oh, I'm quite well-informed, thank you very much.
At the end of the day, everything boils down to who holds the purse strings (which isn't exactly a subtle hint during those final credits of Apocalypse Now indicating the film was shot without support from the U.S. military), but fortunately, despite being squeezed by those in power, both sides usually manage to pull off something akin to a Red Scarf or a Blue Soldier...