I get his logic... he thinks Trump is a joke, yet he isn't even particularly outraged by the Democrats—I’m not even sure he buys everything they do, but basically, he views them as the "good guys" regardless of how things shake out.
And then he gets annoyed when nobody is dropping dead from shock over the attacks on Trump.
But we aren't falling unconscious—just like we don't fall unconscious every time some nonsense breaks out on the political stage or in the news.
He’s spent more energy obsessing over Trump than actually looking at what’s going on in Zambia.
I just think people went overboard cheering for the Democrats this time around—everyone lost their compass because they're being asked to do something they were never asked to do before... wait for the verdict.
For God's sake, where would we be if we always waited for verdicts? Besides, since when has a court ruling ever stopped someone from trashing a person or a politician, no matter what the judge eventually decides?
We’ve been warned not to compare pet adoption to child adoption—and apparently, "inspecting" someone else's private anatomy is also strictly off-limits.
It is now forbidden to point out how the local shelter might check in twice to see how you’re handling a dog, yet our government remains completely clueless about the living conditions of adopted children from DR Congo.
Why should making that connection be prohibited?
The public scrutiny of genitalia is happening daily—in excruciating detail—from the owners themselves... and since that can cause legal headaches, people are just trying to figure out what’s in the paperwork and how the US views it. It’s a purely technical discussion.
What's the issue with that??
All in all, things are fine... at first, they kept policing the topic constantly, and the list of "forbidden" subjects has actually shrunk... because once the avalanche starts rolling, nothing stops it—not even the pathetic little panic attacks from the self-righteous left.
It’s been a few minutes now and I still can't find my own posts—plus a few others from this morning. No clue who’s deleting things, or more importantly, why... Are we just supposed to be mindless drones, writing away only to have everything wiped without so much as a warning or a moderator flagging us in a different color?
bluelynx8 said:I’ll concede that for the vast majority of jobs, connections were necessary, yes. "Nepotism" is just a colorful way of saying it's either a family connection, or the cousin's kid, or the little brother's sister, or whatever else... You haven't heard the stories about how even a janitor couldn't get hired without knowing someone from the Banditos, right? I have a friend who landed a job as a driver for the MTA—a bus driver, specifically—and let me tell you, the level of political maneuvering required to secure that role during the Bloomberg era was absolutely massive.
Unlike other cities🤣
Sure, there are places where they basically beg you to find anyone with two legs to fill those roles.
Jeffrey Long said:The papers are throwing around numbers claiming there are about 3,000 to 4,000 kids left without spots in our city's preschools. Honestly, if those plans from the Možemovac crowd had actually gone through, we’d be looking at a shortage of 8,000 or even 9,000 little ones waiting for a seat. 🤦
Dolenc told them back in April to get moving on enrollment—claimed there was plenty of room.🤣
They were busy lecturing everyone about priority enrollment for certain families and job placement perks for people under those specific programs... whatever happened to all that?
I just pointed out how they were acting more relieved than the parents when the court stepped in to halt their policy change. They acted like they tried to make it happen but failed because of some "criminal" court ruling—as if things wouldn't be a much bigger disaster if their plan had actually passed.
Nicole Carter82 said:What "official narrative"? Those fan groups are just MZM... nothing more than tools for manipulation. I only care about the national team, but it’s pathetic how people who actually want to enjoy some soccer have stopped showing up because of MZM. Megi Tacher👍
Megi hasn't done anything remotely intelligent—unless you consider moving fan brawls a few blocks away from the stadium to avoid the security cameras "smart."😁
As far as I can tell, the official narrative is that people were just hungry and thirsty—that they had every right to protest and occupy half the street. Meanwhile, the police, who have been treated like idiots for years, haven't even been allowed to carry real ammunition... anything beyond that isn't worth mentioning.
I just took a penalty for trolling—which is exactly why I’m coming to you... One of my posts vanished.
Back when I was a fan of Zeke, I always felt at home on Politics. If I went a bit too far, I’d just get a private message from a moderator or a warning card, nothing major.
But since I stopped following Zeke, things have changed. I don't support scrapping the reputation system for veteran users, and I have some thoughts on abortion—not that doctors are monsters, per se, but Eric Adams is a total disaster... honestly, I feel like it’s better if I just stay away from there altogether.
driftingtinker said:It’s literal hate speech and follows the standard three-day suspension rules. I don't see what the big deal is.
Does this mean if we report a post, we aren't allowed to quote it or talk back to the user?
Thanks.
Wait, so you report a post for being pure hate speech, but then you go ahead and quote it just to get a dig in?
Nothing—job well done.
So you report a post for hate speech, but just in case, you quote it and then reply to it?
Look, I wasn't aware that was against the rules—lesson learned. Today I reported a post for a different reason entirely without even replying to the thread.
Since there’s an active discussion happening on the forum, it’s pretty obvious that the posts we actually bother to report are the ones that triggered a reaction... so naturally, those are the ones we respond to. I've never been flagged for this before, so I'm just asking... and taking note.
I just wanted to point out—since I forgot to mention it yesterday—that simply citing the specific terms and claims I used in my questions isn't enough to justify a deletion under censorship rules. Yet, apparently, my comparison of someone else's arguments needs to be scrubbed from the public record, topped off with a multi-day ban for me.
Anyway, I assume you know exactly what you're doing, Charles Fox10... and exactly which standards you're applying.
driftingtinker said:I’m handing you a three-day ban because of this: "The removal of parental rights measures in Washington, D.C."
You got banned by a colleague, tried to make a scene on the forum—which didn't land, by the way—and then, the second the ban expired, you immediately pivoted to playing the victim with the "other side" and those shady, ambiguous claims about private messages that left everyone scratching their heads.
Charles Fox10 already cleared up everything regarding the previous ban; this latest one was more than earned... if not outright expected. That's all I have to say.
I am not making a scene. And what "shady claims" about private messages? Who exactly am I supposed to be framing? I simply stated the fact that I avoid PMs because I've been burned before. Fine, so according to you, commenting on moderation or being perceived as "framing" someone results in an immediate ban—no warnings, no strikes, just straight to the exit. Thanks.
That is a response to only one of the questions asked. I posed them politely and followed the rules. I'm still waiting for answers.