Posts by Matthew Young35

I’m well aware, but some people just choose to look the other way.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, speaking from experience here, I’ve gotta tell you—it wouldn't actually happen like that.
Parents love to grumble and whisper behind people's backs, sure, but when it comes down to it and they're actually standing in a school meeting having to speak up? You won't get a single quiet moment from them; they'll be shouting from the rooftops.

Why is that?
Why does it feel so uncomfortable to publicly stand up against religious education in our schools?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Yeah, it's total conformism, but not even in the "keep quiet and pay" sense; it's more like everyone's whispering behind people's backs because that's just how things work at church nowadays.🙄

We had our First Communion ceremony this year, and the price was $67. The priest was actually really nice about it, laying out exactly what the fee covers and asking if anyone had concerns or needed clarification... out of maybe 100 people there, not a single soul spoke up. But then, later on, you see certain individuals outside the church spreading all these stories... He also made it clear that if someone can't afford it, they should just come to him privately. He asked that people shouldn't use their kids to pass along messages, because you don't want to put children in an awkward spot in front of their peers. But of course, what is a mom or dad going to say to a priest when they're broke? It's much easier to just send the message through the kid and act like they're all so enlightened and wise while standing out on the sidewalk.

Anyway,
$23paying $120 for a dress that’s basically headed straight to the dry cleaners just so we can wear it once is insane,
$27and the cost for two DVDs and three photos is also a total rip-off, especially when we're already paying $17 for a handful of tiny passport-style photos.
Then there's the church renovation fund $10—which costs about the same as two roses... and so on, and so forth.

Or maybe the real issue is these $13 donations for the church, which clearly aren't even covering the basic costs for the kids whose parents actually *can't* afford it and are too embarrassed to say so?

Look, if you call out of school and tell them your kid is sick, you have just as much right to call the parish office or take a stroll down to the local church to sit down with someone and explain exactly what kind of health issues the child is dealing with.
But honestly, trashing the church and calling priests brainwashers just because they aren't meeting your specific expectations? That’s really not okay.

The sacraments actually mean something, right? If someone doesn't respect those traditions, why on earth would they feel the need to have their child receive them in the first place?
So, who’s really at fault here—is it the parents who push for sacraments through religious ed classes that aren't even mandatory, while refusing to admit they don't actually believe, or is it the clergy and the Church for expecting people who claim to be believers to actually act like it?
Just give it some thought.

The service was delivered and paid for.
Where is the receipt?
Was it properly taxed?
How much tax was actually paid?

Peter Thompson4 said:That’s what the people voted for, I guess, and frankly, I'm way too exhausted right now to sit here and list every single catastrophic mess left behind during the Democratic administration.

No worries, I completely understand the fallout caused by a lifestyle defined by excess and a lack of ethics.

Get yourself back on your feet first. Once you've recovered, we can actually sit down and run the numbers together. After we tally everything up, perhaps we'll finally have some clarity on whether they really are the same.

Peter Thompson4 said:It’s all exactly the same bullshit in the end, and honestly, I don't even know if it matters whether I say it like that or if it sounds any better to you, because frankly, who gives a damn?

Look, I already made my point clear—we desperately need some fresh faces in politics instead of just shuffling the same old tired players around like it's some broken record!

I disagree. It isn't all the same.
Whether a local politician blows $1,000 $0.00 on fancy dinners at a steakhouse or some official decides to drop $50,000 on a luxury bathroom for their office? That is one thing. But is it really the same as someone spending $50 million to repaint a highway tunnel, taking a $5 million bribe to sell off ExxonMobil, and causing $1 billion in systemic damage? Don't even get me started on the massive conglomerates or the era of predatory privatizations.
If we actually sat down to tally the cost, would it even surprise us if the Republican Party hasn't cost this country at least $20 billion?

Peter Thompson4 said:And what the hell did you actually achieve by doing that? Look, I get why it sounds like a better move on paper, but seriously, what's the actual payoff? Nothing. It's the exact same crap, just wrapped up in different packaging.

What did I gain?
You answered that yourself:
"it sounds like a better solution to me too."

The Republicans have proven themselves to be an absolutely disastrous option. We've seen it play out in practice. Repeatedly.

No, it isn't just the same nonsense in a different wrapper. Nothing compares to the GOP. Except, perhaps, a biblical plague of locusts.

Rachel Cooper3 said:And what was their alternative—offer some brilliant explanation?

Sit in Congress like the Libertarians, making minor tweaks just like you and I do here on this forum?
I don't doubt the Libertarians have good intentions, but there is no real change without holding office. If they are smart, they will run on a joint ticket and sweep the losses.

They should join a coalition with the Democrats.
Honestly, I'd side with anyone just to keep the Republicans out of office.
☕

The Republican Party didn't secure an absolute majority, and in Congress, that’s the only number that actually matters.
Calling a relative majority anything else is just nonsense.

Peter Thompson4 said:The people chose the Republican Party, plain and simple. They won the majority, and while the political landscape looks a little different nowadays, those were the guys who were "supposed" to be in charge.

No, absolutely not.
The majority was held by the Republican Party and the Bridge Party, but let’s be clear: those who voted for the Bridge Party did so specifically because they couldn't stand the thought of the Republicans running the show.

Peter Thompson4 said:Yeah, but everyone’s constantly riding the Bridge Party because they didn't accomplish some miracle in their first six to twelve months, completely ignoring the fact that they didn't even hold a majority (not even close). Like, what exactly were they supposed to pull off overnight?
If you ask me, they squeezed out everything they could. These thugs wouldn't give them any meaningful authority or key positions to begin with, which honestly, is already way more than anyone actually expected from them.

And damn it, people just straight-up spit on them—it's like a bunch of bros being unfair—because they didn't perform impossible feats, and then everyone immediately runs right back to the old options like the Democrats or the Republican Party, acting like those guys aren't total failures too 🤣. It's the same idiots who dragged us into this mess. We've dealt with twenty-five years of corruption and crime, but no, nobody cares about that; instead, everyone's pissed at the new party that was somehow expected to fix everything in three measly months 🙏

How can you say they haven't done anything?
They helped the Republican Party take power. Twice.
And they'll do it a third time if given the chance.
Aside from that, you have a point. They didn't achieve much, but my issue is actually with what they *did* manage to do.

urbanhawk17 said:Karamarko was never Prime Minister.

Besides, the Bridge Party basically turned Karamarko into a political ghost. If it hadn't been for the Bridge Party, he might have actually become Prime Minister. He probably still would be today, too.

I am well aware he never held the office.
I intended to point that out myself, but I believe the post I was quoting was implying that Karamarko *would* have been elected Prime Minister—and might still be serving today if things had gone differently.

ruggedjackal46 said:And let's be real—if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have some compromised minister sitting in office right now, forcing us to deal with the headache of trying to fire him. I honestly can't wait for the third time they decide to join a coalition with the Republican Party just so they can "protect" us from their own corrupt "partners."

To me, the whole thing looks like a scripted game. They play the role of the opposition to lure in voters who can't stand the Republican Party. Then, once they've secured those votes by teaming up with the GOP, they'll hold a supermajority in Congress. At that point, they can tear up the Constitution if they feel like it. A scenario where both they and the Republican Party hold a two-thirds majority? That is a genuine horror story.

Jacob Morgan said:I guess I’m starting to like the Bridge Party more and more, despite all that clerical baggage they carry. They’ve really stuck to their guns since the very beginning. Honestly, the only real downside is that if it weren't for them, Karamarko might still be running things as Prime Minister.

And now, just like they promised, they’re refusing to back that compromised minister.

I mean, anyone who thinks a minister—someone who isn't even from a political party, but jumped straight from a private corporation into the Treasury, only to hand $300 million back to that same firm when it was obvious they were just throwing money down the drain, telling the public everything was fine with that company until they couldn't hide it anymore, and then pushing through changes that conveniently favored that exact same business—is somehow not compromised and actually competent... well, that person is just politically illiterate, or maybe just a total brainwashed Republican lackey.

If it hadn't been for them, Karamarko wouldn't have stood a chance at becoming Prime Minister. It was their influence that handed the Republican Party the majority.

Sacha Baron Cohen is actually pretty great, so I don't know why everyone is complaining.

restlesssurfer97 said:Can we maybe just pivot and talk about Walmart instead?

Headline from The Daily:
Orbiko is demanding aggressive debt collection from Walmart, while the Prime Minister is pleading for calm.
I am actually dying. LOL

brightpilot6 said:So what are people actually discussing? They just ask "did you see that?" and shake their heads in disbelief. The media outlets are absolutely flooded with this stuff because, at the end of the day, they're just chasing clicks.

Speculating about some deep-seated external causes feels like nothing more than pure hysteria; are we really expected to believe that every spoiled kid out there is suddenly a potential killer?

And what exactly are they supposed to shake?
With a katana?

Carol Lewis said:My absolute favorite story has to be that one guy from rural Pennsylvania—I think it was back in the late 90s—who spent his entire day drinking some local version of a heavy malt liquor with his wife and son, and then he just completely lost it that night and killed her because he genuinely thought she was a fox...

Well, if there actually was a fox involved, what can you say?

Not that I'm making excuses for him.

Alcohol was ultimately the culprit here.

https://www.howtogeek.com/174705/how...indows-7-or-8/

Jonathan Wood5 said:How much space does your Windows folder take up on Windows 7? I'm running Windows 7 + SP1 and my folder is sitting at 15.1 GB. It feels massive, though I can't find anything suspicious. System32 is the largest chunk at 3.85 GB, followed by Microsoft.NET at 1 GB.
The swap file is disabled.

A 15GB footprint is perfectly standard.
Mine is sitting at 27 GB.