Bryan Taylor6 said:They shouldn't have introduced any measures at all. It would have resulted in the same thing—everyone getting sick and building immunity. But then they wouldn't get to act like big shots, because they'd be suffering too...
So the grand plan was basically just making sure we didn't all get sick at the exact same time, huh?
I guess that’s basically the part of the theory where they talk about easing up on the restrictions—just loosening things enough so that, more or less, the whole population gets exposed and maybe builds up some kind of immunity.
The County Emergency Management says the Police Department set up barricades—they aren't even letting the mail through or any trucks pass 😵
– Virovitica-Podravina County put up barricades on the local roads, basically cutting off the entrance to their county from ours, which just shouldn't be happening. They’re blocking deliveries too, so the mail can't get through, and that's a huge mess – said Goran Ivanović, head of the Crisis Headquarters.
rustywalker42 said:Exactly what was said above. It's the reality in the Midwest, where you've got villages of 1,000 people calling themselves municipalities. That was based on the 2011 census, obviously; nowadays, those same places have fewer than 500 people left.
But hey, it's important that they're municipalities, right?
Just revert everything back to how it was before the war and call it a day.
Just look at what US Congress is pulling on us. This is a disaster.
That's the thing—it made way more sense back then. Now you can see that the whole reason for breaking everything up was really just to create "job opportunities," or rather, to facilitate trade between different parties.
Screw the City of Loves and the Municipality of Loves.
I’ve been noticing lately that whenever there’s a particularly nasty car accident, the courts seem all too eager to throw people into pretrial detention.
I mean, looking at the actual legal code, I don't really see the justification for it—so I can't help but wonder if this is just a reaction to public outcry, since, you know, the court of public opinion usually operates by a totally different set of rules than the actual law.
It almost feels like pretrial detention has turned into some kind of... I don't know, a "down payment" on the sentence they're eventually expecting to hand down.
And it's the same story with those white-collar crime cases—those shady corporate schemes—where being held in jail seems to be used as a way to lean on the defendant. It can drag on for years, and I guess you could say it's a tactic to get them to finally "cooperate" with the investigation.
The law basically says pretrial detention should only happen if:
1) the defendant is a flight risk—like, they're actually running away or there are circumstances suggesting they might bolt (hiding out, identity issues, that sort of thing),
2) there's a real chance they'll destroy, hide, or mess with evidence, or maybe try to intimidate witnesses, experts, or other people involved in the case to throw things off track,
3) there are reasons to believe they might commit the same crime again, finish up an attempted crime, or go after someone with a more serious felony—specifically one carrying a potential prison sentence of five years or more,
4) the circumstances surrounding the crime are just so incredibly severe that the law mandates a long-term prison sentence anyway,
5) the person has been properly summoned to court but is just straight-up dodging their hearings.
My oldest son usually shows up with similar setups—and honestly, I’m always happy to bankroll him a bit, whether that means letting him crash at the house or in the guest house, whipping up some food, or even throwing him a little cash if the situation calls for it...
But seriously, think about it—if sixty bucks is the sticking point, how are you actually going to host him out here without some help from the parents? Like, where are you guys even going to sleep or eat? You should cover his travel, sure, but maybe loop the folks into the logistics if you can...
David Gonzalez6 said:No, he isn't out in New York... he's actually been held in pretrial detention for all those things he did.
Georgette500 said:I mean, I guess the trial should probably wrap things up pretty quickly—it really ought to—but honestly? I’m just kind of relieved that he’ll be escorted into the courtroom by the sheriff's deputies. It’s going to be a total embarrassment for him, which, if we're being real, is about all he deserves.
So, the cops tracked him down right in the middle of downtown yesterday—exactly at noon, no less—and served him those pretrial detention papers. They slapped the cuffs on him, tossed him into a van, and hauled him straight off to jail. Honestly? I think it really stung him, being humiliated like that in public, but honestly... he had it coming. I’m actually kind of glad. And you know what? It’ll feel even better when he finally gets hit with five years for everything he pulled.
How can you say he isn't—I mean, the guy already got busted, right? Who knows... maybe they’ve already shipped him off to Siberia or something.
Gregory Jackson3 said:What absolute nonsense these conclusions are.
What if someone simply isn't inclined to shake hands? Or perhaps the gesture holds no particular significance for them; or they find it just as meaningful as a single, solitary wave of the hand.
Personally, my favorites are those guys who wander up to your table at a diner and just offer a hand. You can't really shut them down—even if you secretly want to tell them where to shove it—so you just shake the hand, move on, and go wash up immediately....
Ethan Brooks59 said:So, when does the rulebook actually start applying to everyone equally? Like, when do we start seeing the same penalties for every little ad hominem attack, troll move, off-topic tangent, or spammy outburst? It should be the same deal whether someone’s being an absolute moron or just dropping the same obnoxious YouTube link for the tenth time in a row.
I mean, if you look at the rules, there's even stuff about "acting stupid." So, what's the plan there? What are we supposed to do about that?
FORUM RULES
See, based on what's written here, you—just as an example—basically tripped over points 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15 all at once with this one post. And now you're sitting there waiting for people to jump on you.
It’s kind of funny how you, after basically being a ghost for nearly two years, are suddenly deciding to show up and stir the pot... I wonder if you just stumbled onto some clone profile or something and decided to blow things up.
Don't go coming for the guy for no reason. You can pick apart his arguments all you want, but don't make it personal. 🧐
I mean, I honestly don't know if it even works. Personally, I wouldn't touch anything that messes with my prostate right before a checkup—and I’ve got one scheduled in about a month—just because I wouldn't want to mask whatever is actually going on.
Look, your prostate isn't some rabbit that's going to bolt just because you waited a month.
And honestly, if you're really worried about something major being missed, maybe just take that cash and put it toward seeing a specialist at a private clinic instead.
Gerald Thompson5 said:Look, there are these rapid response security teams out there working 24/7, jumping on calls for robberies, break-ins, or any kind of property damage. I actually work as one of those interceptors myself, so I know exactly how this job goes down.
In my opinion, we really need blue light strobes on our units. It’s about being able to get to the scene fast and actually having a fighting chance at catching a suspect during a pursuit.
Right now, we’re stuck using yellow lights on our vehicles, which honestly feels pretty useless—they don't really change anything in traffic. Given what we do, we should have blue lights so other drivers actually pull over, giving us the right of way and the ability to clear red lights when we're in the middle of an emergency or a chase.
So, what’s the consensus here? Do you guys think us security responders should be rocking blue lights?
Or maybe just some cool little propeller hats that spin while we're running? Like, a blue-and-red spinning propeller?
ironcyclist58 said:Blue lights don't give anyone a free pass through a red light. Sure, the cops, military police, and Customs agents can blow right through a red, but that’s not because of the lights... they have the authority to do it whether those sirens are even on or not.
Honestly, this kind of censorship is just Za Kurac... I mean, we aren't living in some tiny, ultra-conservative Catholic boarding school in the Midwest or anything...
Gerald Chavez7 said:Am I really that weird for wanting people to stop—just once, mind you!—using phrases like (and I mean your specific posts here):
"Screw money, screw savings, just blow it all on some junk." Or things like "Those 5-10% raises you guys are bragging about? That's basically nothing, za kurac." And then I'd have to drop a warning like the one I mentioned in my previous PM.
Apparently, barking is a trait found in more intelligent people, or so they say. 😉
So I try to fix it, but then every single time I click over to check another thread, it just snaps right back to how it was—so I’m stuck zooming in all over again...
quietorca24 said:Don't let them make a buck off you—seriously. ☕ Honestly, I don't see any flaws with Brave compared to regular Chrome—at least not from where I'm sitting. It’s got that built-in adblocker that just nukes all the ads, which saves a ton of mobile data too... I guess only a total moron would stick with Chrome when Brave is right there. ☕
So, I’m running into this weird little glitch where my forum looks all wonky in Brave—it blocks the actual ads, obviously, but it leaves this massive, awkward empty gap on the left side where the ads used to be. It’s like the layout is just... stuck. Does anyone know how to fix that so the page actually stretches to full width?
So, I got curious and did a little digging online. Hmm...
Basically, there’s this eight-year-old girl out in California who’s now the third high-profile person in the USA to actually survive rabies without being vaccinated. The poor kid got scratched by an infected cat back in April. They rushed her to a children's hospital where the doctors confirmed it was rabies. Since they couldn't pin down exactly when she caught it, they couldn't give her the vaccine. Instead, they treated her with antiviral meds and kept her in a medically induced coma—just to let her brain rest, I guess. She pulled through, though, and after two weeks, they moved her from the ICU to a regular ward at a pediatric hospital in Sacramento.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 6,000 people head to one of the various clinics across the country every year looking for help because of rabies risks—you know, bites, scratches, or just general contact. After they get checked out, based on what the doctors see, roughly 1,500 of them end up needing the actual rabies shots (that whole anti-rabies immuno-seroprophylaxis thing).
Matthew Ramirez29 said:Thanks for the reply. I posted in the most relevant threads; didn't realize it would bother anyone. Sorry for blowing up everyone's notifications everywhere.
But since when does two thousand dollars count as a loan?! I'll ask, obviously. I was just wondering if anyone had experience with a bank increasing their overdraft limit by the specific amount they requested.
Call it whatever you want, really... at the end of the day, the bank is just giving you permission to spend their money.
I mean, if you're sitting on a measly $100 overdraft limit every month, what makes you think they're actually going to approve you?
Matthew Ramirez29 said:Hey everyone, jumping in here with a question—well, more of an encouragement plea. I'm currently overdrawn at Split Bank while on maternity leave, and starting May 1st, my status shifts to seasonal worker. I'm living on maternity benefits right now and urgently need $2,000. Since I don't have anyone to borrow from, I'll have to go to the bank. Will they just laugh me out of the branch? 😂 I’ve never had a formal loan, just been managing my overdraft (which I was paying down during leave, but there's still a balance left 😂), and I usually hit about $33 in unauthorized debt around the first of the month. Anyone dealt with this before? Do you think they'll approve it or shut me down? Thanks.
Maybe post this in a few more threads too, otherwise it might get lost among these other four...
So, what I'm hearing is you're pulling an overdraft on your checking account month after month... if you haven't quite managed to clear that, how exactly are you planning on paying back a full-on loan? I mean, honestly.
But hey, it doesn't cost you anything to go ask your bank...