Bryan Edwards83 said:I guess who Adams hangs out with or grabs drinks with is just noise. He could grab coffee with Zdravko Mamić or a local politician every single Saturday for all I care; as long as he isn't making decisions that favor them, I don't really mind! At the end of the day, running New York City means doing what's right for the people and the city itself. It shouldn't be about private interests, corruption, or messing with public funds—that's what actually matters, while everything else is just distraction.
darkhawk30 said:I’m expecting the full report by dawn! 🙂 It doesn't matter if this is one irrational policy (to put it mildly) that’s going to swallow billions of our tax dollars; the main thing is that Eric Adams "wasn't right."
It’s no wonder we’re stuck with those tired old clichés about keeping up with the Joneses! 🤮
The sheer number of people who would probably celebrate if New York City were hit by another earthquake, a flood, or just... anything at all—as long as it meant Eric Adams's downfall—is deeply, deeply disturbing.
The notion that the Democratic Party actually benefits from elections right now—regardless of when or where they happen—goes far beyond mere wishful thinking. It’s practically delusional, existing in some completely different dimension altogether.
Frank Martin13 said:...I'm not aligned with the Democrats, nor the Republicans, nor any of those fringe groups—none of them. 🤦 What this current administration—this little "crew"—has been doing since they took over New York City is reminiscent of those old sensationalist exposé shows on CNN; it’s like watching a staged production where the characters—you know, the usual suspects like the local activists and their cohorts—are just playing parts. 🤦 These self-proclaimed "activists" have somehow landed steering roles within the New York City government. 🤦 For most of them, their only real professional experience involves blowing—and please, try to follow me here—hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal budget 🤦 alongside various "donations" from global billionaires, which conveniently fund everything from high-end trips to luxury retreats to these performative public displays and the supposed "preservation" of historic buildings—buildings that are actually so dilapidated they practically sway whenever a breeze picks up. 🤦 I still can't get over how they acted during the aftermath of that major earthquake in NYC; this "crew" spent days banging pots and pans out of their windows at all hours of the night. It was completely tone-deaf considering the sheer panic gripping New Yorkers—especially the children—where even the slightest sound of a passing bus or a car would send everyone into a frenzy. But there they were, going BOOM, BOOM, acting like they were the only ones who felt anything. 🤦 Their immediate priorities? Endless internal debates over whether a street should be named after some obscure historical figure or another. They've slashed tax credits for families with multiple children, organized these weirdly regressive campfire-style gatherings alongside EDM festivals, and they're busy painting city benches rainbow colors. Now they want to paint crosswalks rainbow, and even design traffic lights to fit their specific aesthetic... meanwhile, New York City is drowning in trash and there aren't enough spots in daycare centers for the kids. 🤦
...Good grief, I almost brought a tear to my eye just typing this out. 😁 Though, I suppose if you're looking for a reason to disagree, you could argue that none of what I've said is true. 🤔
Well, even without digging through the rest of your commentary, it’s pretty obvious where your political allegiances actually lie 😬.
Olivia Stewart2 said:Anyone! This group has proven themselves to be the absolute worst possible option. They are nothing more than ideological fanatics who lack even the basic competence required to run a major city like New York City. In this country, you can easily sell people on the idea that tackling corruption is the single most important socio-political issue, and everything else will just fall into place. Well, that’s not how it works. You actually have to know what you're doing; being honest isn't enough on its own. That said, these people haven't even managed to build their corrupt octopus yet, so don't expect much progress on that front either.
Maybe I’m asking a completely uninformed question here—please, have mercy and take your time typing out the answer 🙂: what was actually the point behind Alonso's intentional slowing down? I just don't see the benefit, especially since he was essentially slowing down Ocon too (effectively preventing him from potentially pulling away from the pack behind by more than five seconds), right?
Nicole Diaz said:I hope I’m in the right subforum here, my bad if I’m not. So, this has happened twice now. Me and my friends are heading home late at night, passing through the same spot, when we spot a cop car tucked away in a side street. Suddenly, they’re on us with the lights flashing like we’re some high-level felons. My buddy was driving, so naturally, he pulled over the second he saw those cherries. They demanded his license, registration, a breathalyzer test, and wanted him to pop the trunk. Everything checked out, and they eventually let us go. But it got me thinking. What would happen if we saw them in that same spot and just turned directly into that alleyway? Like, what if we pull up, pop the trunk ourselves, hand over the documents, and just smirk at them through the window saying, "Here you go, no need to chase us down like criminals again"? 😁 Would that be considered obstructing a police officer, or just insulting an officer on duty?
I mean, if you’re actually going out of your way to include a sarcastic smiley face in your proposal, why even bother hedging your bets to ensure the cop realizes you're taking the piss?
The reality is that managing someone else's teenage meltdown is a lot easier when you've just barely survived your own—but believing you can somehow make up for two decades spent playing nanny once you hit forty is a complete delusion.
Look, I get it, I really do. People love to say forty is the new fifteen... as if that actually means anything.
Every single loan taken out during a marriage is essentially a "joint debt."
I mean, surely there isn't anyone actually convinced that a home bought through a mortgage counts as marital property to be split down the middle, while the actual loan remains nothing more than a personal burden for whoever signed the paperwork?
Three years after saying "I do" on a beach somewhere, you find that partners hold onto each other—or let go—just as much as those who have already tied the knot legally.
I suppose the right time to get married is whenever the idea actually crosses someone's mind.
The reasons behind this are far more mundane than one might expect—certainly nothing poetic. First off, unless you belong to that specific group of people who view marriage as a singular, once-in-a-lifetime event, it isn't necessarily an unbreakable bond that ties two people together forever—well, at least not in the way most imagine. That kind of permanent link only really happens through parenthood. Whether a person wants it or not, they remain tethered to their child's other parent for life.
The second reason is simply the reality that the legal system here in the States makes divorce relatively quick and straightforward. It allows two people who realize they aren't right for each other to end a misguided marriage without jumping through impossible hoops. Granted, if they were traditionalists, they wouldn't be able to go back to a church for a second attempt, but then again, those folks are usually the ones who believe in that "forever" concept anyway—so I guess these points don't even apply to them.
Casey Bennett said:I have no idea who you actually asked—it’s entirely possible the moderator wasn't aware, because, as I mentioned before, there was only one single instance of this happening several years back. So, it's an exception, not the rule.
I actually went and checked with Lonely Hearts #sadvibes. At first, the moderators were pretty stunned by the rule I was citing—they told me they had never heard of it, said they needed to consult with higher management, and then circled back to tell me that nothing of the sort exists.
ask (...) Nick.
Well, that could happen—it's certainly not 🙂.
Anyway, thanks, I won't keep bugging you about this thread.
The thing is, I actually requested exactly that—but I was told, apparently after they "consulted with upper management"—that nothing like it even exists.
I have, well, a technical issue regarding access to the FBI 😬, and since modestyratorica isn't open to private messages, I suppose this is my only option for asking.
In one of your responses regarding card appeals, you mentioned that someone would "receive a ban from addressing a colleague on the beautiful our subforum". However—and I mean this with all due respect—some other moderators recently tried to convince me, upon my own inquiry, that such a specific disciplinary measure doesn't actually exist on this forum.
So, how does the situation actually stand regarding that policy? I’m not asking on behalf of a friend 🙂.
Sam Jones8 said:I mean, sure, it could be funny, super uncomfortable, and awkward all at once, but it can also create this sense of closeness and good vibes. It’s obvious you’re just not a touchy-feely kind of person, but not everyone is like that. Look, I’m not exactly a huge fan of this whole "free hugs" thing either, but seriously, are you really putting a hug on the same level as sex?