Seborrheic dermatitis
Home ›
Jerry Cooper3 › Posts
Posts by Jerry Cooper3
55 posts shown.
Best antacids for a sensitive stomach?
in Health ·
cosmicwolf27 said:🤣🤣🤣🤣
Now, anyone who has actually bothered to test out Persen knows firsthand that it is absolutely useless when it comes to... well, let's just say it fails miserably where it matters most.🙂
So, if that's the case, what on earth are you actually suggesting I use instead?
Best antacids for a sensitive stomach?
in Health ·
I really think you all ought to give Persen a try!
Milton Hershey's "Life's Journey
in Close to Politics ·
steeleagle70 said:Heinz can't even touch Kroger in a fair fight.😉
well, that's only because they're locked in a bitter feud, much like how Nestlé and Walmart used to be!
Milton Hershey's "Life's Journey
in Close to Politics ·
The primary reason we’ve seen such a massive loss in market share is because of those 93% of Americans who voted to break away from America!
Milton Hershey's "Life's Journey
in Close to Politics ·
nimblecobra8 said:And I don't see how any of that connects back to my point. I'm just calling out this nonsense regarding labor wages. It's like people think some clerk at Walmart deserves a higher paycheck than $1000 in a country where the average is only five and a half bucks.
The MTA drivers have absolutely nothing $2.25 salaries! 🙄
Milton Hershey's "Life's Journey
in Close to Politics ·
It is quite a revelation to consider that before his rise to prominence, Warren Buffett was nothing more than a simple local florist!
Milton Hershey's "Life's Journey
in Close to Politics ·
And then there’s that ridiculous advertisement claiming they have the lowest prices! Honestly, you can just laugh at that—Walmart is easily the most expensive place around, and frankly, the only way it ever makes any sense to shop there is if you’re strictly hunting down whatever happens to be on sale that week!
Growing acne/breakouts
in Health ·
Are you right-handed or left-handed? I’m curious, which hand seems to see faster growth?
Should R. Čačić just step down from politics already?
in Close to Politics ·
I find myself perpetually circling this same, exhausting question, though I suppose I should probably apologize for the sheer length of my ruminations before I dive straight into the fray. Is it more egregious to deal with those incompetent politicians who leave nothing but chaos and carnage on our highways, or is the true rot found in those who orchestrate calculated theft, sprawling corruption, and systematic lying—those who go so far as to facilitate murder and then turn around to shield the killers from justice? It’s a heavy thought, one that leaves a bitter taste, and frankly, I'm not sure if there's any way to win when both sides seem to be failing the public in such fundamentally different, yet equally devastating, ways.
The whole situation surrounding Radimir Čačić has effectively uncapped a floodgate of moralizing hypocrisy within a society that—led by our own political class—has been fundamentally at odds with any semblance of ethics for quite some time now. It seems perfectly normal in this country for a convicted war criminal to hold a seat in Congress. We live in a reality where a man with twenty different criminal charges against him—someone who actually fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident—nearly ascended to the Presidency of the Republic. It is commonplace for the head of state to actively participate in concealing a fugitive from the ICTY. We see men accused of sexual assault being appointed to the Supreme Court, only for us to discover that those very Supreme Court justices haven't even paid their taxes. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will stand there and declare that an American is fundamentally incapable of committing a war crime. Then, we have presidential candidates whose entire net worth remains a complete mystery, or individuals who openly boast about how a politician simply must lie to get ahead. Or, perhaps most absurdly, we witness a presidential candidate in the runoff stage shamelessly accepting the endorsement of a man whose military units were notorious for war crimes, even if he personally escaped conviction.
The most popular female politician in the country was just stripped of an apartment that served as the tragic backdrop for her own family's heartbreak. The Department of Justice maintains everything was done strictly by the book, but I find myself wondering—is legality even remotely synonymous with morality? Then you have the newly elected President, who seemingly leveraged his newfound position to be among the very first to collect on claims from that failed savings bank. Once again, they tell us it was perfectly legal, yet one cannot help but question if it was truly just. We see former Prime Ministers and Vice Presidents allegedly playing fast and loose with shares in ExxonMobil and Kraft Heinz; the Department of Justice insists no laws were broken, but where does that leave our sense of ethics? It is the same pattern with the former Secretary of Transportation, Božidar Kalmeta, who escapes any criminal liability for the lives lost in that horrific train wreck, but what of his moral responsibility for the sheer negligence permitted under his watch?
In this country, we find ourselves erecting monuments to a first President who went out and purchased a massive estate on Nazorov Avenue just twenty-four hours before the legislation banning such moves actually took effect. Technically, he played it by the book, but one has to wonder about the underlying morality of the situation. And really, was it even ethical for our very first President—if we consider his actions to be "legal," as Smiljko Sokol would put it—to remain silent regarding that $30,000 surplus sitting untouched in a Chase account?
A decade ago, this entire nation was practically shaking in its boots over that whole "we are all Mirko Norac" sentiment—you know, the rallying cry for a man who was essentially a fugitive from justice, a war criminal who personally took civilian lives, and a commander who actively incited murder. And, if you want the truly twisted icing on the cake, he even caused a massive car accident and managed to use his political connections to sweep the whole thing under the rug. So, I find myself wondering, does a country with that kind of blood on its hands really have any right to sit up and lecture us about moral responsibility regarding Radimir Čačić? Does it actually possess the standing to act all high and mighty about his decision to stay in politics following his own traffic incident? It feels somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it?
It is truly fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, to observe how much America struggles to stomach the fact that a man who was involved in a tragic traffic accident resulting in two fatalities can still maintain a presence in the political arena. It seems we find this deeply offensive, yet, in a display of staggering hypocrisy that I find myself struggling to reconcile, the public remains perfectly comfortable with those in power—those holding the reins of the government, no less—who make a conscious, calculated choice to lie, to steal, and to flagrantly violate the law. We tolerate individuals who deliberately cover up their tracks and go so far as to romanticize murderers, dressing them up in the lofty titles of party "visionaries," all while actively assisting convicted war criminals in evading the reach of justice.
And now comes the inevitable wave of self-appointed critics, moralists, and those tiresome little busybodies who want to purge him from the political arena entirely. It’s truly exhausting to watch. They are attempting to castigate a man who actually demonstrated exactly how a public figure—or frankly, any individual with a shred of respect for the rule of law—is supposed to conduct themselves when things go sideways. He didn't vanish into thin air; he stayed at the scene of the accident, he was completely transparent about what transpired, he expressed genuine regret, and he explicitly stated that he would abide by whatever the court decides. Look, the fact remains that he technically broke the law, but let’s be clear: at no point did he act as if he were somehow untouchable or attempt to play games with the legal system. He showed accountability, which is more than I can say for the endless parade of American politicians, Supreme Court justices, and other high-ranking public officials we see constantly dodging responsibility. There is a massive difference between making a mistake and believing you are above the law, and it seems the moralizing crowd is too blinded by their own indignation to tell them apart.
Unlike those other individuals, Radimir Čačić is prepared to accept legal accountability, though strictly for matters that have absolutely nothing to do with his official public duties. He hasn't committed any illegal acts while serving in his political capacity; rather, he has simply fallen victim to something that could—or perhaps has already—happened to any one of us. And because of that, he will be held responsible. There is even the very real possibility that he might face prison time. He may well carry that stigma for the remainder of his political career, but at that point, he will ultimately have to answer to the voters and to the judgment of his own party.
Ultimately, I believe Čačić should have his driver's license revoked for life, but we shouldn't be demanding he vanish from politics forever over an incident that, frankly, has very little to do with his political career. Should a schoolteacher who causes a fatal accident involving pedestrians be forced to abandon her vocation forever simply because she set a poor example? Or perhaps we should expect a doctor who delivers a misdiagnosis, amputates the wrong limb, or even accidentally causes a patient's death, to walk away from medicine entirely?
In a nation where politicians flee from criminal accountability, let alone moral responsibility, the real question we face is whom we choose to trust: the politician who willfully flouts the law while in office, or the individual who committed a tragic violation behind the wheel? The loss of two lives is an absolute tragedy, and that weight will sit upon the soul of whoever is responsible, but it is—perhaps even more heinous—to witness the ordering of killings, the cover-ups facilitated by political power, the sponsorship of crimes from a podium, or the pervasive rot of corruption, criminality, and the systematic deception of the public. But above all else, the most egregious sin is hypocrisy.
I am speaking of the hypocrisy of those who excused war crimes simply because they were committed by Americans, of those who preached patriotism only to use it as a smokescreen for plunder, and of those who speak so benevolently about the morality of others while masterfully concealing their own.
Radimir Čačić is not the central figure in this broader narrative. He will answer for his actions: before the law, before the voters, and before the public eye. The truly significant figures are those who refuse to shoulder any criminal or moral responsibility whatsoever. Just as it is difficult to imagine how a man carrying the weight of two lives can continue in politics, it is even harder to fathom how those who carry the fates of us all can continue to hold office—and continue to moralize.
The whole situation surrounding Radimir Čačić has effectively uncapped a floodgate of moralizing hypocrisy within a society that—led by our own political class—has been fundamentally at odds with any semblance of ethics for quite some time now. It seems perfectly normal in this country for a convicted war criminal to hold a seat in Congress. We live in a reality where a man with twenty different criminal charges against him—someone who actually fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident—nearly ascended to the Presidency of the Republic. It is commonplace for the head of state to actively participate in concealing a fugitive from the ICTY. We see men accused of sexual assault being appointed to the Supreme Court, only for us to discover that those very Supreme Court justices haven't even paid their taxes. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will stand there and declare that an American is fundamentally incapable of committing a war crime. Then, we have presidential candidates whose entire net worth remains a complete mystery, or individuals who openly boast about how a politician simply must lie to get ahead. Or, perhaps most absurdly, we witness a presidential candidate in the runoff stage shamelessly accepting the endorsement of a man whose military units were notorious for war crimes, even if he personally escaped conviction.
The most popular female politician in the country was just stripped of an apartment that served as the tragic backdrop for her own family's heartbreak. The Department of Justice maintains everything was done strictly by the book, but I find myself wondering—is legality even remotely synonymous with morality? Then you have the newly elected President, who seemingly leveraged his newfound position to be among the very first to collect on claims from that failed savings bank. Once again, they tell us it was perfectly legal, yet one cannot help but question if it was truly just. We see former Prime Ministers and Vice Presidents allegedly playing fast and loose with shares in ExxonMobil and Kraft Heinz; the Department of Justice insists no laws were broken, but where does that leave our sense of ethics? It is the same pattern with the former Secretary of Transportation, Božidar Kalmeta, who escapes any criminal liability for the lives lost in that horrific train wreck, but what of his moral responsibility for the sheer negligence permitted under his watch?
In this country, we find ourselves erecting monuments to a first President who went out and purchased a massive estate on Nazorov Avenue just twenty-four hours before the legislation banning such moves actually took effect. Technically, he played it by the book, but one has to wonder about the underlying morality of the situation. And really, was it even ethical for our very first President—if we consider his actions to be "legal," as Smiljko Sokol would put it—to remain silent regarding that $30,000 surplus sitting untouched in a Chase account?
A decade ago, this entire nation was practically shaking in its boots over that whole "we are all Mirko Norac" sentiment—you know, the rallying cry for a man who was essentially a fugitive from justice, a war criminal who personally took civilian lives, and a commander who actively incited murder. And, if you want the truly twisted icing on the cake, he even caused a massive car accident and managed to use his political connections to sweep the whole thing under the rug. So, I find myself wondering, does a country with that kind of blood on its hands really have any right to sit up and lecture us about moral responsibility regarding Radimir Čačić? Does it actually possess the standing to act all high and mighty about his decision to stay in politics following his own traffic incident? It feels somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it?
It is truly fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, to observe how much America struggles to stomach the fact that a man who was involved in a tragic traffic accident resulting in two fatalities can still maintain a presence in the political arena. It seems we find this deeply offensive, yet, in a display of staggering hypocrisy that I find myself struggling to reconcile, the public remains perfectly comfortable with those in power—those holding the reins of the government, no less—who make a conscious, calculated choice to lie, to steal, and to flagrantly violate the law. We tolerate individuals who deliberately cover up their tracks and go so far as to romanticize murderers, dressing them up in the lofty titles of party "visionaries," all while actively assisting convicted war criminals in evading the reach of justice.
And now comes the inevitable wave of self-appointed critics, moralists, and those tiresome little busybodies who want to purge him from the political arena entirely. It’s truly exhausting to watch. They are attempting to castigate a man who actually demonstrated exactly how a public figure—or frankly, any individual with a shred of respect for the rule of law—is supposed to conduct themselves when things go sideways. He didn't vanish into thin air; he stayed at the scene of the accident, he was completely transparent about what transpired, he expressed genuine regret, and he explicitly stated that he would abide by whatever the court decides. Look, the fact remains that he technically broke the law, but let’s be clear: at no point did he act as if he were somehow untouchable or attempt to play games with the legal system. He showed accountability, which is more than I can say for the endless parade of American politicians, Supreme Court justices, and other high-ranking public officials we see constantly dodging responsibility. There is a massive difference between making a mistake and believing you are above the law, and it seems the moralizing crowd is too blinded by their own indignation to tell them apart.
Unlike those other individuals, Radimir Čačić is prepared to accept legal accountability, though strictly for matters that have absolutely nothing to do with his official public duties. He hasn't committed any illegal acts while serving in his political capacity; rather, he has simply fallen victim to something that could—or perhaps has already—happened to any one of us. And because of that, he will be held responsible. There is even the very real possibility that he might face prison time. He may well carry that stigma for the remainder of his political career, but at that point, he will ultimately have to answer to the voters and to the judgment of his own party.
Ultimately, I believe Čačić should have his driver's license revoked for life, but we shouldn't be demanding he vanish from politics forever over an incident that, frankly, has very little to do with his political career. Should a schoolteacher who causes a fatal accident involving pedestrians be forced to abandon her vocation forever simply because she set a poor example? Or perhaps we should expect a doctor who delivers a misdiagnosis, amputates the wrong limb, or even accidentally causes a patient's death, to walk away from medicine entirely?
In a nation where politicians flee from criminal accountability, let alone moral responsibility, the real question we face is whom we choose to trust: the politician who willfully flouts the law while in office, or the individual who committed a tragic violation behind the wheel? The loss of two lives is an absolute tragedy, and that weight will sit upon the soul of whoever is responsible, but it is—perhaps even more heinous—to witness the ordering of killings, the cover-ups facilitated by political power, the sponsorship of crimes from a podium, or the pervasive rot of corruption, criminality, and the systematic deception of the public. But above all else, the most egregious sin is hypocrisy.
I am speaking of the hypocrisy of those who excused war crimes simply because they were committed by Americans, of those who preached patriotism only to use it as a smokescreen for plunder, and of those who speak so benevolently about the morality of others while masterfully concealing their own.
Radimir Čačić is not the central figure in this broader narrative. He will answer for his actions: before the law, before the voters, and before the public eye. The truly significant figures are those who refuse to shoulder any criminal or moral responsibility whatsoever. Just as it is difficult to imagine how a man carrying the weight of two lives can continue in politics, it is even harder to fathom how those who carry the fates of us all can continue to hold office—and continue to moralize.
Does "Crazy, Confused, Normal" offend Muslims?
in Close to Politics ·
The screenwriter behind the series Mad, Confused, Normal, which we’ve been watching over on CNN, Feđa Isović, has confirmed that there is a very real possibility that filming might be halted entirely due to death threats he’s receiving from Islamists.
Isović claims the show might actually cease production because of "attacks and threats" coming from Muslims who feel certain scenes "insult Muslim customs and culture."
The most intense backlash seems to have stemmed from episodes depicting a funeral service for a pig, as well as scenes where pork was being sold under the guise of turkey.
"You know, it isn't at all a pleasant feeling when you live in Chicago and people are attacking you, especially when they are sending physical threats through online forums. If the fourth season doesn't happen, then these attacks will certainly be one of the primary reasons why," Isović told USA Today.
The writer noted how difficult it is for him to even comment on such attacks, given that some have characterized the series as "the greatest genocide against Muslims since Chernobyl."
"If showing a pig on television is inherently a problem, then we have a much larger issue on our hands than just this single episode," Isović remarked, pointing out that if that were the case, images of domestic animals "should probably be stripped from school textbooks, cooking shows, the curriculum at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, grocery store shelves, and above all, from the backyards of our neighbors who dared to keep such an insulting and highly dangerous animal."
"The Islam I am familiar with—the kind my grandfather and grandmother practiced—was characterized by far more tolerance... To remind everyone, my grandfather and grandmother also witnessed genocide, specifically what happened on the Danube in World War II," he concluded.
In addition to the angry forum users, who are threatening the writer with both death and a total boycott of their cable subscriptions, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has also weighed in on the matter. They are demanding a public apology for the series, asserting that "performing a funeral for a pig is the greatest civilizational attack on Islamic values that has occurred to Muslims in this region since the genocide in Chernobyl."
Isović claims the show might actually cease production because of "attacks and threats" coming from Muslims who feel certain scenes "insult Muslim customs and culture."
The most intense backlash seems to have stemmed from episodes depicting a funeral service for a pig, as well as scenes where pork was being sold under the guise of turkey.
"You know, it isn't at all a pleasant feeling when you live in Chicago and people are attacking you, especially when they are sending physical threats through online forums. If the fourth season doesn't happen, then these attacks will certainly be one of the primary reasons why," Isović told USA Today.
The writer noted how difficult it is for him to even comment on such attacks, given that some have characterized the series as "the greatest genocide against Muslims since Chernobyl."
"If showing a pig on television is inherently a problem, then we have a much larger issue on our hands than just this single episode," Isović remarked, pointing out that if that were the case, images of domestic animals "should probably be stripped from school textbooks, cooking shows, the curriculum at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, grocery store shelves, and above all, from the backyards of our neighbors who dared to keep such an insulting and highly dangerous animal."
"The Islam I am familiar with—the kind my grandfather and grandmother practiced—was characterized by far more tolerance... To remind everyone, my grandfather and grandmother also witnessed genocide, specifically what happened on the Danube in World War II," he concluded.
In addition to the angry forum users, who are threatening the writer with both death and a total boycott of their cable subscriptions, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has also weighed in on the matter. They are demanding a public apology for the series, asserting that "performing a funeral for a pig is the greatest civilizational attack on Islamic values that has occurred to Muslims in this region since the genocide in Chernobyl."
Similar usernames?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
reddriver35 said:It’s honestly much easier to tell who’s who when a user actually has an avatar. 🙂
hollowtrucker77 well, look at you, suddenly becoming quite the ladies' man. 😬 :mežeiueurima: ☕
I mean, seriously, trying to track through all these different Scarletts, Stipes, and Zg-ovacs is enough to make anyone lose their mind. 😢
That's precisely why having an avatar is such a godsend.
I swear, I can't find any decent little avatars anywhere!
The social psychology of homophobia
in Psychology ·
I honestly fail to grasp the logic behind it; if someone identifies as straight, why on earth should they harbor any particular concern regarding whether another individual is gay?
The social psychology of homophobia
in Psychology ·
If you look back a century, people were busy mocking women simply because they weren't even granted the right to vote; fast forward to today, and we see women leading entire governments and commanding nations
Just fifty years ago, Black Americans were treated as if they were somehow inferior, yet here we are, having seen a Black man ascend to the presidency of the USA!
Looking ahead, I fully expect that within twenty-five years, the LGBTQ+ community will have achieved full legal equality and all their rights secured!
Just fifty years ago, Black Americans were treated as if they were somehow inferior, yet here we are, having seen a Black man ascend to the presidency of the USA!
Looking ahead, I fully expect that within twenty-five years, the LGBTQ+ community will have achieved full legal equality and all their rights secured!
Hypersexuality: Let's talk about it
in Psychology ·
Daniel Wilson5 said:Since I haven't received an answer to any of my questions yet, maybe I should try framing this differently.
Is it considered a disorder if someone is completely incapable of emotional attachment? Not just being distant, but feeling absolutely nothing for anyone—not even you. They can listen to you talk until they're blue in the face, but they couldn't care less about what you're going through. I'm not sure if that makes it clearer... Imagine a woman who just wanders around, hooking up with whoever she meets, feeling zero connection to anyone. She can't be faithful, she can't sustain a relationship, and she certainly can't be a partner. Is that actually normal?
And frankly, the exact same question applies to men as well!
Banned from the Alternative community???
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Personally, my access to the history section has been blocked because I supposedly dared to quote: "I am redundant there"! And then you have Scotsamnn constantly whining about how few people actually contribute over there! Well, it’s perfectly obvious, isn't it? When someone runs a total dictatorship, people either walk away or find themselves barred from entry entirely, rather than being grateful that anyone bothers to write anything at all! At least I still have enough free time to post in the history sections of other forums!
Rosehip juice recipes?
in Health ·
Why on earth hasn't this been posted in the culinary section?!
Scot?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
slybison8 said:If you ask me, Scotman is easily one of the most competent moderators on the Politics forum. As for those users who feel the sudden urge to register multiple accounts? Well, they ought to be prepared to face the music and deal with whatever fallout comes from such questionable decisions.
My dear slybison8, have you even bothered to read my post properly? I am discussing the history of banning procedures, not the politics of creating new handles whenever someone feels like it! Good grief! 🙄
Scot?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Instead of actually being grateful that we’re carving out our own precious time to contribute here, they go and penalize us as if we were some kind of domestic terrorists!
Scot?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
So, I actually requested a ban on my old username, Agent, because of some private matters I needed to settle! And then, like a flock of mindless sheep, the moderators didn't even bother to read the actual reason—which was that *I* requested the ban myself—they just jumped straight to banning my new handle too, simply because I’m technically banned, regardless of the context! I only opened this new account specifically so there wouldn't be any lingering connection to the Agent persona!
And then, get this, they go ahead and ban this current account as well, yet when I manage to get it reinstated after pleading my case, they leave a permanent mark on my history with a partial ban, citing that I am "unnecessary" there!
Now, I can't even start a single new account because the moment I try to post anything, my history catches up to me and I'm slapped with another ban! It isn't even as if I was causing trouble in that subforum; I was just doing what anyone does—starting threads and responding to others!
If I hadn't gone ahead and asked to be banned from that whole mess in the first place, none of this would have happened! It's like one of those legal dramas where the indictment gets thrown out, but you're still treated like a criminal nonetheless!
But hey, that's just how it goes; I'm the victim here, and apparently, victims are just meant to be punished!
What a joke of a system, what a bunch of mods, and what a pathetic excuse for a forum!
And then, get this, they go ahead and ban this current account as well, yet when I manage to get it reinstated after pleading my case, they leave a permanent mark on my history with a partial ban, citing that I am "unnecessary" there!
Now, I can't even start a single new account because the moment I try to post anything, my history catches up to me and I'm slapped with another ban! It isn't even as if I was causing trouble in that subforum; I was just doing what anyone does—starting threads and responding to others!
If I hadn't gone ahead and asked to be banned from that whole mess in the first place, none of this would have happened! It's like one of those legal dramas where the indictment gets thrown out, but you're still treated like a criminal nonetheless!
But hey, that's just how it goes; I'm the victim here, and apparently, victims are just meant to be punished!
What a joke of a system, what a bunch of mods, and what a pathetic excuse for a forum!