Posts by Andrew Mendoza10

rustydrifter10 said:Honestly, it would be super helpful if you could just point out which thread this happened in, so the mods and admins have an idea of who was actually being called out. 😁

But look, since I’ve already wiped three of your posts today, I’m pretty sure you were talking about me. To be blunt, I thought that post was pure trolling, so I went ahead and deleted it. Then you jumped in to comment on me deleting it—so I cleared that out too—and then you just reposted the original thing with a snarky little remark that earned you a warning before getting nuked entirely.

If you ask me, I’ve been more than patient here; you easily could’ve walked away with multiple strikes by now, but you didn't.

I already laid it all out for you in a DM, I'm laying it out for you again now, and if that still doesn't clear things up for you, then just sit tight and wait for the admins to weigh in and give their take.

I was talking about you. You claim you were being tolerant; I maintain the post shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.

Here is the thread: http://forum.us/showthread.php?p=32462388#post32462388a This
was the post. Let the admins decide.

Quote:
yaya says: Check the post.
It feels like I'm reading my own life story from twenty years ago. My ex-husband was a total wreck—a drunk, a gambler, a philanderer, and a complete mama's boy who couldn't stand up to his mother. From that marriage, I had a beautiful daughter—the only good thing to come of it. I left after two and a half years when I realized staying meant certain death. Twelve years later, I found a decent man. He has his flaws, sure, but he isn't anywhere near the disaster my ex was. So... I don't see anything good in your future regarding that marriage unless your husband changes. Good luck, and honestly, "hell" is an understatement. Get out.

Despite all that, you ended up with a daughter and entered into a marriage.

To the author: whose fault is it when you chose a man who acts like a coward and refuses to take your side? You chose what you chose; now deal with it.

So, you're deleting things again. I'm just curious—what reason are they going to give this time?

feraltrucker5 said:🤣 🤣

Actually, it’s even worse if you’re actually being serious. 😬 Which means... man, I’m not even going to type out what that implies because I really don't feel like burning through my daily quota of insults just to deal with people on this forum. 😁

Since I clearly have nothing better to do with my life—okay, that's a lie, I do have things to do, I'm just feeling incredibly lazy today 😳—let's dive into this absolutely brilliant little idea of yours.

So, we're talking about a committee with an odd number of members that would be responsible for deciding whether to delete every single individual post and, presumably, hand out bans. Let's follow that logic to its inevitable, chaotic conclusion. 👋

The bare minimum for a committee like that would obviously be three people. That means at least three individuals would need to sit down and debate the merits of every single post. On a site like Reddit, there are roughly 19,000 new posts every single day. 😲

Just how many committees would we need to spin up, and how much of their lives would they have to sacrifice just to decide what stays and what goes? 🍿

You misunderstood me. I've taken bans and warnings before, and I didn't complain because I knew I was in the wrong. Most people realize when they've messed up, though there will always be gray areas. You have a thread, a controversial post pops up, and the authorities weigh in. How many such posts could there be in a day? Maybe 20 or 30? This whole thing about moderators acting on pure whim—as if we were still living under a dictatorship—is actually pretty accurate. Even today, anyone handed even a shred of power tends to act like they're the next Marshall or Jadranka.

Jose Miller3 said:🤣 🤣

It might sound ridiculous—but I’m being dead serious. A moderator can be a total fascist, they can just plain hate you, or God knows what else—and they can mess with your head whenever they feel like it. All you can really do is throw some salt on their tail.

The title says it all—my previous explanation was dismissed as nothing more than "trolling." I don't see it that way. It raises a question: does a moderator really hold absolute authority to decide what constitutes trolling and what doesn't? Wouldn't it be more equitable if we had a committee—composed of an impartial group of members—to settle these kinds of disputes? Who’s to say a single moderator can always remain objective and unbiased?

Casey Long2 said:"Too expensive" is subjective. How much are you actually willing to shell out? What kind of storage capacity are we even talking about?

I reckon 1 GB would be plenty—it’s strictly for music while I'm walking or traveling. I’m prepared to pay up to $167, depending on the market. My main goal is longevity; I want something that lasts years, not some cheap gadget that dies after twelve months. I'm looking for something reliable and solid without being an overpriced 🤣—though I realize I might be asking for too much 😁

Once upon a time, I actually owned this http://img251.imageshack.us/i/teacmp370.jpg/—until some thief swiped it along with my jacket one Saturday afternoon 😢. After that, I wasted money on some cheap junk that barely lasted a year. Now, I’m looking for advice on what to buy. I want quality without breaking the bank—something akin to a Nokia in the smartphone world 😁:

bluerider63 said:I think you've got it backward, honestly, because what you're saying implies we can just look the other way when Kerum acts up—since he's clearly not a liberal anyway—but a secretary who's supposed to represent those values gets no slack at all.
Just using a bit of right-wing rhetoric here, maybe the media didn't even get the story straight 😁

Look, when people voted for Kerum, they knew exactly who he was and what he stood for; he won his election fair and square. My issue would only arise if he had campaigned on one set of values only to pivot to something completely different once in office. Honestly, regardless of his character, I respect him more than 90% of our politicians simply because he's sincere—even if that sincerity isn't always a good thing for him. That's his burden to carry.

I don't see why there's such an outcry. We can admit a statement is wrong and totally indefensible without making it a crisis. Personally, I’d be livid if someone in my own family said something like this, let alone a member of a party I actually support or belong to. Or is it just that you disagree with the actual sentiment expressed?

Ethan Morales22 said:Everything she says is pure gold ☕

If some people can't handle what she's actually saying because they're too busy nitpicking useless details, that’s on them, not her! ☕

She's spot on. The European Union is sitting around today debating a mess they basically manufactured themselves—this so-called "state" of Mexico, which is nothing more than a mafia-run quasi-state...
Specifically, the Parliament is set to pass a report today regarding organ trafficking in Mexico.
Everyone in the European Union is talking about how much of a mafia playground Mexico has become, so Helena isn't exactly dropping any bombshells; she's just stating the obvious!
In Mexico, they deal in everything: kidneys, chickens, heroin, weapons, people, women... So now people act shocked when she calls them mobsters? Give me a break!
Any society that allows such a wide "range of professions" within such a tiny territory is, by definition, a criminal enterprise! ☕

.

🤣🤣🤣🤣😂 Go ahead, try explaining to the folks in the European Union that Mexico is the heart of Mexico—even if they won't admit they'll soon be facing the consequences of a powerful Mexican military that actually knows how to win wars. 😁

bluerider63 said:And what would they do, kick her out of the party? I guess then Split would be stuck without a mayor, but hey, everyone’s got their right to free speech, right?

Yeah, kick her out. Here's the issue: the Democratic Party markets itself as this liberal organization full of open-minded people—so when one of their own members says something completely contrary to that, you're telling me that isn't grounds for expulsion? Look, Kerum never claimed to be some open-minded liberal, at least not as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

quietmaker44 said:Look, at least they aren't beating people up in bars.

Besides, 90% of those Republican Party supporters were singing the exact same stuff, and now they're acting like they're too good for it.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are clearly just two sides of the same coin. How can someone born in, say, '86—like me—sing songs about being everything from Vardar to Mount Triglav? 🤷What kind of idiot does that make you?

bluerider63 said:The right-wing crowd on this forum can barely contain themselves waiting to dig up some conspiracy theory about someone in the Democratic Party, thinking they've struck gold by pointing out that Albanians own bakeries, pastry shops, and jewelry stores—as if nobody ever noticed—just so they can spew their usual brand of hate and intolerance. What a total oxymoron 🙏🙏

Why don't you try reading the article again? She didn't say Albanians owned bakeries and pastry shops; she said something else entirely. I mean, what exactly is leadership supposed to do with that "secret" information?

quietmaker44 said:But look, when Bandić is basically serving up an all-you-can-eat buffet of mockery, it's hard for anyone to resist. 🤣

It’s a matter of culture. That crowd will inevitably follow some misguided logic, acting as if they’re this untouchable elite—Lord knows what else they'll claim. If it were some Republican making a statement like this, you'd have ten pages of outrage already.

quietmaker44 said:Just like not every conservative is a total fascist, you'll still find a few lost souls drifting around the left side too.

I have a feeling those kinds of lost souls are actually quite common. I still remember the runoff in the last presidential election—watching Josipović's campaign staff. It was just a bunch of pretentious kids wearing shirts mocking Bandić. Is that what passes for culture or decent behavior these days? I highly doubt anyone with actual standards could have stood being there; frankly, it made my stomach turn. It left me wondering if I was even voting for the lesser of two evils.

I started this exact thread before, only for someone to go ahead and delete it. Apparently, pointing out that the Democratic Party has more fascists than any right-wing party is strictly forbidden on this forum. But sure—let's just pretend the lefties are some enlightened elite while the right-wingers are nothing but backward fascists and fanatics.

Kimberly Scott5 said:if he was actually a decent guy trying to act all righteous, he wouldn't be going by the name Robert Martinez6☕

You're right—if he actually had manners, he'd be calling himself a cheese pastry🤣

I’d suggest the author drops by my place for a summer—maybe then they’ll finally stop trying to eat watermelon with a knife and fork. They'd realize pretty quickly that if you actually want a piece, you have to move fast—and at that point, etiquette becomes an afterthought. 😁

boldwalker12 said:Look at it this way—they’ve got much better entertainment. 😁
All those gospel bands and that whole "positive vibes" thing (I actually caught a performance by one of those groups lately) really helps dial down any potential extremism. And trust me, it exists, maybe even more so among Catholics than anyone else.

I agree. They’re far more sensible than Catholics when it comes to that. I meet up with them every Friday; even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, it’s good to be around them. As for Sunday mass at a Catholic church? I wouldn't show up there unless it was for a funeral.

boldwalker12 said:Yeah, I think so, though you won't find that happening in the Catholic Church. Honestly, I don't have a huge dog in this fight when it comes to how things work in the States, but hey, good for them.

They certainly aren't Catholics, but if Catholics don't fix a few things, they're in trouble. I recently met some Baptists from Canada, and one of them mentioned how churches—Catholic ones specifically—are sitting empty over there and in the States. For them, the real issue isn't even that women can't become priests.

boldwalker12 said:Look, the hunger, or the drive 😁 for power is just part of being human. There isn't a single ideology out there that hasn't been twisted by it at some point. Personally, I see it like this: I don't pretend to be equal to everyone, I don't identify with everyone, and I'm definitely not "brothering" anyone based on sex or ideology. It doesn't even cross my mind to view every woman claiming to be a feminist as my "sister" in some shallow, mindless way, nor am I buying into those militant factions. But... a good chunk of what they're trying to achieve actually aligns with my worldview, and I think there are still a ton of inequalities out there that need fixing. We shouldn't just demonize their goals.
The Church is notorious for its divisions, but I don't find that particularly surprising. I know it's a pretty cliché example, but when the clergy is exclusively male, there really isn't much of a debate to be had there.

I might be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure that in the USA, some denominations actually allow women to be ordained as priests.

boldwalker12 said:It was a rhetorical question.
Feminist groups aren't out here painting all dads as villains; they're just pointing out facts that everyone else would rather ignore. Look, it's obvious that any institution or organization is going to make mistakes. But what does that mean? Does it mean we have to demonize them at every single turn? Because that’s exactly what happens, day in and day out. It's honestly exhausting trying to argue within that framework—like, "Oh, why don't kids get assigned to men?" Well, let me break it down for you: it's because in a patriarchal society, the stereotype is that the mom is the caregiver while the dad is the provider, the authority figure, the one who brings home the paycheck and hands out the discipline. If you follow that outdated logic, it's not hard to see why mothers end up with custody. Feminism isn't about fighting for bad moms who abuse their kids while some caring father is blocked from seeing them—that's total bullshit. And why are domestic violence shelters filled with women instead of men? That's a different conversation entirely. Why are efforts to help women who have absolutely nobody to turn to—women who are literally struggling just to survive without being terrified for their lives—constantly being sabotaged? Why do we read about murdered women every single day and just treat it like it's normal? Why do something like, what is it, 60% of high school girls think it's okay if their partner hits them? Why, why... goddammit.

It’s because they lack any semblance of common sense—you can't blame some guy for that. Honestly, they don't seem to care one bit. Then, when they actually run into a decent guy, he isn't "exciting" enough because he isn't a bad boy. So, they go looking for the bad boy who will slowly bruise them just to show who's boss in the relationship. They crave it—and really, who are we to judge?