Josip Manolić is throwing shade at the Department of Justice, claiming they didn't step up enough to help Andrej Plenković during that whole SMS scandal involving Milijan Brkić.
So, Josip Manolić turned 99, and over at Fox, he mentioned that even former President Stipe Mason sent him birthday wishes. He also dropped a bombshell by naming his favorite politician—Andrej Plenković.
“My favorite politician is the one who actually takes responsibility—Andrej Plenković,” Manolić said, though he did add that, as of right now, Plenković hasn't bothered to wish him a happy birthday yet.
Harold Davis6 said:The biggest issue with the Republican Party is that they’re totally convinced all the mess they’ve made is actually fine. In their own twisted little heads, they don't see anything wrong with any of it.
Some people see it, sure, but they'd rather deal with the Republican Party than have those nasty Democrats in power. 🙂🐔
Whenever things get messy, they always start running scared about the Democratic Party. Honestly, it's getting kind of ridiculous, and at this point, I don't think it's even working anymore. ☕
Some poll claims Smith is actually catching up to Plenković.
If Smith pulls it off, he’ll either end up being a total fake conservative, or they'll find some excuse to kick him out because of his right-wing views, leaving us with some new version of Plenković in charge instead. 🥱
It’ll be pretty wild to see the actual turnout for these elections.
There’s some weird math going on here. Word is there are exactly 211,000 members. Zekanović thinks maybe 50,000 will actually show up to vote. Then you’ve got Hasanbegović claiming there are 50,000 people who actually pay their dues. If that were true, the Republican Party should basically have a million votes and a massive supermajority—it’d mean there were more Republican Party members in a city like New York than there were actual voters.
Also, this rule about needing 10,000 signatures? That is an astronomical number. It’s basically what presidential candidates had to pull off during the primaries. Sure, it’s a shorter timeframe, but back then the pool of eligible voters was way bigger.
Looking at the polls, it seems like 70% of the membership is happy, while 30% are not. But honestly, the people who support the Republican Party—or used to—but aren't official members? They’re a totally different breed. I wouldn't be shocked if the dissatisfaction among them is way higher than it is within the party itself.
Take my parents, for example. They joined the Republican Party right at the start and voted for them initially. I think just for the first election, though. After Ronald Reagan, my dad voted for Mason, and my mom went for Budiša. (Can't say for sure if they always stuck with Reagan). Nowadays, there's no way in hell they're voting Republican. They don't pay any dues either. Whether they're still listed as members is anyone's guess. In a disorganized country like this, it's hard to tell anything for sure.🐔
Looks like this is the only thread about him, so I'm just gonna drop my thoughts here.
If you ask me, his style is basically soulful Americana. It’s like he took everything Bob Dylan did and mashed it together with some deep, old-school blues.
Just sitting here listening to his stuff and rambling on.
Look, some of his points actually made sense once upon a time—or at least that’s how it felt—but man, the spiritual arrogance coming off this guy is just off the charts.
But it’s not even just him. There’s this whole gang of "intellectuals" in the comments section acting like they own the place and praising him. Like, sorry, did God personally pull you aside for a chat or something? 😲 They’re spouting absolute nonsense, and not just logically speaking, but even from the perspective of the faith they claim to represent (if they even believe it??)
Check out Elvis Presley's response over on Fox News. After reading this, he lost every ounce of credibility he had in my eyes. 🤦 Then he goes on later to write about Arabs and defending honor. =68.ARBt_rxDkq8caXU0kbIz5JFHPh71ofj0UHC1Uq24AF4E8EyAgp-AyabstyEnhrttFwm8CoIHR7PLHRItrWlEWVh1R7s6USuNVgrbH1fxgk4tzXiErAEfL4hN6YQr-']https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1908315982614537&id=60848 7039264111&__xts__[0]=68.ARBt_rxDkq8caXU0kbIz5JFHPh71ofj0UHC1Uq24AF4E8E yAgp-AyabstyEnhrttFwm8CoIHR7PLHRItrWlEWVh1R7s6USuNVgrbH 1fxgk4tzXiErAEfL4hN6YQr-
Honestly, I can't even bring myself to mock him. It's beneath me.
fadedgardener18 said:A reissue of Nightclubbing, some memoirs, and a brand new album. 🙂 She’s finally back in action.
She and Tina Turner are pretty much the last of the true legends. Honestly, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, and everyone else in that crowd? It’s all just one big joke.
There’s zero individuality left today. Everyone plays it safe and does the exact same thing—they just mash everything with electronic beats until you can't even tell if it's rock, pop, or whatever.
Things were always better back then 🙄
Bolded. Not true at all. ☕
Beyoncé doesn't play it safe. Look, I'm not out here defending her, but facts are facts.
Grace In is avant-garde, sure, but this whole post is just dripping with uncritical nostalgia. 🐔
So, we're talking about where conspiracy theories actually come from?
The Bible says people who do good walk in the light, while those doing evil hide out in the shadows so nobody sees what they're up to.
But honestly, the root of it all is just that gut feeling—that sense that something stinks. It’s that moment when you look at world events and finally manage to connect the dots. I think you have to be on a certain level of awareness to even pull that off. When someone is actually trying to be a decent person, all that darkness just becomes way more obvious to them.
It’s basically a cosmic war between angels and demons playing out right here in our world. 🙂
Take this whole gender ideology thing, or even stuff like communism and fascism. I'm telling you, that isn't just some byproduct of human thought. Especially with gender ideology—it’s way too calculated, way too "brilliant," and it has way too many followers for a regular person to have cooked up on their own. They frame themselves as the heroes and us as the villains. They’re literally standing there telling us kids should be experiencing orgasms from a tiny age.
Then they try to force this weird relativism down our throats, which is just a twisted version of pluralism. Suddenly, everything is up for debate: can gay people marry? Can a kid have three biological parents? Is a man actually a man, or a woman a woman? It’s all designed to tear down the very foundations of civilization by pretending these things are just "topics for discussion." And whenever you point it out, they slap a "conspiracy theory" label on you just to shut you up.
On the flip side, I honestly think some of those "conspiracy theorists" are actually part of the plot themselves, working to push New Age stuff. Which, let's face it, is just another step toward the New World Order.
rowdytiger13 said:Neva Tolle works for an autonomous women's shelter—it’s a non-profit NGO dedicated to providing safe havens for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Anyway, I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.
Amanda Hughes37 said:As someone who was once a victim of domestic violence myself and ended up in a shelter... I can't tell if that mark around her eyes where she hides her glasses is a lasting consequence of all that.
Kind of like some leftist version of Judith Reismann🤔
It’s just sad watching people like her try to fix the fallout while totally ignoring—and basically fueling—the actual causes they claim to be fighting against.🤷
It’s that whole "zero tolerance for the intolerant" philosophy people love to push around. But let’s be real—it’s not even about tolerance anymore. It’s about forced, unconditional acceptance. If you don't swallow everything they say without question, suddenly you're labeled a homophobe, a religious bigot, or a Nazi. Everyone has freedom of speech and the right to an opinion, but apparently, there's this one sacred zone where you aren't allowed to touch. It's their holy grail, and God forbid you disagree. 😲
Man, Anderson Cooper totally got me thinking—what even is his last name again? Anyway, what’s the deal with Neil deGrasse Tyson? Is he just that guy people go to when they want to talk about victims of violence, or is he some kind of hardcore liberal too? Just wondering.
What's that woman's name again? You know, the one who’s always super high-energy whenever she’s appearing alongside Neil deGrasse Tyson. 🤔
Chloe Sullivan88 said:And there you have it—you just perfectly illustrated your true feelings toward transgender people. So, apparently, simply using the term transgender is considered an act of hate by your standards. Glad we finally cleared that up. What’s your actual take on them? Do you honestly believe they aren't equal to you, or to a Catholic living in Boise? 🤷
As for etiquette? People get exactly the level of respect they earn. 😁
And based on your last post, I guess gay activists and Bozanic are basically twins to you? 🤷
Look, everyone is equal, but not everyone acts like it. 😍
rowdytiger13 said:Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point. In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker. We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement. That's really what we're talking about... The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.
I honestly don't get what feminism is even aiming for. From where I'm sitting, it looks like they aren't trying to reform tradition from within, but rather just tear the whole thing down. Is she really so oppressed that she has to do his laundry? Or maybe she’s just as "oppressed" by having to work outside while being a total pushover at home (okay, little joke there).
But let's look at feminism within the context of America and pro-family policies. Given all the other factors, tradition is just more practical for the family unit. My take? Every woman should have one kid raised by daycare or nannies while she chases a career, only to realize later she’d rather spend money on them to make up for it, only to find out the kids prefer the nanny or grandma anyway. It happens. How is that role "forced" on her? If she wanted a kid with him in the first place—imagine that scenario—isn't it better to actually be with the child rather than grinding away at some corporate office? (Though sometimes you have to).
Why can't we build something new, especially since we live in this day and age? Why not have a setup where a woman stays home to raise the kids, but still works for a company remotely? She could have more children, and then the older ones could help watch the younger ones. That way, we wouldn't be "destroying" tradition (if that's what people are worried about), but we'd introduce something modern without insulting the old ways. Instead of just going scorched earth on the concept of marriage. 😍
The article claims they were arguing that marriage equality is just a pre-political stepping stone toward some much larger agenda.
Where? I wasn't exactly hanging on every word since some of them were honestly pretty tedious. I don't recall hearing anything like that. Who actually said it?
If everyone is supposedly free to voice their opinions, why didn't anyone else speak up and say he was overstepping?
Because you’ve got a group of people there who all share the same views, just showing up to clap for one another. That's basically the first half of the twenty or so people there. The rest just showed up hoping to find a date; they couldn't care less about what these guys are rambling on about.
So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?
rowdytiger13 said:That wasn't an official media statement made on behalf of an organization; it was just someone speaking at a panel where everyone is invited to share their own views. It’s a classic example of that performative, high-society liberalism, but that’s beside the point.😁 As for why he phrased it that way, I couldn't tell you—you'd have to ask him. The reality is that this is about redefining marriage, not destroying it. You're just hyper-focusing on a single word used during a discussion because it fits your narrative.
It wasn't a media statement, so yeah, things were probably meant to be a bit more low-key.
The article claims they were framing the right to same-sex marriage as just a pre-political stepping stone for something even bigger.
If everyone is supposed to be free to share their views, then why didn't anyone else step up and say he went way too far?
Bolded. I love it because it’s living proof.
Go ahead, keep claiming we’ve got these wild conspiracy theories. Maybe that’s just what you need to hear to feel right.☕
rowdytiger13 said:Well, I already gave you my answer. Because at the end of the day, the fight for equality for the LGBTQ+ community is the top priority.
Bold move. We all get it—equality comes first. But apparently, that means we have to tear down marriage entirely and label anyone who disagrees as a fascist. Throw in some cancel culture on top for good measure.
Is one statement about destroying marriage really worth more than the fight for equal rights?
If this was actually about progress, why wouldn't a queer activist talk about "reforming" marriage to fit your logic? Instead, they go straight for the word "destroy." That’s a choice.