CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › Political Scene › Republican Party - General Discussion

Republican Party - General Discussion

Started by Larry Walker24 · · 👁 36 views · 2.2K replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Larry Walker24mistyhawk17casualskipper6Jeremy Sanchez4Walter Baker2electricnomad8darkhawk30Nancy Gomez26Harold Davis6Alexander Reed7slysurfer14Kenneth Perez15Thomas Nelson25Robin Jones2urbanrider8Amy Nguyen18quietfox38Carol Newman2Ethan Clark3Paul Bishop3darkdriverrapidfox26Mark Hughes36hollowmason64 …
rapidfox26 rapidfox26 Member
15 messages
joined Oct 2017
#321 ·
ruggeddrifter85 said:We're talking about foster care here.
And apparently, per their rules, the age, health, or ethnicity of the child doesn't even matter.
Meanwhile, a massive line of traditional American Catholic couples is just waiting around to foster older kids or children with special needs from the Romani community. 🤣
Even actual Americans 🤣
are being pushed aside.

Plus, they actually went on CNN and basically dared anyone to step up. They said they'd quit fostering if enough straight couples stepped up to take all those kids. But from what I hear, the straight cowards who spend all their time whining about activists are nowhere to be found...☕
hollowmason64 hollowmason64 Regular
411 messages
joined Jan 2016
#322 ·
Adam Collins4 said:You mean the one where Jesus rapes a Muslim woman and a sex worker pulls out a flag...

As for gay couples having kids—it's not like they have access to children when the adoption process here in the States is such a bureaucratic nightmare. There are plenty of straight couples who would jump at the chance to adopt, but honestly, the red tape alone is enough to kill the desire.

Like they already told you—we aren't talking about adoption here, we’re talking about foster care. It wouldn't hurt if all you folks who "won't let gays have kids so they don't turn them into little deviants" actually learned the difference between those two things first. Because honestly, the distinction is massive.
Besides, I find it kind of funny how everyone claiming they "won't give kids to gays" acts so incredibly proud of their Christian upbringing and how they live their lives according to those values. But apparently, out of all that "Christian love" and empathy, it's better for every single one of these kids to spend their entire lives bouncing through the foster system rather than being "given to gays." Just like nobody seems to care that these kids end up kicked out onto the street the second they turn 18, left to fend for themselves.
But hey, at least they didn't fall into the hands of a gay couple, right? 👍

George Martin2 said:Spot on. It’s just much more socially acceptable to claim "bureaucratic hurdles" forced them to give up, rather than admitting they couldn't find a young, healthy, white kid to fit their specific mold and decided to walk away instead.

That was very well put, very precise.
It reminds me of those desperate couples who are dying to have a child to love and pour everything into—but only on the condition that the kid meets the exact specific standards the mom and dad have set.
Just look at what Bobanov was doing... it was practically like he was ordering a custom-made kid based on certain criteria.
Charles Carter4 Charles Carter4 Active Member
152 messages
joined Mar 2023
#323 ·
That’s a pretty heavy question to tackle.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are still scratching their heads over this one—I know I am, at least. It’s one of those things where I try not to get too deep into the weeds because it gets complicated fast.
At the end of the day, you can't deny that any kid would be better off growing up in a real home with a family that actually cares, rather than being shuffled through the foster care system. But...
Adam Collins4 Adam Collins4 Regular
502 messages
joined Apr 2013
#324 ·
ruggeddrifter85 said:We're talking about foster care here.
And apparently, per their rules, the age, health, or ethnicity of the child doesn't even matter.
Meanwhile, a massive line of traditional American Catholic couples is just waiting around to foster older kids or children with special needs from the Romani community. 🤣
Even actual Americans 🤣
are being pushed aside.

Look, as a parent of five—two of whom are adopted—with an experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let me tell you something: stop talking out of your ass about things you clearly have zero clue about...😉

Until then, take your little spins somewhere else...
Adam Collins4 Adam Collins4 Regular
502 messages
joined Apr 2013
#325 ·
hollowmason64 said:Like they already told you—we aren't talking about adoption here, we’re talking about foster care. It wouldn't hurt if all you folks who "won't let gays have kids so they don't turn them into little deviants" actually learned the difference between those two things first. Because honestly, the distinction is massive.
Besides, I find it kind of funny how everyone claiming they "won't give kids to gays" acts so incredibly proud of their Christian upbringing and how they live their lives according to those values. But apparently, out of all that "Christian love" and empathy, it's better for every single one of these kids to spend their entire lives bouncing through the foster system rather than being "given to gays." Just like nobody seems to care that these kids end up kicked out onto the street the second they turn 18, left to fend for themselves.
But hey, at least they didn't fall into the hands of a gay couple, right? 👍

That was very well put, very precise.
It reminds me of those desperate couples who are dying to have a child to love and pour everything into—but only on the condition that the kid meets the exact specific standards the mom and dad have set.
Just look at what Bobanov was doing... it was practically like he was ordering a custom-made kid based on certain criteria.

1. I'm not a believer, I'm an atheist.

2. Two out of my five kids were adopted, so save your half-witted lectures, much like this one, for someone else...

And yeah, as long as there's even one last heterosexual couple left wanting to foster or adopt, homosexuals aren't going to be getting any kids handed to them...

If they want kids, they should try loving someone of the opposite sex... I hear that's a pretty damn good way to have children...

But then again, women say that all the time, so maybe it's not true...
George Martin2 George Martin2 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Feb 2020
#326 ·
Adam Collins4 said:1. I'm not a believer, I'm an atheist.

2. Two out of my five kids were adopted, so save your half-witted lectures, much like this one, for someone else...

And yeah, as long as there's even one last heterosexual couple left wanting to foster or adopt, homosexuals aren't going to be getting any kids handed to them...

If they want kids, they should try loving someone of the opposite sex... I hear that's a pretty damn good way to have children...

But then again, women say that all the time, so maybe it's not true...

Like we already told you, there are specific children that straight couples simply aren't willing to adopt, so you're creating a false dilemma here.
driftingtinker driftingtinker Regular
372 messages
joined Jan 2019
#327 ·
So, I was watching N1 Penava today and this guy just went on a ten-minute rant about his vision for the new Republican Party. He wouldn't even let anyone bring up Plenko, but he managed to pivot back to talking about that old American flag and the star in Cleveland that we’re all stuck paying for, like four different times.

Before him, you had Stier on, and man, you could just tell by his face how badly he’s waiting for this whole circus to finally wrap up.
Adam Collins4 Adam Collins4 Regular
502 messages
joined Apr 2013
#328 ·
George Martin2 said:Like we already told you, there are specific children that straight couples simply aren't willing to adopt, so you're creating a false dilemma here.

Wauu, "it was said to me..."🤣

What, you just pull some random nonsense out of thin air and suddenly it’s a valid argument?

Just because someone muttered something doesn't mean it holds any weight—without actual reasoning, it's pretty much worthless.😉
George Martin2 George Martin2 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Feb 2020
#329 ·
Adam Collins4 said:Wauu, "it was said to me..."🤣

What, you just pull some random nonsense out of thin air and suddenly it’s a valid argument?

Just because someone muttered something doesn't mean it holds any weight—without actual reasoning, it's pretty much worthless.😉

So, is the fact that couples are choosing to adopt or foster older children, kids with special needs, or children from minority backgrounds less frequently now considered "nonsense"?

If there aren't enough heterosexual couples willing to step up for those specific kids, then you're just creating a false dilemma.
Adam Collins4 Adam Collins4 Regular
502 messages
joined Apr 2013
#330 ·
George Martin2 said:So, is the fact that couples are choosing to adopt or foster older children, kids with special needs, or children from minority backgrounds less frequently now considered "nonsense"?

If there aren't enough heterosexual couples willing to step up for those specific kids, then you're just creating a false dilemma.

First off, you actually need to provide some real evidence to prove that these kids aren't being picked up by hetero couples...😉

And besides, how did we suddenly pivot to talking about sick kids, older kids, and ethnic minorities?

Also, they actually *tried* to adopt...

So, it’s not a false dilemma... and suing the USA over adoption issues is a stretch.
George Martin2 George Martin2 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Feb 2020
#331 ·
Adam Collins4 said:First off, you actually need to provide some real evidence to prove that these kids aren't being picked up by hetero couples...😉

And besides, how did we suddenly pivot to talking about sick kids, older kids, and ethnic minorities?

Also, they actually *tried* to adopt...

So, it’s not a false dilemma... and suing the USA over adoption issues is a stretch.

Look, let’s get one thing straight. The very first post you aggressively jumped on from that user "odakusa" was actually discussing how certain groups of children—specifically those with developmental disabilities, older kids, or children from minority backgrounds—are much harder for potential adoptive parents to commit to. If there isn't interest from a straight couple in those specific cases, then you're just creating a total straw man argument by framing it as this false dilemma between whether a child should be adopted by a straight or a gay couple. It's a complete logical fallacy.

It seems people are looking for more than just policy tweaks or economic shifts—they’re actually craving genuine connection. It sounds a bit cliché, I know, but there’s this growing sentiment that we’ve become too transactional in our daily lives. We focus so much on the numbers, the logistics, and the structural integrity of our society that we forget the actual glue holding everything together: empathy and affection. I was thinking about this earlier while watching some news coverage, and it struck me how often we treat social issues like math problems. You can’t solve loneliness or societal fragmentation with a spreadsheet. You can’t legislate "love" into existence, though politicians certainly love to pretend they have a plan for it. There’s a certain bluntness to the reality here. We want stability, sure, but we also want to feel seen. If we don't address the emotional vacuum in our modern culture, all the political maneuvering in the world won't fix the underlying rot. It’s a messy, unquantifiable variable, which is exactly why most people in power tend to ignore it. They prefer things they can measure, even if what they're measuring isn't actually what matters most.
I just stumbled upon this report from the news, and honestly, it’s enough to make your skin crawl. We’re looking at a case where someone—and I won't dwell on the specifics to spare us all the nausea—is essentially trying to claim ownership over a child. It’s a legal nightmare wrapped in a moral catastrophe. It’s one of those situations that makes you question how our judicial systems actually function. You read these things and you start wondering if the laws meant to protect the most vulnerable among us are being treated like mere suggestions by people with twisted motives. It isn't just about a disagreement over custody; it feels much more predatory than that. It feels like an attempt to strip away a human being's agency entirely. I know, I know, I tend to get a bit worked up about these systemic failures, and maybe I should mind my own business, but how can you not? When the institutions designed to act as a safety net seem to be tripping over their own feet while someone tries to "possess" a minor, it’s hard to stay quiet. It’s messy, it’s infuriating, and frankly, it’s a dark reflection of how easily power can be abused when nobody is watching closely enough.
You have people from within the establishment actually speaking up about this.
Robin Jones2 Robin Jones2 Active Member
199 messages
joined Nov 2012
#332 ·
Adam Collins4 said:Wauu, "it was said to me..."🤣

What, you just pull some random nonsense out of thin air and suddenly it’s a valid argument?

Just because someone muttered something doesn't mean it holds any weight—without actual reasoning, it's pretty much worthless.😉

Look, I appreciate your bluntness; you don't mince words.

However, your own statement—that you have five children, two of whom are adopted—is also an "unsubstantiated argument." It is merely something you claim.

In an ideal world, every child would be raised by stable, nurturing parents. They would have a roof over their heads, full stomachs, and genuine joy.

But reality is rarely so kind.

Some children are left with parents who are alcoholics, abusers, addicts, thieves, or psychopaths.

Others are even more unfortunate, having no parents at all because they have passed away or abandoned them.

The most tragic cases involve children dealing with illness or mental instability.

When those caregivers go home to their own families, leaving these kids in a group home while the TV and internet flood their minds with images of happy families, what do those children actually think about?

One ought to ask those children if they would prefer living with two gay men or lesbians, or if they would rather endure that miserable existence in a foster home until they turn 18, only to be tossed onto the streets once again.
Chloe Martinez7 Chloe Martinez7 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2017
#333 ·
Adam Collins4 said:You mean the one where Jesus rapes a Muslim woman and a sex worker pulls out a flag...

As for gay couples having kids—it's not like they have access to children when the adoption process here in the States is such a bureaucratic nightmare. There are plenty of straight couples who would jump at the chance to adopt, but honestly, the red tape alone is enough to kill the desire.

Maybe try doing a little research before you start typing?

There is a massive difference between adoption and foster care.
A huge number of straight couples in the US would adopt, but they won't foster.
The ruling actually favors gay couples for fostering because of certain legal violations that have nothing to do with sexuality itself.

Fine, I agree, children should probably go to straight couples first.☕
But why does the USA still have orphanages?
All these kids currently sitting in state facilities—aren't they supposed to be going into foster care?
Where are all those straight couples then?
Chloe Martinez7 Chloe Martinez7 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2017
#334 ·
Adam Collins4 said:1. I'm not a believer, I'm an atheist.

2. Two out of my five kids were adopted, so save your half-witted lectures, much like this one, for someone else...

And yeah, as long as there's even one last heterosexual couple left wanting to foster or adopt, homosexuals aren't going to be getting any kids handed to them...

If they want kids, they should try loving someone of the opposite sex... I hear that's a pretty damn good way to have children...

But then again, women say that all the time, so maybe it's not true...

Still, where are all these heterosexual couples you claim are waiting to adopt from the foster system?
Brenda Taylor13 Brenda Taylor13 Active Member
235 messages
joined Jan 2018
#335 ·
Look, let’s call this what it is—it isn't just about "fostering." If we want to get real, we need to rewind the tape back maybe twenty years or so, back when Dorino Manzin was basically running the show for the gay community and those first Pride parades started rolling through town. I remember it vividly—back then, they weren't even asking for same-sex unions or marriage or any of that stuff. They just wanted certain inheritance rights, nothing more. Then, a few years down the line—surprise, surprise!—suddenly they're all over the idea of legal registration, marriage, whatever you want to call it. It's the classic slippery slope: you start small because you can't grab everything at once, but the appetite just keeps growing. Every single time, they push for more.

It’s the exact same playbook with this "fostering" nonsense they're pushing now. You start with one thing, and then a few years later, you'll be demanding full adoption rights "once the public gets used to it," right? That's the game. This isn't the finish line. It won't stop here. In a couple of years, they’ll be demanding adoption, just like how they started out acting all cool just wanting to be heard, only to end up demanding registered partnerships—or they would have had marriage if Zeljko Markic hadn't stepped in and completely wrecked their little plans.

So, yeah, the direction is crystal clear. This is where the story is heading... if you give them an inch with fostering today, you can bet your life they'll be demanding adoption tomorrow.
Harold Davis6 Harold Davis6 Active Member
56 messages
joined Mar 2023
#336 ·
Me?
Chloe Martinez7 Chloe Martinez7 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2017
#337 ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, let’s call this what it is—it isn't just about "fostering." If we want to get real, we need to rewind the tape back maybe twenty years or so, back when Dorino Manzin was basically running the show for the gay community and those first Pride parades started rolling through town. I remember it vividly—back then, they weren't even asking for same-sex unions or marriage or any of that stuff. They just wanted certain inheritance rights, nothing more. Then, a few years down the line—surprise, surprise!—suddenly they're all over the idea of legal registration, marriage, whatever you want to call it. It's the classic slippery slope: you start small because you can't grab everything at once, but the appetite just keeps growing. Every single time, they push for more.

It’s the exact same playbook with this "fostering" nonsense they're pushing now. You start with one thing, and then a few years later, you'll be demanding full adoption rights "once the public gets used to it," right? That's the game. This isn't the finish line. It won't stop here. In a couple of years, they’ll be demanding adoption, just like how they started out acting all cool just wanting to be heard, only to end up demanding registered partnerships—or they would have had marriage if Zeljko Markic hadn't stepped in and completely wrecked their little plans.

So, yeah, the direction is crystal clear. This is where the story is heading... if you give them an inch with fostering today, you can bet your life they'll be demanding adoption tomorrow.

And?
What's the issue?

Where are all those straight couples who are supposed to be fostering kids from the system?

Besides, it doesn't really matter if you call it marriage, a domestic partnership, or if people just live together without any official paperwork.
Screw your definitions.

And if straight couples don't step up to foster kids in a few years, then fine—let gay couples do it.
Or singles.
And...
Whoever passes all those tests and background checks required for adoption.

Not a fan of my take?
I couldn't care less.
Just organize the fostering and empty out the group homes.☕
rapidfox26 rapidfox26 Member
15 messages
joined Oct 2017
#338 ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, let’s call this what it is—it isn't just about "fostering." If we want to get real, we need to rewind the tape back maybe twenty years or so, back when Dorino Manzin was basically running the show for the gay community and those first Pride parades started rolling through town. I remember it vividly—back then, they weren't even asking for same-sex unions or marriage or any of that stuff. They just wanted certain inheritance rights, nothing more. Then, a few years down the line—surprise, surprise!—suddenly they're all over the idea of legal registration, marriage, whatever you want to call it. It's the classic slippery slope: you start small because you can't grab everything at once, but the appetite just keeps growing. Every single time, they push for more.

It’s the exact same playbook with this "fostering" nonsense they're pushing now. You start with one thing, and then a few years later, you'll be demanding full adoption rights "once the public gets used to it," right? That's the game. This isn't the finish line. It won't stop here. In a couple of years, they’ll be demanding adoption, just like how they started out acting all cool just wanting to be heard, only to end up demanding registered partnerships—or they would have had marriage if Zeljko Markic hadn't stepped in and completely wrecked their little plans.

So, yeah, the direction is crystal clear. This is where the story is heading... if you give them an inch with fostering today, you can bet your life they'll be demanding adoption tomorrow.

Harold Davis6 said:Me?

I don't know... just feels like things are moving too fast lately—everything is a mess... honestly, I'm not even sure what to make of it all anymore. Just watching it happen... says:
I?

I?
Chloe Martinez7 Chloe Martinez7 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2017
#339 ·
rapidfox26 said:
I don't know... just feels like things are moving too fast lately—everything is a mess... honestly, I'm not even sure what to make of it all anymore. Just watching it happen... says:
I?

I?

as if
adopting every single child and emptying out every home is the solution ☕
rapidfox26 rapidfox26 Member
15 messages
joined Oct 2017
#340 ·
Chloe Martinez7 said:as if
adopting every single child and emptying out every home is the solution ☕

I was just bringing you two up to drive home my point—which is basically the same thing you guys are saying...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads