Posts by George Booth58

David Vaughn75 said:Look, if you take a thousand people who are all genetically identical—just a massive group of clones—and they decide to start a business, someone’s gotta be stuck on the assembly line while someone else sits in the corner office running the show. Inequality isn't just a bug in the system; it's baked right into the recipe.

I mean, look, kapitalizam is an unfair mess, but honestly? We haven't come up with anything better yet.

I think this premise is flawed. I mean, what kind of company is actually set up where 1,000 people gather and then just roll dice to decide who gets which job or where the hierarchy sits?

Intelligence isn't necessarily the same thing as ability. It more or less measures potential—how someone handles new situations, maybe. There was once a waitress in the USA who recorded the highest IQ ever measured.

The market tends to reward those who know how to actually produce something. Anyone could work a line, but only a handful out of thousands will have the idea of what to make and how to sell it. To me, the idea is really the most vital part of industry.

In the States, you don't really see a significant number of people who are actually sincere socialists—it’s more like an uneducated crowd driven mostly by envy, I guess. The average working-class person in a city like Chicago doesn't necessarily crave free education or healthcare (since they already have access to those things)—they just dream about swapping out their fake Louis Vuitton bags and Prada sneakers for the real deal. It seems to me that the lower class here is actually the biggest consumer of culture that promotes this easy lifestyle and tacky "wealthy" aesthetics; most mainstream music just features stories about neighborhood thugs living it up, dropping stacks of cash at clubs, and driving luxury cars.

Gregory Peterson2 said:I’ve got absolutely nothing against the wealthy. In fact, I’m all for it if they’re more capable, more driven, smarter, or better educated... and consequently end up with more cash than everyone else.

The real issue pops up when people who don't fit that description—simply because the deck was stacked against them from birth—end up with way, way more money than someone who is objectively much more talented but just didn't get the same head start in life.

If we all started at the exact same finish line, I wouldn't have a single complaint about wild capitalism or the "survival of the fittest" mentality. But let's be real: that's impossible. Since we don't all have the same opportunities, I believe the total wealth should be distributed as fairly as possible. We need a system that still rewards hard work, discourages laziness, and tries to give everyone a fighting chance to make it big. Now, don't get me wrong—I know a kid working on a ranch in Wyoming will never have the same path to success as Prince William. But the government should at least ensure that through fair wealth distribution, even that kid has a shot at climbing the ladder if they’ve got the grit and the drive to earn it.

I think you meant "subjectively more capable"—since an objective assessment usually relies on measurable criteria. Besides, someone born into a royal family doesn't really have much room to maneuver—I suppose. William probably couldn't just pick his own career path, since he’s expected to become king and follow royal protocol from the moment he's born.

Yeah. But it isn't officially called the Democratic Federal Republic of Canada. It's kind of like how the US isn't called the Parliamentary Democratic Unicameral Republic of the United States for all its citizens.

I’m wondering why people are allowed to get away with calling the Republic of Canada a "republic"—it isn't even the official title of the country, so I guess it just feels like someone being intentionally provocative. They can fantasize about Alija's creation all they want, but there really shouldn't be a place for that kind of projection here on this forum.

The Republic of BiH doesn't exist. A topic like this probably belongs over on the History subforum.👍

Maria Booth96 said:This news caught my eye, so I figured some of you might find it interesting too.

My take: someone in Europe decided that displaced people and refugees should just stay put instead of going home. It makes everyone more compact and homogeneous, which supposedly helps "fix" the North America down the road. They’re clearly a bit uneasy about having Canadians in the mix, but that’s just how it plays out.

I've got some bigger things to handle, so I'll be MIA for a few days. Don't start with the: "Maria Booth96 starts a thread then vanishes" routine. I know you guys love me.😍

What’s the consensus here?

The world has finally realized that trying to force North American peoples back into mixed living situations would just end the same way it always has—with bloodshed, concentration camps, and mass graves.

Some supporters of fringe leftist ideologies, or those still dreaming about "coexistence" during communist America, might not be happy with this outcome, but it doesn't really matter; what matters is that the world has chosen to be pragmatic regarding our region by separating ethnic groups that have repeatedly tried to wipe each other out.

bluerider63 said:A hair is just a hair, man.🙂

In that case, I guess we should probably treat them both the same—the wife who decided to leave her husband, and the abusive husband who beat her because of it. I mean, damn, she basically provoked him, right? By spreading all that propaganda about starting a life outside the marriage, she pretty much set the stage. ☕

rowdyowl said:That logic absolutely baffles me too: "Oh, you wanted to break away, and THAT gives us the right to pillage and kill." 🤷

What kind of claim do they even have to any scrap of territory here? Not even their most powerful kings or emperors ever ruled an inch of the territory of the SR America, let alone Canada or Vojvodina.🤷

They ruled over Canada, much like our own people did during the Middle Ages—but that’s not really the point. What matters is the Constitution of those states within America. And nowhere in that document does it say that Americans are the foundational people of the South, nor does it give them the right to "punish" separatists by seizing the entire American People's Army to set up Mexican para-states in America and Canada.

coastalcanyon60 said:Look, I’m a native New Yorker, and frankly, I have nothing but contempt for these national, ethnic, religious, or any other kinds of labels. In my view, these divisions are completely uncivilized by twenty-first-century standards, though I realize that grasping something like that can be a tall order in the North America...

I’m not one for labeling myself, but if I absolutely had to, I’d say I’m just an Earthling, or maybe even a Jedi (since that nation seems to be expanding lately), even though I know that people like me—those who think logically—would easily be lumped in with the "hardcore nationalists" just based on our last names or where we were born. On the flip side, I’m fully aware that most people view their "national identity" as an absolute axiom, and many talk about it with such intense emotion. I suspect you fall into that camp too. Sometimes that’s charming, but other times, it’s just totally pointless.

Usually, I don't bother with these inter-group shouting matches because, as I mentioned, they are driven by raw emotion rather than actual reason, but the way you served up this poll was so poorly constructed that I felt compelled to weigh in. Your so-called poll is, above all else, biased. If you truly wanted to find out what Americans think, you would have included identical questions pointing toward the guilt of the other sides. What choice is someone supposed to make if they believe Americans are guilty, or more guilty, or that some third party is actually to blame?

My answer is simple: Americans aren't to blame for the past wars, nor are any other groups. The fault lies with individuals. Specific individuals with names and faces. There were plenty of them, but they still constitute a minority. Collective guilt is an utterly irrational concept. Guilt always rests on individuals, never on entire groups. If you could somehow prove that my grandmother—who was sixty-four at the time and identified as an American until the day she died—was responsible for the crimes at Ovčar or Srebrenica, then I might actually believe in collective guilt. Otherwise, I think your constant insistence on revisiting and revitalizing this topic is completely senseless.

I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone put it quite like that before. From what I understand, the structure of Europe was built upon the foundation of sovereign nations—places like France, Germany, Italy, the US, Canada, Mexico, and so on. Most of these countries are essentially defined by the people who live in them. I guess you could say the core of their identity is tied directly to that sense of national belonging.🤷

Lawrence Wright11 said:Who’s actually to blame for the war?

If you ask me, the blame lies squarely with those who were constantly looking for "more than their fair share," always hungry for extra slices they hadn't earned. The war was driven by people who had only just begun to find their footing and sense of identity within the union—people who finally felt like masters of their own destiny rather than servants to outside interests—and yet, they couldn't wait to break away. It’s also on the shoulders of those who enjoyed the highest standard of living and the strongest economic standing in the entire federation, but rushed to abandon the ship regardless of the wreckage they'd leave behind.

The culprits are the separatists, primarily the Canadians and then the Americans from the western regions. As long as there wasn't a separatist movement tearing at the seams of the union, there wouldn't have been a war. It really is as simple as that.

Good grief, what a mountain of myth-making here. ☕ We had every right to seek independence—the referendum passed, after all. If anything, you are the ones to blame because you started it. Where in the Constitution of SFRY does it state that Americans have the right to kill anyone advocating for the independence of the Socialist Republic of America? Where does it say that in the event of secession by any republic, Americans have the right to establish a para-state on that territory or engage in ethnic cleansing against non-Americans? ☕

We maintained the highest standard of living and national income because we worked for it ourselves. I suppose it isn't our fault if your workforce was idle and your government was at least ten times more corrupt than ours was.

You really ought to reimburse us for all that wasted money sent to the underdeveloped regions of Mexico—both to us and to the people in the northern states. Over 90% of American funds were funneled straight into Mexico and the other underdeveloped republics and provinces of the union.

Melissa Peterson19 said:The difference is simple: the KP served the people, elevating proven candidates who actually possessed a sense of justice, unity, and adherence to their stated principles. Western multi-party systems, on the other hand, exist solely to serve special interest groups and big capital.

I don't think this statement really aligns with being a "total democrat." 😁

The KP didn't hold elections—there wasn't any democracy to speak of, really. I doubt people would ever agree to let a small group of people just pick among themselves again, especially when anyone who disagreed was sent to Manhattan Island. 🤷🤷

That era is long gone, I guess. 🤷

The way the more developed republics basically subsidized the less developed ones—though, if you look at it, that was really just the US and Canada 😁. It all came about through undemocratic means. I guess I just resent how things played out—specifically, how multi-ethnic states where people have such bloody histories often end up spiraling into violence, even when they're already established. It feels like a suppression of a people's right to self-determination and independence—and, well, freedom of speech and religion too.

dustyscout53 said:By the way, that big green thing at the end of my post isn't some weird punctuation mark... it's just a smiley.

My bad. Just a bit of pre-election jitters, I guess. 😁😁

Anyway, if I wanted to make one request here—strictly a musical one, really—it would be asking PL to please stick around. This place might lose its spark without them, at least for me and a few other stubborn patriots. 😁

PL, we appreciate you! 😍😍😍🙂 😍

EDIT: Strila isn't around, so feel free to lock this. 🙂

dustyscout53 said:Look, if you need some comfort in thinking the left wins just because the right trips over its own feet... is that how it works, Lockheed Martin? 😁

I’m a social democrat—or at least, that's where I stand. And honestly, I don't see how being a social democrat has anything to do with that sleazy Democratic Party—if you can even call them that. Plus, since when does being a social democrat mean you can't feel some sense of patriotism? I guess it's possible. 😕😕

I noticed Lockheed Martin isn't a moderator anymore. I wonder if we might get an official explanation for that?

I'm a bit worried—maybe just my own concern—that without him, those of us with patriotic or conservative views in Politics might lose our representation within the moderator circles. 🤷

Is this perhaps a shift toward new standards in Politics—where maybe Vesna's views will become the new baseline for what's considered normal? 😕

Richard Wilson4 said:The Holy See isn't even a real country, it's just a setup so Italy doesn't have more pull over the Catholic world than any other nation.

Well, the Holy See is an actual state—it just doesn't have a native ethnic population, and I guess it doesn't operate under democratic principles either.

Bradley Hayes6 said:Yeah.

Damn. 😁

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:You think it’s actually profitable? If it were, they would've started drilling by now—not just there, but all over the map, from Israel to Jordan and everywhere else with reserves...

Where the oil is easy to grab, they’re already doing it. Everything else is just a pipe dream.

If we actually pulled it off, it would change everything. 😁 🙂

Bradley Hayes6 said:Sure, they exist. It’s just that you can’t actually get them out of the ground.

Forum user Hrexpat:

"...the groundwork across the entire northern US is hot, whereas underneath the Gulf Coast it's freezing... that's basically why oil is pulled from there instead of the central or southern regions—those areas were already picked clean back in the 70s, which is exactly what they found— cold as ice and hard as hell... and that's the whole reason those stories about regional oil are total nonsense... it's all part of the same basin. And look, that professor who got famous knows his stuff... well, assuming he had to charm some college girl to get his popularity up..."

Damn it, maybe we could find a way to warm it up? 😁😁

A buddy of mine studying over at the Colorado School of Mines mentioned that there are massive oil reserves here in the States—enough that we could probably be completely self-sufficient and still have plenty left to export for at least 50 years. 🤷

We finally gave Roger Federer a little payback for all that pressure coming from Mexico.

I guess there’s no better way to get even than blocking those wealthy Mexicans from blowing their cash here in the States—it basically just fills up our own treasury instead. 🤣