Let’s be honest, we’ve never actually lived in a real democracy; that’s a luxury reserved for wealthy nations that can actually afford the overhead. Historically, it’s always been some version of a President, a King, a Prince, or a dictator. This whole European Union setup feels like one massive, dangerous experiment. All we can do now is sit back and watch as country after country goes broke. Greece was already on the brink, and now we're just waiting for Italy, Portugal, and the rest to follow suit before we eventually end up at the front of the line ourselves. With billions in new debt being piled up every single year, I don't think we'll have to wait much longer.
rowdyowl said:"Hard work" was just a social category back then. You had factories churning out junk with a 300% bloated workforce, where people worked half as much as an average worker in Germany during the same shift.
Aside from that, being part of America meant America stopped being an independent nation. With the European Union, they only take a slice of our sovereignty. Most importantly, nobody is going to come after us if we decide we want out.
You see this same thing in capitalism, too. Take Iceland, for example—they have factories there that hire way more people than they actually need just to make sure everyone has a job. It’s all about keeping employment numbers up. And honestly, what happened back in America? Because they couldn't just sit down and reach a peaceful agreement, everyone ended up taking a massive hit. It was a mess that caused damage to everyone involved.
Honestly, if you had asked me back in the day, I probably would have voted to stay part of the old America, but looking at things now, I’d choose the European Union. It’s just different. Back then, there was actual respect for hard work and getting things done. Nowadays? It feels like the only people getting ahead are the middle managers, the resellers, the bankers, and the smooth-talking salesmen peddling nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Jesse Sullivan2 said:honestly, it's just 👍 instead of actual wars, everything just gets settled through endless red tape and legal loopholes.
I mean, honestly, why bother with actual warfare when they can just bury us in debt? It’s all perfectly legal. The cost of capital has completely outpaced the value of labor, which basically means we’re all just becoming slaves to the wealthy. Of course, they throw us a few crumbs here and there—it makes them feel good to play the savior.
The USA is certainly an interesting construct. You basically have to meet a specific set of criteria just to end up being treated like one of its provinces. Historically undocumented
Drew Allen2 said:I agree with bluerider63 that the EU isn't going to fall apart. They've poured way too much money into this to just let it all vanish. If anything happens, maybe there will be some restructuring or new rules... something like that. But a total collapse? I don't see it happening...
The US is in deep... I don't even know which word to use... maybe "shambles"? But the EU isn't in nearly as bad of a spot as the States. Sure, they have their issues, but it’s not exactly a total catastrophe like what we're seeing here in America...
I honestly think we're losing more than we're gaining...
Look, they didn't invest that cash out of the goodness of their hearts; it was all about their own interests. I think it would be pretty eye-opening to look at the actual data—specifically, how much the more developed states export to the less developed ones and how much debt they're carrying from them. That would probably make the whole situation a lot clearer.
Hannah Jackson7 said:And what exactly is wrong with the bolded part? I am practically counting down the days until these state-run corporations are privatized—then maybe some new owners can worry about them using their own cash instead of covering massive losses with my tax dollars.
Not all of them, though. Companies like AT&T, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, or the postal service... those are different. You need stuff that's strategically vital to the nation. I guess the government should probably maintain control over communications, energy, and major financial infrastructure.
You can't have it both ways—you can't try to play both sides of the fence and expect everything to work out perfectly. It’s pretty simple: either the European Union actually functions under a unified set of laws, or it remains this artificially propped-up structure that isn't really cohesive. I mean, look at how things work right now. How can VAT rates, tax codes, or even social welfare systems be allowed to vary so wildly from one country to the next if we're supposedly all on the same page? It just doesn't add up.
Scott Hall39 said:That’s a weird way to look at it. If you think joining the European Union is some kind of betrayal, then why should anyone be held accountable when the whole thing eventually falls apart?
Because every single concession made by the US was specifically to secure entry into the European Union. So, if the European Union turns out to be a total disaster, how exactly are we supposed to recoup those losses?
bluerider63 said:The European Union isn't just going to fall apart overnight.
It will, I just think it’s a matter of when. The European Union is trying to pull off the same moves the USA has made before, and it hasn't worked, especially since they haven't organized themselves the way they have today. Their laws aren't sufficient because they're trying to force uniform tax rates, identical spending, the same conditions, and centralized aid everywhere—which, honestly, seems impossible to actually implement across the whole European Union. It feels like the European Union is just attempting some poor imitation of how the USA operates.
They’re basically selling out our national interests. It’s all about making concessions to certain member states, handing over generals, dealing with that humiliation in The Hague, racking up massive debt just to meet European Union standards, and enforcing all these arbitrary rules. If the European Union ever falls apart, all those concessions go down the drain, but we’ll still be stuck with the debt. p.s. I think Greece is already importing goods from Bulgaria that don't even meet European Union regulations, just because they're cheaper.
Let’s not forget the possibility of dropping lawsuits, selling off state-owned companies and natural resources, and the endless cycle of borrowing money, too. Honestly, maybe a better title would be "not if," but "when" the European Union collapses. It definitely isn't going to last forever.
For instance, look at how the UK government was branded as traitors after World War II, even though back then, trying to accommodate the Third Reich seemed perfectly normal to some.
Maria Booth said:In this post-ideology world, politics basically just boils down to managing the national checkbook. Bankers are pros at that, which is why they're always so popular and in demand.
A post-ideological society? I don't know, I'm not sure how a society can even exist without an ideology, or some kind of underlying idea behind it.
Military service isn't just a duty; it's a calling. Every calling should be honorable, if it can't be holy. The problem is that in today's twisted value system, the very idea of honor feels like a relic of the past.
Nowadays, it seems some people think honor belongs to those who create scandals just to tear someone else down. It’s no wonder people like > get rightfully angry. They don't even realize how many others are draining the federal budget, but we're all at the mercy of the media moguls.
Well, alright then, you finally caught the essence of it. True honor has always belonged to the Church.
Democracy is an incredibly expensive system to maintain. Honestly, if you look at the math, it might actually be cheaper to just have a single dictator—you're only paying one guy instead of funding a dozen different political parties. The catch, obviously, is that dictators don't just step down when their time is up, and that’s usually why we end up seeing wars break out. Democracy provides a way to swap out leadership without all the violence, but it requires a massive amount of investment. I guess for struggling nations, some form of centralism might actually make more sense than the alternative, if not a full-on dictatorship.
George Robinson43 said:Where in the Gospels does it say that, and where did the son of God declare this to be a holy duty? Where specifically in the Gospels does the son of God mention the military? It’s possible He does. It has been quite some time since I studied them, so my memory might be failing me. Could you please refresh my memory?
Look, Jesus wasn't some anti-government radical or against having an army; he said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. I guess that implies military service is a civic obligation, but it's hardly a holy one. A "holy killer"? That just doesn't sit right with me.
bluerider63 said:So you're basically a fan of total globalization? 😁 And who exactly is supposed to be running the show and phasing out countries one by one?
I mean, what's the point of having individual sovereign nations if our politics, military, economy, and everything else is already unified under one system?
Honestly, I’m not even sure what the point of having someone run a country is anymore. A computer program could probably handle the whole thing just fine. If you ask me, we should be looking at phasing out governments entirely—starting with the smaller ones and eventually moving up to the major players.
War has been part of the human story forever, even back before atheists were even an option. I guess the real question isn't whether war happens, but rather who actually benefits from it—and trust me, those people are everywhere, both inside our own circles and out there in the world.
Honestly, I expected a bit more from Bishop Jezerinac. He could have just pointed the finger at the devil and called it a day—that would have been closer to the truth. The devil spreads evil everywhere, regardless of whether people are atheists or not. I suppose he probably thought atheists were more susceptible to his influence. But look, if people actually knew how to recognize and reject evil when they saw it, we wouldn't be dealing with wars in the first place.
Laura Wells5 said:It’s a shame—but then again, people like that rarely find appreciation from either side of the aisle. A significant number of Mexicans fought on the American side—the question remains how many Mexican officers served in the US military, how many were decorated, and how many streets are actually named after them?
I know people firsthand—Mexicans who served in the American military from start to finish, only to have their homes leveled by that very same military—to say nothing of the targeted harassment against them and their families, or the way certain medals were handled...
Hmm, so I guess it’s not worth defending America if you aren't an American.