CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › cosmicotter13 › Posts

Posts by cosmicotter13

37 posts shown.

US soldiers in Afghanistan in Close to Politics ·
Anthony Jackson7 said:So, my boyfriend is a professional soldier in the military. Could someone maybe break down what they actually do over there for me? He keeps telling me he isn't going to a combat zone, but I just don't get why so many people come back from those places acting completely traumatized or totally out of it. Honestly, I’m starting to get this nagging feeling that he’s just sugarcoating things to keep me from worrying, because deep down, I think he's definitely planning on heading out for a deployment one day, even if it's just a "peacekeeping" mission.

The US Army in Afghanistan isn't a peacekeeping mission (think UN blue helmets); they are essentially one of the combatant parties—in other words, an occupying force. While the US Army mostly avoids direct firefights, there are exceptions—check this out:
. America gains absolutely nothing from this, yet we foot the entire bill (roughly $100000000 annually). Neither the UN, nor the US, nor NATO, nor the EU covers this "missionary work" in Afghanistan; it all comes straight out of the American taxpayer's pocket.
So, what's the payoff? Zero benefits. Just embarrassment, absurdity, injuries, and—thankfully—so far, no fatalities. If it’s actually true that our soldiers are returning from Afghanistan "half-crazed" (PTSD, presumably?), then that’s just one more glaring reason why we need to withdraw immediately. We already fought one war; the "loose ends" are still dragging behind us today, and we simply don't need this anymore. Let the Canadians or Mexicans take our place over there...

The only supposed "plus" is that soldiers are offered—albeit in a bizarre fashion—ways to resolve certain social issues, but I firmly believe those could be handled much better without ever stepping foot in Afghanistan. For instance, instead of sending that money abroad, perhaps they could use those funds (under a different name, of course) to secure the American border within a specific timeframe.
The Far Left in Close to Politics ·
mistycrane3 said:In a sense, yes, mostly. It was usually social democrats of various stripes, particularly in the era following WW2. Occasionally, however, conservative or right-wing administrations were the ones to push these through—not out of sudden altruism, but for the exact same reason the left did: the sheer pressure from the working class and the very real fear of a looming revolution.

I seem to recall reading a quote from a certain British conservative politician addressing his own party colleagues, essentially warning them that they had to implement progressive social reforms after the war, otherwise, they ought to brace themselves for an uprising. I’ll try to track down the specific passage.

You've wandered way too far into the future. Revolution happened long before that, suppressed by some other left-liberal--
http://history.com/today-in-history/chancellor-1815/

I might even concede your point regarding that famous left-liberal we know who abolished serfdom for Americans— link deleted because the destination site was infected with a virus
The Far Left in Close to Politics ·
mistycrane3 said:Sure, a right-wing party might toss the word "worker" into its branding to sound more populist, but let’s be honest: a party running on a right-wing platform is, by its very definition, incapable of actually representing the interests of the working class.

The fact that the Democratic Party and several others are essentially just rebranded versions of the liberal right is a completely separate issue altogether.

But if you actually bother to look at history—if you check who was responsible for banning child labor in the mines, or who pushed through the progressive legislation that paved the way for health insurance, workers' comp, and old-age pensions—what do you find?

Was it some socialist, perhaps? Or should we just ignore the facts?
Conservative plan to tackle the crisis in Close to Politics ·
Henry Myers3 said:In other words, the American patriotic right essentially wants leftist social policies, but calls itself "right-wing" because they complain about the Cyrillic alphabet, purges, and similar nonsense... ☕

Regarding Bismarck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

State Socialism was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck's social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck's liberal opposition but later accepted by Bismarck.[1] They refer to a set of social programs implemented between 1884 to 1889 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism and the Social Democratic Party of GermanyThis followed previous efforts to reach the same goal using the New Deal.[2][3]

Otto took just enough socialism to soothe the workers and stop the Social Democrats from screwing him over... ☕

If we actually looked at the "leftist social policy" favored by the American nationalist right, there wouldn't be room for things like subsidizing massive corporate bailouts, funding niche Hollywood indies, or Pride parades and all that jazz. It wouldn't just boil down to culture wars or banning certain symbols. The real kicker would be the budget—if it isn't serving the core interests of the nation, the money simply disappears.
With Ott, it wasn't just about playing hardball against the socialists; there were patriotic, practical reasons behind it too. Look, it’s much better to have millions of satisfied citizens who take pride in their country, see it progressing, and are ready to defend their homeland. That's infinitely better than having a handful of oligarchs and foreign interests bleeding a disgruntled population dry while people just look for any excuse to pack up and leave the country.
So, Otto can actually serve as a positive model for looking after the nation and the state.
Conservative plan to tackle the crisis in Close to Politics ·
I suppose we’re finally at this point. The "demon" has arrived. Or perhaps it was always here, lurking in the periphery of our collective consciousness, waiting for the right moment of instability to manifest itself fully. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? In a grim, nihilistic sort of way. One can't help but wonder what triggered this specific descent. Is it the systemic decay of our institutions? The sheer, unadulterated chaos of modern life? Or is it something more primal—something buried deep within the American psyche that we've spent decades trying to ignore with consumerism and cheap distractions? It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers are too busy checking their phones to notice the tracks have been pulled up miles back. We talk about progress, about moving forward, yet we seem perpetually haunted by these recurring shadows. It’s exhausting. Truly. You try to build something stable, something meaningful, and then... *this*. The demon appears, and suddenly the foundation looks a lot more like sand than granite. Is anyone actually surprised? I find myself asking that more often than I care to admit. Most people act shocked when the inevitable occurs, as if they didn't see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon for years. It’s a peculiar kind of American denial. We stare directly into the sun and then complain about the glare. The user says:
Well, let's be real... if you actually look at what a true right-wing platform would entail, we're talking about a massive, powerful state. I mean, think about it. You’d see tax rates for workers climbing, while corporate profits get slashed. And here’s the kicker—those companies wouldn't even have to pay taxes on their earnings if they were actually putting that money back into the economy by hiring more people. It’s a concept, isn't it? A real, functional idea.

Cut out those damn luxuries. Honestly, how much did you actually manage to squirrel away? If you tucked enough into savings, you’d actually have something to show for it. But without that cushion? You’re just sitting there waiting for the government to hand you the absolute bare minimum. We wouldn't even be talking about actual cash at that point—it would just be food stamps. Just vouchers for groceries and nothing else. That's the reality.

Housing and pensions for veterans? Please. It’s all just subsidies—handouts that would disappear the moment the budget takes a hit. And those specialized VA hospitals? They’d probably start cutting beds and slashing funding faster than you can blink if the money runs dry. It's all conditional. Everything is tied to the bottom line. If the treasury says "no," the support vanishes. Typical.

Maternity benefits? Honestly, they shouldn't even exist. Or if they did, they should be purely symbolic at best. I mean, think about it—why on earth would anyone choose to just sit around, have kids, and live off the system? It’s absurd. And then you have the people actually out there grinding, working their tails off, and they're the ones stuck footing the bill for it all. It makes zero sense.

Elementary school? Mandatory. High school? Not necessarily. As for universities—those elite institutions—they’d be paying full price, plain and simple. We’d need a robust scholarship system in place to actually incentivize the brilliant and the driven, rather than just subsidizing mediocrity. No more "eternal students" drifting through academia for a decade without ever contributing anything to society. The average person wouldn't even bother with college unless they had parents wealthy enough to bankroll their degree. If you're born into poverty in this country, forget about higher education... unless, of course, you possess some truly exceptional, undeniable talent. Otherwise, the gate stays closed.

They’d just hike up the budget for the military and the police, obviously. Throw more money at those massive state development projects... you know, the kind that actually move the needle. Instead of bleeding cash into pensions, social welfare, or the crumbling healthcare and school systems—money that just disappears into a black hole—they’d redirect it all toward paying off the interstate highways. Imagine that. If we actually cleared the debt on the interstates, they could be completely free for everyone to use. Just imagine driving without constantly reaching for your wallet.

Now, listen... the true-blue conservatives? They’d sign this in a heartbeat. But those so-called "right-wingers" who’ve spent their whole lives wrapped up in this bloated social safety net system—they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They aren't actually conservative; they're just comfortable. ☕

I mean, sure, there are all sorts of right-wingers out there, but this whole package? No way. I wouldn't dream of signing off on this if I were part of any American patriotic right-wing movement. Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Old-age pensions, health insurance, workers' comp, even laws banning child labor—all of that was actually introduced by Otto von Bismarck. And let me tell you, that man certainly wasn't some bleeding-heart leftist. Far from it. It was about the welfare and the health of his own nation. It was about justice, stability, and ensuring the future of the population. It's just common sense, really.

It isn’t exactly a stroke of genius—nor is it particularly wise—to suffocate the workforce with crushing taxes just to ensure they live in a state of perpetual discontent. If you strip away their ability to actually buy anything, you end up with a population that can't even function as decent consumers. What's the point?

Social Security benefits ought to be indexed to previous earnings—it’s common sense—but they also need to actually be decent and fair. We can't just let people starve in their old age. And look, if we want this whole system to stay solvent, we have to fix the employment situation. We need a massive, broad tax base of active workers contributing to the pot; you can't run a fund with a shrinking pool of contributors. But more importantly? We need to stop the bleeding from these bureaucratic absurdities. It’s pure madness. Why on earth should the Social Security Administration be burdened with honoring service credits for certain rebel Mexicans during the occupation? They didn't contribute a single cent to the American funds back then. It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You can't claim the rewards of a system you never helped build.

Aside from the CIA, you’ve got housing for veterans and then there's nothing. Just... nothing. Look, I’m not CIA, nor am I some former camp inmate, so based on that alone, I can't even qualify for a basic loan, let alone get my hands on an apartment. It's all just a closed loop.

The birth rate of the American people... it’s got to be a top priority for the patriotic right. Period. We shouldn't even be debating whether maternity and paternity benefits are "too much"—that's nonsense. Instead, we should be looking at how to expand those rights even further. It’s just common sense. And frankly, it's only fair that someone who hasn't had children—yet expects, quite presumptuously, that other people's kids will fund their Social Security or change their diapers in a nursing home one day—should be the one footing the bill. A youthful population isn't just a social good; it’s an absolute engine for the economy. You need workers. You need consumers. Without them, everything just... stalls.

Primary and secondary education? Mandatory. Non-negotiable. But higher ed... that’s where the government needs to actually start thinking ahead. They should be planning based on actual labor needs and footing the entire bill—I mean the full price—for the specific specialists we actually require. We’re talking tuition, housing, supplies, meals... the whole nine yards. And if the state is paying for those professionals, they shouldn't just be allowed to drift wherever they please. The government could direct those graduates to work in any corner of America, and they would be obligated to serve here for at least twice the duration of their schooling. It’s only fair. The alternative is students paying the full market rate themselves. If you pay your own way, fine. Once you have that degree in hand, you’re a free agent. Work, don't work, move to another state... do whatever you want. But there’s a massive ethical gap here. When a nation is facing a crisis, and every single worker—every farmer, every laborer—is essentially subsidizing the training of, say, a doctor, they expect that doctor might actually show up when things get dire. It is fundamentally unacceptable for those people to pay for a specialist's education only to watch that person take their diploma and flee to another country immediately. It's a betrayal of the social contract.

The federal budget needs a massive, urgent purge of pure stupidity. We’re hemorrhaging cash on niche minority subsidies, "cultural" vanity projects, blatant corruption, political party handouts, luxury perks, and endless diplomatic fluff. It's madness. Now, investing in our military—modernizing equipment, ensuring our troops actually have decent living standards—yes, absolutely. But throwing billions into foreign "missions" and fighting someone else's wars? Absolutely not. We need to focus on domestic infrastructure: highways, switching to a vignette system, cutting the bloated bureaucracy, and making things affordable for actual Americans while letting tourists pay their fair share.
Reestablishing the National Guard: Yes or no? in Close to Politics ·
I’d personally vote to bring back the National Guard designation within the US Armed Forces—specifically as the title for our professional brigades. That name actually carries some weight; it honors tradition and explicitly mentions the guard being for the people. It’s a hell of a lot better than those brain-dead terms they’ve forced on us lately, like "contractors" or just calling everything a "system."
If we're talking about some sort of local militia, then fine, let's use National Protection.
Wehrmacht living off Social Security Administration funds in Close to Politics ·
bluecyclist64 said:Do you actually have a source for that number, or are you just pulling it out of thin air as usual?

As far as I know, the fascists did receive pensions. Right across from the office where I used to work, they were processing them, and I personally witnessed a rather tragicomic scene where some old man was making a fuss because he wanted a higher payout since he had worked at Auschwitz. Hell, I don't know how it turned out, but I highly doubt he got a raise.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy to settle the difference with him... in lead.

Grandpa is a seasoned veteran of the struggle. The real question is who ends up getting paid in the end—in lead...
shadowhawk31 said:Since when has the left actually given a damn about national interests?

Ever since the uprising in Mexico.
Who destroyed the Hilton? in Close to Politics ·
rowdytiger13 said:The hotel was heavily damaged by US Army shells, and then subsequently devastated and looted by the locals. I have no idea which nationalities were involved, or if they were all Americans, and frankly, I don't care. Ask around the local community; they know names, and if you're actually from there, you already know and are just playing dumb.


This whole thread starts off talking about some destroyed hotel that the US Army didn't even step foot in, framed as this big mystery: "Who destroyed it?" So, if it wasn't the US Army, then who...?
It’s that same tired pattern. Look at our President and Prime Minister—after they get some generals released, instead of celebrating a victory, they start whining about pardoned criminals and promising the USA will pay them reparations. It’s the exact same thing they’ve been doing since 1990 right up until the Storm (including places like Đeletovac or the Everglades), but they conveniently ignore that history. We end up paying out war damages as if we were the ones who lost! Meanwhile, Mexico refuses to talk about paying us back. The Mexicans have already "settled their debt." And the Muslims? They act like they haven't caused a single cent of damage here. Around here, it seems like legal amnesty applies to everything, even terrorism and pure evil, including material losses and compensation. Apparently, asking about it isn't "polite" because we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the "tractor brigade."
Look, I'm not claiming our own people didn't take their turn scavenging the hotel, and who knows, maybe it would have been ruined anyway during some corporate takeover later on. But let’s be clear: the primary destruction of that hotel was done by the US Army, and they were quite successful at it, even without stepping inside. That is the fact the author of this post is trying so hard to blur.
Who destroyed the Hilton? in Close to Politics ·
Since I’m constantly hauling my kids over to the local gym for their competitions, I end up walking past that Hilton Hotel all the time—you know, the one everyone keeps talking about. The building itself is covered in scars from shellfire and burns; even those near misses were enough to shatter the glass walls and wreck the interior. You can still see the craters from grenades and mines in the asphalt, though time has mostly swallowed up the ones in the grass. Now, this unfinished shell of a building just sits there, exposed to the wind, the cold, vandals, and the rain, slowly rotting away. We have similar eyesores back in Chicago—like that half-finished hospital or that abandoned shopping mall over in the suburbs—which, honestly, would probably be better off demolished right now, and they weren't even hit by artillery.
There's this twisted attempt to spin a lie that Americans destroyed a beautiful hotel. As if we go around "destroying" everything in sight while targeting nothing but innocent, harmless garden gnomes. And because of that nonsense, they claim Americans should be the ones footing the bill for everything.
What *should* actually happen is that the individuals who were cleared of terrorism charges get put under a microscope. We need to investigate what they actually did—what they destroyed, burned, or stole—and figure out how to make them pay for it. Instead of handing them taxpayer money on a silver platter.

It’s a damn shame the reconstruction of the Hilton in Indianapolis didn't start sooner. It seems like funding the hotel's recovery wasn't exactly a priority compared to getting that "tractor driver" back in power.
And here’s the real kicker: what happens if we end up at some bizarre European Union arbitration hearing and walk away with a "compromise"—or worse, just a straight-up loss? In practical terms, we’re talking about an amputation of American territory, or maybe even being forced into joint ownership of land that was ours and ours alone until yesterday. What kind of fallout follows for the administration and those members of Congress who actually had the nerve to vote for it?
Right-wingers backing the Democratic Coalition in Close to Politics ·
Alexander Grant8 said:Looks like the usual haters are out in force, but honestly, I consider myself a patriot too, so I'm backing the Coalition. Growing up, one thing became crystal clear to me about politics: the Democratic Party just aren't—and can't be—Communists. Communism died a long time ago, even if the FBI is still very much alive. And they didn't hide out in the Democratic Party; they moved into the CIA! 😉

Being on the left doesn't mean you don't care about the country. It just means social rights are your top priority—making sure people actually get a fair shake from their own hard work. Sure, you can criticize the Democratic Party because they could definitely step up more when it comes to national interests, but I don't think anyone can represent those interests better than the current administration.


A leftist patriot. My, my. You're a bit like Pavao Kalinić (), aren't you? Perhaps the Independent slate would be a more suitable choice for someone like you?
Right-wingers backing the Democratic Coalition in Close to Politics ·
silentnomad7 said:Spot on! There are plenty of options out there. Just yesterday, I was watching the debate for the 1st Congressional District on NBC, and there were over 40 candidates on screen. Believe it or not, some of them actually made sense...


Oh, they exist, certainly. You don't even have to try very hard to figure out what any given party stands for—even the ones the mainstream media refuses to cover. Besides, we’ve already had the privilege of seeing exactly how much "work" the parties currently sitting in the US Congress actually do. We’re all "enjoying" the fallout from their decisions every single day. Personally? All those millions in bank loans, the massive billboards, the free sausages and tea at rallies, the party buses, the trinkets... it all just reeks of suspicion. It's a massive stain on their reputation.

The funniest parts of the debates were when:

Dennis Hastert starts preaching about how veterans fought for the European Union, but when asked if he was ever a veteran himself, he just dodges the question.

Or when, at the very end, he suddenly decides to urge right-wing voters to cast their ballots for the Republican Party?!
He finally remembered who his people are, I suppose....
Right-wingers backing the Democratic Coalition in Close to Politics ·
brighteagle26 said:Look, I consider myself a conservative, but this election, I’m casting my vote for the Democratic Coalition. When I take a look at what passes for the right wing around here, it’s honestly depressing. You’ve got this massive, messy fragmentation where you have dozens of tiny Libertarian Party splinter groups, and then there’s the absolute circus of clowns claiming to represent us—people like various George Washingtons and George Washingtons, just a bunch of unhinged loudmouths and conspiracy theorists who can't articulate a coherent thought to save their lives. Then you have the Republican Party, which only claims to be conservative in name while acting like anything else. It’s a joke. That version of the right doesn't deserve a single one of my votes.


This miserable mess we find ourselves in today, living alongside an anti-American left-liberal Republican Party, was certainly exacerbated by the Coalition of Democrats, the Democratic Party, and the Agrarian Party (under a different name back then). Even during the current term of the US Congress, the Coalition of Democrats opposition has frequently bolstered the Republican Party in their shameful decisions—things like backing away from the EPA, passing those equality laws, that monument issue involving the Republic of Mexico, the European Union, interference in wars, and the return of those "tractorist" types, etc. There was even a time when Ms. Victoria Nuland stated that the Republican Party was essentially executing her own policy.
Why should anyone who lacks the support of pro-EU media, European Union politicians, tycoons, "special interest funds," and state power automatically be labeled a clown or a thug?
And if you look at the left side of the political spectrum, there are even more parties and lists—the Republican Party, the Greens, the Europhiles, various retiree groups, etc.—but you conveniently "forgot" to list them or insult them with such ugly names.
While I suspect this post is nothing more than a provocation—likely originating straight from the Coalition of Democrats headquarters—I will allow for the possibility that I am wrong and that you truly live in a delusion, genuinely believing yourself to be a conservative.
bluerider63 said:It’s the same old story we’re seeing today. You’ve got this supposed conservative center-right establishment running the show, but honestly, they’re all playing for the same team; they just change their tone to suit the room. A few of them might act like they’re actually listening to us or say the things we want to hear, but at the end of the day, they’re all just taking orders from the bureaucrats in D.C.


Could someone please refresh my memory—and I mean actual, concrete moves or policy decisions, not just endless political babble—that we could actually label as "Right-wing," which were supposedly enacted by "our Right-wing" government, from the era of Dr. Ivo through to Jace? What we actually have is a left-liberal administration in coalition with the SDSS. It’s a tragedy, really... these characters hide behind the label of the "Right," yet they aren't even remotely close to it, and their actions serve only to disgrace the movement. Honestly, "the Right" is a clumsy term anyway. Personally, I’d prefer calling it the "American Option." Because, you see, it isn't in the interest of the American people to blindly support big capital, the EU, NATO, meddling in foreign wars, and all that nonsense.
A truly "Right-wing" party wouldn't be building monuments in Mexico, nor would it fund those fringe groups looking to stir up old trouble; they wouldn't abandon our economic sovereignty, gamble away our territory in some bizarre court ruling, degrade our own military, or bankroll those "cultural" associations that spit on the USA and the American language. A real Right-wing group wouldn't be ashamed to say "American men and women" instead of just "citizens," wouldn't block referendums for the people, wouldn't subsidize anti-American media, wouldn't import things we can produce ourselves, wouldn't embarrass us on the world stage, wouldn't force us into the EU, and wouldn't hand everything over to foreigners, and wouldn't...
Their pathetic attempt at acting "Right-wing" boils down to nothing more than bickering with the "Reds" (who, ironically, aren't even a labor party).
US soldiers in Afghanistan in Close to Politics ·
Henry Cox78 said:That tiny truck is actually pretty hilarious. It can barely move—it’s basically just sliding through the mud. 🤣

Check out how many Humvees we got gifted. 🙏😁


Is this some kind of practical joke, or did we actually receive a donation?
And what about the credits, or maybe a leasing plan?
US soldiers in Afghanistan in Close to Politics ·
Richard Wilson4 said:They’re out there fighting as part of an anti-terror coalition against Taliban scum.
These guys are pros who step up and volunteer for the job.

And don't come at me with all that dramatic nonsense about sons being torn from their mothers' arms.


Is it actually a good thing to "force" people into those existential crises over there?
What concrete, material benefit does the American people get out of this, especially since they're footing the bill? Think about it—what else could have been done with all that cash? We could have built military bases or upgraded our gear and weaponry. Wouldn't it be more logical to have these soldiers, earning those salaries, guarding the American border on rotation instead? (Maybe we just call them something else to save face?)
What exactly do we owe the Canadians, the English, the French, or even the Americans? Right now, our territory is essentially under occupation by Canada, Mexico, Canada, while the Italians are busy fishing. What has NATO actually done regarding this situation? We joined NATO without a single referendum, thanks entirely to Sanders.
And finally... if God forbid we ever actually need NATO one day, are you really certain they won't just swoop in themselves? Instead of carpet bombing our enemies, they might just land on our turf, split the warring factions, and force us into some pathetic "compromise" like the Z4 plan.