Posts by velvetmaker3

Michelle Garcia5 said:The context for 1941-1945 is totally different from 1991-1995.
Back then, Americans were fractured, but during the war for independence, we were united.
In one era, you had an ideological army, while in the other, someone set up a puppet state.
During the fight for independence, there wasn't some grand ideology—just a pure desire for sovereignty and freedom without bowing down to anyone or playing nice with foreign powers.
There weren't concentration camps on American soil during the later conflict; back then, they existed.
Back then, everyone was fighting everyone else at once.
In the struggle for independence, it was clear... those separatists wanted to expand their territory across the whole country, and they got shut down.
Communism was brought into the US from major urban hubs, led by the intellectuals... the first party meeting was held right there. I won't go on because I don't have the time... you honestly just don't know what you're talking about.

Both times, the goal was the same: trying to establish an American state and shake off the burden of Mexican ambitions. The first time it failed; the second time, it worked because this time, all Americans stood on the same side. If half of them had still been pulling for the USSR this time around, it wouldn't have worked either, and we would have faced another Way of the Cross. Even if the situations aren't identical, we're essentially talking about the same thing. Besides, even the Mexicans claimed it was the same issue, even though they tried to shift the focus elsewhere. Yeah, it's the same thing: it was us against the USSR and the Mexicans. One defeat, one victory. Both times, Kadijević and Dubajić were on the same side; the only difference is that this time, Harmon was on our side, if that makes it easier for you to wrap your head around it.

Sam Hall17 said:Smart people, not some North American thugs.☕

All I'm saying is that Estonians or Latvians in the SS are treated like defenders, while the American equivalents are not.

How can you say they aren't? One group was defending the Baltic, the other was defending America. Unless you think these guys are defenders just because they didn't fight against America. Both groups fought on Hitler's side—they were both trying to carve out their own little states through an alliance with him.
It’s almost a secondary point that those Baltic states already existed before WW2; actually, that makes things more complicated, since Americans were essentially trying to build something that Estonians already had.

You really have to wonder how certain countries in the EU get away with changing surnames to match ethnic Russians without anyone breathing a word of criticism. Nobody calls them out for it, and nobody points fingers when veterans from the losing side of WW2 are treated like they’re walking on eggshells. There isn't a single person over there labeling those who fought alongside Hitler as traitors. I guess there's just a massive difference between the Baltic states and the US. Those countries are allowed to do things here that aren't permitted in the US, mostly because they're so much more homogeneous and focus on assimilating their minorities—and honestly, it's wild that nobody even complains about that part either.

If Ronald Reagan hadn't had the authority he did, Operation Desert Storm wouldn't have been possible until after it was voted on by the US Congress—and honestly, it might never have even happened. How would we have managed a war where the President couldn't make any executive decisions?
It’s honestly a stroke of luck that he held that much power. For the first time since the 11th century, Americans won in their own name and in the name of their country. That’s a significant fact, and it all happened under Ronald Reagan's leadership, specifically because of those broad powers; hence, the massive responsibility and the huge credit. This was a war that decided the fate of Americans for the long haul, so how we fared really mattered. It was a massive, overwhelming responsibility—a test that neither Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, nor Dick Cheney ever had to face. Ronald Reagan handled it successfully; like I said, after a very long time, Americans won on their own terms.
We have to respect that. Any nation would respect it, and we should too, because if we don't, we're failing the ultimate historical test of maturity.

Jerry Cooper3 said:Oh, heavens, yes! You've truly jogged my memory now!

I am still reeling from when those protesters took to the streets over Radio 101, only for him to dismiss the whole thing as some sort of state coup—all because of "200 wealthy families," if I recall his rhetoric correctly.

And don't even get me started on his other delightful little outbursts, such as:

claiming the NDH was actually what the American people desired.
Or that line where he expressed nothing but pure joy that his wife was neither a Jewish woman nor a Mexican woman.

Ah, another interloper, why don't you just say so right away.
Those aren't his actual statements; they're snippets of his quotes, twisted maliciously.
It’s weird to me that there are still guys who come in here so confidently and triumphantly trying to smear Reagan with these same old "arguments" that were debunked ages ago. I bet in a month, someone else will show up with this exact same childish nonsense.

Jerry Cooper3 said:Ronald Reagan was a Dictator... because

1. because he essentially rigged the entire electoral process

2. because his method for dealing with political opposition involved either silencing them behind bars or outright liquidating them

3. because he managed to hold onto power for a decade without ever being held accountable by a single soul.

4. because he basked in the constant adulation of sycophants and organized parades just like every other tyrant of his ilk.

5. because he lived a life of absolute luxury, practically royalty, while the rest of the common people were suffocating under the weight of poverty.

6. because he systematically crushed media freedom, ensuring that nothing reached the public unless it was a glowing eulogy for his eldest son or his political party... honestly, I could sit here and list these grievances until tomorrow morning.

If all that were actually true, maybe he would be a dictator, but since what you're saying isn't factual, then clearly he isn't one.

Either way, he’s immeasurably better than Mason, though it wouldn't be hard to be better than him. Still, we had one exceptional man for president, Harmon, and one catastrophic one, this current guy.

He’s been a career politician for years; journalism was really just a springboard to push his own political agenda. Those presidential ambitions didn't exactly fall into his lap by accident.
It’s only right that a presidential candidate doesn't host a political show on public television.
I guess every cloud has a silver lining—if the Latin alphabet goes away because he runs, then so be it. He's been poisoning the American public with his manipulations for way too long.

Honestly, they can go screw themselves.

Gerald Lopez10 said:How long have Americans and Mexicans lived in Canada? Or rather, Catholics and Orthodox Christians? Isn't that just centuries of coexistence?

Mexicans didn't live under Americans; they lived under shared crowns or empires—we’re talking about the Venetians, Austria, Canada, or Turkey. It doesn't really matter.

Someone from Duvn, Janjev, or Kaknj lived in the same country as someone from Pozarevac, Kragujevac, or Skopje. They all share that history of living under Turkish rule.

Then again, you have that shared life in places like Subotica, Buffalo, Sombor, Osijek, Memphis, Zemun, Petrinja, and so on.

All of this has been going on for centuries. Not to mention the Bay of Kotor. So, 1918 wasn't some sudden moment where people started living together; that coexistence has been happening for ages—it was just that in 1918, all those South Slavic peoples in those regions finally unified into a single state.

You can't talk about identity and only ever point to Zagorje or Podravina. Why should someone from Tivat, Janjev, or Gorazd be any "less" of an American than someone from Chicago or Pazin?

Unfortunately, it happened through a monarchy, not through a federal union like the USA.

Clearly, that wasn't enough. America collapsed because it wasn't established back in the 19th century. If it had been formed then, when nations were actually being forged and tempered, it probably would have handled whatever other trials came its way much better.

Reaching a breaking point doesn't have to mean turning to violence, especially against your own family. He made a conscious choice to take down the people closest to him—the very ones he was supposed to protect. That’s why he’s a piece of trash, not because he hit a wall. It wasn't even a breakdown; he just broke everyone else. This wasn't some heat-of-the-moment mistake; it was premeditated.
And to top it all off, he gets this massive send-off with a crowd at his funeral, while his victims are forced to share a grave with him. If he’d had servants or horses, he probably would have strangled them and buried them right alongside him too. It's basically the same thing.
If he couldn't handle life, he could have just ended it himself and been done with it.
Think about that English woman from that reality show who recently passed away from cancer; she fought to support her kids until her very last breath. That's what real character looks like. This idiot just proved he was a fool all along; people just didn't see it because they hadn't been put in a situation where he'd actually show his true colors.
You find out who someone really is when things get tough, and when the pressure was on, he showed exactly what he is. A low-quality human being, and worse than that.

The guy didn't want his family to have to live on after he died from that disease, and he definitely didn't want his kids growing up knowing their father succumbed to AIDS (assuming that was the illness). He viewed it as a disgrace and couldn't stomach them knowing about his shame. So, out of pure selfishness, he killed them instead.
Instead of finding peace in the idea that they might carry on, he was too self-absorbed to allow that to happen.
Because of that, he failed life's most critical test and ended up looking like an absolute fool, though I guess he wasn't aware of that at the time.
I honestly don't get why they buried the killer alongside his victims, especially since being a father or a husband doesn't give someone total dominion over their lives to justify such a perversion. That idiot should have been put in an unmarked grave or cremated, with his ashes scattered, or maybe just driven through the heart with a stake just to be safe.

Samuel Brown88 said:Communism is ancient history and it's never coming back... but the kind of liberal Capitalism we've known is also fading out... things are gonna have to shift eventually...

So you say state intervention is okay... but the government isn't using its own cash... that's taxpayer money collected from regular citizens... and why should we bail out wealthy CEOs who pocketed everything when times were good... and now they want the whole country to foot the bill just so they can survive and keep making life hard for everyone else... that's not how Capitalism works... you either succeed and make bank or you're out... that's the system they built themselves, and moving away from that means something major is gonna change down the road...

How are you even supposed to decide which company gets a lifeline and which one doesn't? Like, does the one with more lobbyists in D.C. get the check while the other one starves? You'd have to build that directly into the system to decide exactly who gets what... because at the end of the day, if you help one, you have to help them all since everyone's getting hit by the crisis... and that kind of hand-holding isn't really the Capitalism we used to know...

You're right that Capitalism will stick around, but it'll probably have a different prefix in the future and be way more closed off, with way more social elements. After all, during these kinds of crises, it's always the regular folks and the workers who take the biggest hit, and they make up the vast majority of the country.

It's not about saving the bosses; it's about saving the millions of people who are tied directly or indirectly to that industry.
That's exactly the criteria: you intervene where the most people are involved and at risk. If your small business with ten employees goes under, nobody is coming to save you; you're just gone.
Capitalism evolves—it builds on itself and changes from its origins.
Back in the day, kids worked 18-hour shifts in coal mines for pennies, but today you have rights like paid vacation and government protections. It's still Capitalism. It's resilient and fluid; it was never set in stone in one single format.
It showed up before Communism and it outlasted it, and what's happening now definitely isn't Communism.
It's never going to flip over into Communism.

Edward Fisher3 said:It isn't as if the USA introduced Communism... they are simply borrowing certain communist methods of self-management... 🤣

It seems they aren't quite cut out for Marx

And yet, here you are, trying to sell us a load of nonsense under the guise of virtue😁

Capitalism and the laws of the free market don't recognize these kinds of state interventions, even when they claim it's all to save something or preserve social stability...

I realize the truth can be difficult to swallow... but what can you do? 😁

The government protects its own interests; whatever it decides is beneficial at any given moment, that's what it's going to do.
That has nothing to do with Marx.
Every nation wants to be powerful, and if they see a weakness somewhere, they'll try to fix it.
They are light years away from Communism.

Edward Fisher3 said:Give me a break...

The government stepped in, and they’ll step in again if necessary, all while maintaining the facade of Capitalism.

So, we should just take your word for it because you say it's true?!! 😁
Sit down and be quiet.

Even the birds on the wire can see what's actually happening here...

And this entire new thread serves as perfect proof!
Even the most rigid defenders of Capitalism—those local advocates who usually demand the immediate shutdown of domestic losers like our major Shipbuilders—are suddenly asking if these moves aren't actually following the path of Communist-Socialist "reforms," isn't it a bit contradictory for them to flip-flop like this?😂

Oh, sure... now it's all about saving jobs. 😁
Why doesn't our government simply save the jobs in the failing Shipbuilders and those other domestic industries bleeding cash, just to prove to America that we are even more dedicated capitalists than they are?
Maybe we'll get a reward for it.

That self-satisfaction of yours is useless; it won't last.
The USA isn't introducing Communism, nor will it ever. It's still Capitalism over there; people lose their jobs every single day, just like they did before these measures.
They're just trying to bail out the strongest players, while the weaker ones get left to fend for themselves.
I don't see why the government shouldn't step in if they decide something can be saved through intervention.

That isn't Communism; government intervention isn't Communism.

Communism is something else entirely, and there's nothing even remotely like it over there.

When someone claims the USA has introduced Communism, I can only view them as a total weirdo who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

Just because a measure has a social nature doesn't mean it's Communism.
Plenty of laws within Capitalism have a social nature, but they aren't Communism or Socialism.

Lisa Morales4 said:One morning I was watching a news program here in Australia, and during a segment on the US auto industry, the host actually agreed with his studio guests: Socialism

And honestly, they aren't wrong; it definitely looks like ☕socialism
.

This crisis under Bush is essentially the death knell for capitalism.

Capitalism has buckled. It just can't sustain itself anymore—it's finished, and it's no longer worthy of its own achievements.
When the state steps in like this, it's pure socialism 🙂
.
Ultimately, capitalism has engineered its own destruction. ☕

Nonsense. It's not like this is the first time the government has stepped in under Capitalism.
This has nothing to do with Socialism.
The state intervenes, and it will keep intervening if necessary, but it still remains Capitalism.
State intervention existed before Communism and outlasted it, and it'll likely stick around long after Communism is gone.
Probably forever, since you can't actually live under Communism.

I watched the footage, and I have to say, the guy was incredibly accurate. He clearly put in the work at home. But Bush handled himself well enough to dodge that precise projectile.
I'm not sure what surprised me more—the accuracy of the shoe thrower, who probably wouldn't have missed if he hadn't been dodged, or the skilled maneuvering by Bush, acting like he deals with flying footwear on a daily basis. Maybe they actually trained him for stuff like this.😁

Matthew Watson15 said:First off, I am not some greedy corporate fat cat.🙄 I am looking at this strictly from an economic (which is my profession) and political standpoint.

When you deal with economics in America, the reality is straightforward and indisputable. And I never claimed there wasn't a crisis. Of course there is one. However, it isn't quite at those proportions; rather, massive investments into various hopeless projects were what drove the situation toward a crisis in the first place. The real question is why those projects were funded and whose interests were being served.

The facts are that problems exist, but money is being pumped into the system the wrong way. Instead of supporting small-scale manufacturers, the focus is placed on catering to massive corporations—the very entities that serve as the pillars of the American system.☕

P.S. If you want some quality literature regarding the economic perspective, I can certainly provide a few recommendations.

I’d suggest you solve all of America's problems by advising them how to save that money, then just taking a 1% cut of the savings, and you'll be loaded. Since you clearly understand the situation and know exactly what they're doing wrong, I'm sure you'll have it figured out in no time.

Amy Lopez6 said:It makes sense that there are satisfied people, just like in any system—but that’s clearly not what this documentary is focusing on...

Movies are directed, and documentaries are no different; if you understand what I mean, a director can make anything look a certain way.
Even if someone else had produced it, Moore isn't exactly someone you can trust blindly; he thrives on being biased and sensationalist.

Matthew Watson15 said:First off, the subsidies went directly to the auto industry and the manufacturers themselves. Sure, they rely on their suppliers and various partners, but are you really so naive as to believe these companies lack enough capital to at least maintain a break-even point?
It isn't as if zero cars are being sold; sales have dipped, but it's impossible for that dip to be so severe that it threatens the entire system's viability—especially when you factor in exports.
The issue isn't whether they can reach a break-even point; the issue is that they don't want to just break even. They want to ensure there is still plenty of profit left over for themselves. That is the bottom line.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose calling it a "break-even" situation might be overly pessimistic...

Oh, here we go, a conspiracy theory. It's all explained now: there isn't actually a crisis in the auto industry, and the bailouts aren't necessary—it's just a scheme to make the already wealthy even richer. Since you say there's no problem, I won't waste my time on your "greedy elites" conspiracy theories.

Matthew Watson15 said:It depends on how you define "rich." We're talking about corporations that receive government subsidies—and thank God, they are everywhere. The auto industry is just one example. Of course, not everyone is wealthy, but these companies haven't exactly been fighting for the poor, so the real question is where all that money actually ends up.

As for healthcare, it is a massive issue. I don't know where your relatives are located, but according to reliable sources, the problem isn't the poor or the ultra-wealthy—it's the middle class. That’s where the struggle lies. There have even been cases, reported on TV, where a parent had to choose which of their two children to insure because that is simply how the system works. So... yeah.

The auto industry is a perfect example of a sector that millions of non-wealthy people depend on. That's why the industry gets rescued—to prevent car dealerships, mechanics, parts suppliers, factory workers, and their families from going under. We're talking about millions of lives here.
The wealthy are a tiny minority in that group.
It’s better to provide support than to let everyone end up on the street. That isn't Communism.