Posts by ruggedjackal46

restlesssurfer97 said:Basically a government lawyer over at the IRS and an archival supervisor for the Department of Mineral Research and Wasting Time, SS.

Am I even in the ballpark here? Since I honestly have zero clue what you guys actually do for a living 🤣

btw, just drop the Alan Ford-style office name, even if it fits your profile perfectly 🤣

I assume this realization hits you after every single post you make. 🤣

Justin James10 said:Unshaven Sid and ZZ with the dreadlocks 🙏

shadowmarlin22 said:The problem right now is that the media landscape is way too skewed to the left. You want the perfect example? Just look at this whole circus surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Trump. Everyone is losing their minds over it, but if you go back ten years, everyone was practically worshiping Obama for doing the exact same thing. He leveraged big data and high-level analytics to win—back then, the conservatives just complained that the Democrats had outmaneuvered them strategically. Now, Trump pours a massive amount of money into those same tactics, and suddenly he’s the villain stealing data. It’s the same playbook; the players just changed.🙏🙏It isn't just about what the news outlets are reporting—it’s about how that media influence actually guts platforms like Facebook. They lost a massive chunk of their market cap in a single day because of it. People tend to follow the herd, and honestly, the most effective way to control a crowd these days is through the media. It’s become incredibly easy to profile users and feed them exactly what they want to hear while keeping everything else quiet. Look, Trump might be an idiot, but that’s not really the point here.

People love to trash the current system these days—and honestly, I get it—but let’s be real: the framework we have in most developed nations right now is still the best one we've ever managed to put together. That said, if anyone actually believes we have true freedom of speech today, especially in the media, they’re dead wrong. In a dictatorship, sure, the news outlets just follow whatever orders the ruling party hands down. But in a free society, the theory is that everyone should be reporting the truth. The problem is that "truth" isn't exactly served up on a silver platter. Instead, you're fed a constant stream of one-sided perspectives from a specific ideological bubble—mostly on the left—which shapes your worldview before you even realize it. And today? They have the most sophisticated technology imaginable—basically a high-tech weapon—designed specifically to feed you exactly what they want you to hear until you eventually just nod along.

The logic behind free speech is fundamentally broken if you try to balance it by giving every minority group total license to do whatever they want. It’s a contradiction. If you start placing restrictions on people just because their words might offend someone, you aren't actually protecting expression—you're effectively shielding the very people whose freedom of speech forms the foundation of this entire system.

If you’re under the impression that what we have here is actual democracy, you’re mistaken. Real democracy exists in Switzerland—not here in the States. What we’re dealing with in America is really just another incremental step toward a democratic system, nothing more. Think about the progression: you had monarchies where one person ruled indefinitely based purely on bloodlines. Then you had totalitarian regimes where a small group held absolute power for an unlimited time, all driven by ideology. Now, we’ve moved to a stage where a group leads with a single head of state, but for a limited term. Some might argue we’ve simply shortened the duration of a one-party dictatorship, but the distinction is that the people actually get a say in who they want. Of course, "the people" are essentially choosing from whatever is served to them—a menu of empty promises that politicians have zero intention of actually keeping. True direct democracy—the kind they practice in Switzerland—is the only real deal. It’s a system where citizens head to the polls for referendums on every major issue and law. If the public decides they hate a specific law, they can vote it down. That creates the only legitimate check on power: the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants because the people hold the ultimate control.

Naturally, the big question is how this would actually play out in other places—like here in America. Is the public actually self-aware enough to vote for the long-term good of the country rather than just what lines their own pockets? And can the media truly stay independent, or will they just spin the narrative to push people toward a specific vote before a referendum even happens? In my opinion, the answer is no—and we’re nowhere near being ready for that level of maturity. I'm just saying, you don't really have a true democracy, or actual power in the hands of the people, without a system like this in place. Anything else is just a facade—you're basically just picking which group gets to rule over you for a set term.

Are you talking about America?

brightpilot6 said:Well, I was just sitting here waiting for the inevitable "ivory tower" argument to surface.

God, these battle-hardened capitalists and seasoned practitioners think they know it all, 🙏🙏 as if they’re all running massive conglomerates in some idealized version of the American Dream.

If you tell them eight times in a row that nobody wants more government interference, they’ll still act shocked the ninth time someone suggests it. One has to wonder if people with that kind of cognitive flexibility are actually in demand in the job market.🙏🙏

By the way, we didn't even officially abolish slavery here in the States until the 19th century.

Between the crypto-scalper restlesssurfer97 and our resident colonial governor Justin James10, 🙏 🙏

restlesssurfer97 said:🤣

It’s always these same anti-capitalist types who aren't even actual socialists, but man, if you handed one of them an AR-15, they’d turn an old red t-shirt and a tree branch into a revolutionary flag before you could even blink.

Justin James10 said:Oh, please. I have some respect for the real revolutionaries from back in the day; at least they had the guts to back up their talk. These people? They're just looking for a handout from the federal budget.

I honestly get a little misty-eyed whenever I see this sudden wave of "brotherhood" between Real Madrid and Barcelona fans. It’s truly touching, isn't it? Just seeing everyone suddenly act like they’re best friends after years of hating each other's guts. Does anyone actually buy this, or are we all just participating in some massive, collective delusion?

Justin James10 said:Green stays green until it turns red, right? ☕

Setting aside all the environmental panic-mongering, the reality is that ecological health actually thrives best in free-market economies. Government intervention tends to fail everywhere, and this field is certainly no exception.

Oh, come on now, 🤣

First off, ecology doesn't give a damn about national borders. The causes of environmental disasters aren't tied to whatever specific country they happen in, and nature isn't particularly concerned with the political system of the community it’s about to ruin. Glaciers don't melt just because someone at the North Pole is being messy; it’s not localized to just the polar regions.

And if we want to talk about strictly local environmental conditions, things are usually at their worst where capitalist manufacturing has been kicked out of the neighborhood. It’s pretty easy for Germany to enjoy crisp, clean air when all their heavy industry was outsourced to China.

Justin James10 said:Is capitalism actually an outdated concept? 🙏

But really, why would we even need to replace it? 🤷

Hold on a second—just a page ago, you were arguing that capitalism was the ultimate solution, and now you're suddenly okay with the idea of replacing it?

Matthew Young35 said:If you didn't have a phone or a computer, you wouldn't be able to post on this forum about the lack of sewage systems.

What do our government and Amazon even matter to us anyway? ☕

shadowmarlin22 said:I was speaking in broad terms—it doesn't necessarily have to be about cash. Maybe it's a situation where someone steals medicine because their neighbors have no other choice. It isn't always about money. Let's face it, nobody is 100% morally pure.

We aren't talking about some kid snatching a loaf of bread from a local bakery; we're talking about the corporate sharks who gut major utility companies and walk away with billions in stolen assets.

shadowmarlin22 said:Don't sweat it.

Look, sure, plenty of people would turn into thieves if they had the chance—and honestly, you’d probably be one of them too, judging by what you're saying here. But that’s hardly a universal rule. I’ve seen plenty of folks get a golden opportunity to swipe something and they just... don't. This whole argument that everyone would act like some corrupt billionaire CEO if they were in that position? It’s nothing more than a convenient way to excuse guys like him and his cronies.

wiredfalcon2 said:If you actually left everything up to the free market, you wouldn't even be holding an iPhone right now. Every single component inside those things was built thanks to massive government subsidies and taxpayer funding.

Sure, if we're talking about iPhones. But if you actually left everything to the "pure" market, you probably wouldn't have indoor plumbing, either.

shadowmarlin22 said:Everyone turns into a thief the second they see an opening—especially when they feel like the risk-to-reward ratio is tipped heavily in their favor. In this country, those guys practically had zero skin in the game

Sounds like he's talking about himself.

Justin James10 said:Those staunch defenders of statism are constantly demanding proof that the free market actually works in the real world 🙏🙏🙏

But honestly, ruggedjackal46... if you look at almost any successful nation on the planet, the answer is pretty obvious 😉

Look, this constant sniping on the forums is getting a bit old, but if you want to have an actual, serious debate, you’re going to have to put in some real effort. We aren't living in 1989 anymore where everyone was busy celebrating capitalism as the "end of history." We're stuck in a pretty messy era where even people in the West who aren't hardcore socialists are starting to question whether the system is still working.

restlesssurfer97 said:Honestly, I think it’s more than obvious that we would’ve been way ahead of the curve if we’d just let the free market do its thing from the start and built our society on that foundation instead of this absolute mess we’ve managed to create. And look, even if we decided to go full laissez-faire right this second, the first thing that would happen is all that leftover privatization garbage would just get cleared out naturally, because honestly, not even one percent of those bloated entities would survive a real competitive market, which would finally give us a clean slate to actually build something worthwhile. We’re basically twenty-eight years behind where we should be, but hey, I guess it's better late than never, right?

It isn't just obvious; it's practically written in stone, especially since this whole disaster was born during that messy transition from socialism to capitalism. And look, our little corner of the States wouldn't be special in that regard; you saw similar predatory privatization schemes play out across almost every former socialist nation. Whether you look at the chaos in Russia or what happened in the old North America, the "transition" process basically just meant looting everything, gutting useful public utilities, and handing massive amounts of power to a handful of oligarchs. In a true free market, anyone with that kind of concentrated power would still find ways to dominate, which isn't exactly comforting—whether you're talking about a corrupt tycoon in Chicago or some massive Russian banking conglomerate.

restlesssurfer97 said:In reality, you wouldn't have even been able to lay eyes on it if you tried.

I mean, practically speaking, look at any other similar nation.

Justin James10 said:Oh, I see... So, the solution is just to keep maintaining the very same system that allowed it to happen in the first place?

So, what’s the actual fix here? Are we supposed to just hand everything over to a free market dominated by the same corporate titans who made their fortunes during the deregulation era of the 90s? I listen to you liberals constantly—and look, most of your critiques regarding government corruption are actually pretty valid—but I have yet to hear a single constructive idea for a solution. In my experience, whether looking at theory or real-world practice, I haven't seen how completely abandoning oversight to the market solves a damn thing.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Who is actually auditing these projects to ensure the money is being spent as intended? Are they required to submit feasibility studies for their investments? And if they fail to meet their projected goals, are they hit with financial corrections or clawbacks?
There has to be some level of accountability. It would be like walking into a major bank like JP Morgan with a solid business plan, failing miserably, and then simply telling them, "Well, I had good intentions," and expecting them to let it slide😁. The same logic applies to any government agency or federal institution.

But regardless of what people think about the fanbases, the reality is quite stark. They are systematically sidelined—truly pushed to the margins—while certain individuals accept government assistance and then complain about being oppressed. It’s a bit like someone eating butter straight from the tub and then complaining about the cost of living. In my view, they aren't much better than those who claim they don't support a corrupt tycoon, only to follow his every move anyway. It's all part of the same mindset.

The donating institution handles the auditing too. If you can't justify the expenses properly, you end up with a partial payout, getting blacklisted from future grants, or being forced to pay the money back.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about sports fans, the reality is pretty grim. They get systematically crushed—literally steamrolled—while some people take government money and act like they're being oppressed. I doubt they could even manage to eat a meal without someone handing them a silver platter. They aren't any better than those types who say, "Look, I'm not a fan of the NFL owner, BUT..." It's all the same mindset.

That's all well and good, but I fail to see how point number one connects to point number two. Is the government supposed to wait until an organization is practically bankrupt before they have the right to protest?

Paul Sanders5 said:I’ll just mention how we handle our contributions to the arts here ☕

Whatever, man. People are out there making culture happen, so it’s only right we keep them fed. It's the decent thing to do.

But what does that actually look like in raw numbers? We’re talking about a few bucks per person annually in taxes, yet more than a third of my gross salary just vanishes instantly. People lose their minds over every tiny little project that gets public funding, but honestly, do we even have any real transparency regarding where our tax dollars and surcharges are actually going? Or where the massive chunks of cash are being funneled? I mean, sure, we get a glimpse when we see an indictment against some corrupt governor or a shady CEO, but for some reason, those local politicians who run the city hall or the big university systems don't seem to trigger the same level of taxpayer rage.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Sure, the government is obligated to be transparent about where taxpayer money goes. They fund everything under the sun. It reminds me of an artist receiving a grant from the Department of the Treasury for a film, only to turn around and lecture the President about foreign policy issues halfway across the globe.😁
But I think we’re missing the point. Personally, I couldn't care less about the specific names on the roster; my issue is simply the fact that seemingly anyone and everyone can snag a handout, often backed by some vague justification. I realize people aren't machines, and trying to quantify someone's social impact is a bit like trying to measure the wind, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of frustration when you look at the sheer scale of it. On that note, I’m genuinely curious about the "productivity" of these organizations that receive heavy donations from private sector executives. They claim to defend human rights, yet they seem completely indifferent to the plight of local fan clubs that face systemic pressure, all while these various NGOs soak up federal funding. It’s a glaring contradiction.
And honestly, the state can give money to whoever they want, including those Guerrilla Girls. After all, they did provide support to certain "rebels" during conflicts abroad.🤦 🤣

If you can grasp how much it actually hurts some of us to watch this funding happen—even though we all have our own political leanings—then you might understand why I find the whole "who belongs to which conspiracy" argument so exhausting. Just find the data; it isn't that hard. For instance, there are hundreds of veteran advocacy groups stemming from just one single military division, and while I have immense respect for our service members, seeing them operate in such a parasitic fashion is difficult. In this country, it seems everyone believes they are indispensable and entitled to a slice of the pie.
Once you strip away the endless, almost satirical debates about whether these organizations are truly "essential," I feel I have every right to call them what they are: classic parasites. Just a few weeks ago, I was heading home from work after another meeting, reading through endless messages of support for various fringe figures on social media as if they were some legendary historical icons. Then you see mainstream news outlets pick up the slogans, acting as if these kids are personally out there fighting on the front lines of every historical conflict. The media then flips the script, labeling anyone who questions this obsession with the past as "out of touch." It’s a circular logic. Ultimately, it all boils down to these repetitive forum arguments: where do the conservatives sit on this list versus the liberals, and how much is each side getting?

To make matters even more absurd, people cite mainstream news headlines as gospel, even though both the far-left and the far-right argue that the media shouldn't be trusted. It feels like a collective breakdown in societal logic.

Every non-profit operates on project-based funding, where the money you get is supposedly tied to your results. That’s just how the system works. Sure, there’s probably plenty of embezzlement happening during both the allocation and the reporting phases, but the system isn't designed to just grab a few billion dollars and toss it at random charities; it’s distributed quite specifically in relatively small increments.

As for the sports fans, I don't know what to tell you, other than the prejudices work both ways. Just as fans ask why certain academic groups get funded while they get treated like criminals, the other side asks why stadium hooligans get any attention at all while the groups doing actual work get nothing but crumbs. Divide and conquer, right?

Justin James10 said:But let's be honest, those groups have their own projects too. Most of them are just running nonsense that's about as productive as the unemployed kids over at the liberal arts college. Personally, I wouldn't fund a single cent of that junk! I just don't understand where this idea comes from that some people deserve support while others don't. Why would a leftist non-profit be considered more valuable than a conservative one?

In my eyes, they're all just freeloaders. It seems to me that "your crowd" only ever complains when it's the conservative organizations being targeted.

Veteran organizations are groups meant to bring together people who served in the 90s, not necessarily a bunch of experts eager to launch a new startup today. When we talk about veteran associations, let's stick to that specifically, rather than making sweeping statements about all right-wing groups in general.

As far as I'm concerned, they're all parasites. It seems like "you people" only find it an issue when it's a conservative organization.

Going back to my earlier point: "Those are two distinct issues—first, how much should veterans be compensated for past service? And second, are the actual activities these organizations carry out necessary and worth the funding?"

I think when it comes to nonprofits, it doesn't make much sense to jump to broad generalizations. You really need to look into what these specific groups actually do and why they receive taxpayer money. To take an extreme example, a foundation for the blind gets funded because they perform essential work that simply can't be turned into a profit through the free market.

Justin James10 said:Wouldn't it be much more honest to just pull the plug on all this funding entirely? You seem bothered by veterans' groups, while others are annoyed by those street philosophers hanging around downtown. Why don't we just cut everyone off and clear them all out of the budget? Why should we fund these phantom organizations just to maintain some rotting compromise? 🤷

And now, suddenly, they’ve decided to slap a sustainability levy on small and mid-sized businesses regarding forest management 🙏 It's practically a tax on breathing 🙏

Those are two completely different animals. Veterans receive compensation for service they actually performed, whereas these "street philosophers"—meaning any nonprofit outside the conservative spectrum—are getting grants for projects they're running right now. They aren't even the same conversation. First, there's the question of how much and for how long we should compensate veterans for their past sacrifices. Second, is the work these various nonprofits are doing actually necessary or worth the taxpayer's investment? In reality, you wouldn't have one single government agency splitting its budget fifty-fifty between veteran services and philosophy clubs anyway.