Posts by Scott Hall39

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Tell that to the children in Iraq.

Look, buddy, do your homework first. Come back when you can actually name which oil companies are operating in Iraq. This whole argument falls apart if ExxonMobil—which I assume is just the secret successor to Standard Oil—wasn't keeping Bush in their pocket the whole time. 🙄
But hey, that’s off-topic anyway.

placidwolf27 said:state power is the linchpin
without the state, capitalism simply cannot function—in a sense, the government provides the fundamental infrastructure that prevents the whole system from collapsing... it's through laws and direct interventions that the market is kept upright; corporations and banks are essentially just service providers, warehouses, and processing plants within that framework.

that being said, we are still talking about the same ruling class—even if their influence is spread across multiple centers of power, and even if specialized elites compete for control over that power...

the key to understanding this entire dynamic is realizing that the tracks and the train, much like the signals and the switches—and everyone operating them—are all part of the exact same system. Even if a train derails occasionally here or there, the entire mechanism works in unison to keep everything moving toward its intended purpose...

If you don't have a state, people's rights are totally vulnerable, so your argument falls apart. You can't just force reality into a narrow little box and call it the truth!

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.

Well, John D. Rockefeller shouted too! So what if the Rockefellers are still around? The Roosevelts are still around too! These stories about American presidents serving oil companies and big capital are nothing but pure conspiracy nonsense from people who can't grasp that the world is far too complex to be boiled down to such banal relationships. They try to simplify everything. Either it's just mindless political ideology—Marxist or leftist rambling.

Anthony Garcia19 said:You've got it wrong. Power lives wherever the money is. Politicians only hold a tiny slice of that influence—they just act as the middleman to carry out orders from the real centers of power.
You know, you actually have a point there. If you're broke, that's a real problem!

Some of the wealthiest people out there actually live pretty modestly. They aren't flashy; they just genuinely love what they do, and that passion is what keeps them moving forward.

As long as they keep all that cash for themselves, they’re exactly the "problem" we're talking about here.

Things are way more complicated than people think; there isn't just one single center of power. If money were the only thing that mattered, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution wouldn't even exist. Plus, no billionaire can actually compete with the raw power held by certain politicians. Look at Rockefeller and Standard Oil—that's a perfect example. Theodor Roosevelt stepped in and absolutely tore them apart. Their wealth was many times greater than anything any modern billionaire holds today. Then you have inheritance taxes, which systematically dismantled powerful dynasties like the Rothschilds—not to mention the Russian oligarchs hiding behind prison bars. Power sits in the hands of politicians, even if the balance of power is always shifting between them, the wealthy, and every other group in society.

Anthony Garcia19 said:You've got it wrong. Power lives wherever the money is. Politicians only hold a tiny slice of that influence—they just act as the middleman to carry out orders from the real centers of power.
You know, you actually have a point there. If you're broke, that's a real problem!

Some of the wealthiest people out there actually live pretty modestly. They aren't flashy; they just genuinely love what they do, and that passion is what keeps them moving forward.

As long as they keep all that cash for themselves, they’re exactly the "problem" we're talking about here.

This makes no sense. What exactly do you mean by that?

wanderingcrane5 said:The thing is, nobody would even care about this crisis if it were just about paychecks shrinking. This whole situation is a nightmare because people are losing their jobs entirely. That isn't just a drop in living standards; it's an absolute catastrophe. You can't save anything when you're starting from zero. You can't live on zero. And there's no such thing as a paycheck lower than nothing.

Just look at the unemployment rates from 2003 compared to where we are today!

If all that matters is power, then politics is definitely the way to go.
Sure, money is just another form of power. But looking at it purely from a material standpoint, it isn’t hard to see why people always want more. You get used to comfort fast. Look at the current economic crisis. People are struggling because their standard of living is slipping back to what it was a few years ago—even though they were actually worse off back then. When your salary jumps from $50k to $100k, your lifestyle shifts. You start buying better clothes, eating at nicer restaurants, and so on. If you have $20 million, you don't have a private jet. Once you hit $100 or $200 million, suddenly you can afford one.
But it’s not just about the stuff. It's a mindset—that drive for new challenges and breaking records. Some of the wealthiest people out there live relatively modest lives, but they stay driven by the work itself.

mellowraven22 said:That’s exactly why it exists. Look, if you actually want to have a serious debate about some non-mainstream theory over in, say, History, you better bring some actual evidence to the table. People who deny the Holocaust just because they skimmed one book by David Irving, or those 9/11 truthers who just watched Loose Change and other brainless garbage—they don't even need to bother. Stuff like that gets tossed straight into the trash immediately.

The biggest issue isn't just opening these topics; it's that once they do, everything goes sideways. They have this knack for suffocating any legitimate discussion and derailing it onto the wrong track. I assume that’s what Anthony Perez9 was getting at. And here they are again, spreading their "faith" with the persistence of cultists! This is why I think it’s smart to keep those two irreconcilable worlds separate. Let's put it this way: would we tolerate creationists crashing an evolution thread in Natural Science, claiming the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that we're all falling for fake propaganda? Or would we allow people talking about ancient aliens and extraterrestrials in a History thread about ancient civilizations?

mellowraven22 said:Why? Aside from the fact that any actual intelligent or rational person doesn't buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories—unless they're explicitly inciting hate—I don't see what we should even do about it. Just let the idiots be idiots 🤷.

If someone wants to babble about how 9/11 was an inside job by Jews, Americans, or aliens, or claim that people just fell on knives in Srebrenica, they can talk all they want, provided they aren't breaking the forum rules or US laws.

Then what's the point of the Alternative subforum? On the Natural Science and History sections, people stick to the mainstream, but Alternative is basically a playground for conspiracy theories.