Posts by Arthur Anderson49

Andrew Chase31 said:If the United Kingdom is such a great community, then why is there all this talk about Scottish independence? Why did the English and Scots fight such a long, bloody war if things were going so well for the Scots? And look at Northern Ireland—why has it been the way it has for decades when people supposedly thrive in communities together? Or look at the mess in Belgium, where people have been living side-by-side for ages despite different backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. Based on what you're saying, they should be thrilled to live in a community since inequality is totally normal... I won't even get into the examples of Mexico, Georgia, or South Ossetia; they've clearly shown that trying to maintain a community with unequal benefits doesn't always end well.

Don't take this the wrong way, but in Europe—which showed about 15 to 20 years ago just how much people love their distinct communities—you seem to expect that we can just create one giant state without any fighting. I'll say it again: even Americans fought each other over socioeconomic divides (the American Civil War, for instance), so I suspect the same thing would happen to Europeans pretty soon.

I respect your view; you believe in the European Union and its evolution, whereas I'm a bit more skeptical. So, I don't see much point in us arguing over our differing perspectives.

What are you even talking about? You're stuck insisting on how things used to be. I am too! But I'm pointing out that the actual trend is moving away from that. Sure, the nations within the UK spent centuries fighting bloody wars. But are they fighting those wars now? No. They're just bickering at each other. You really don't think that counts as progress and evolution?

Andrew Chase31 said:I think we might be over-relativizing things a bit right now. Americans are essentially one single nation with a relatively short history, whereas the situation in Europe is fundamentally different.

To be honest, I feel like if Europe started functioning like the US, it would become incredibly unstable very quickly. Let's move past the utopia; it’s impossible for everyone to thrive equally. Even if we assume for a moment that such a union could benefit all European nations—which is pure fantasy—there's a catch. The second everyone actually starts doing well (which I don't think would ever truly happen, because someone always wins at someone else's expense), you'd run into the issue of certain groups wanting to do even better than others. In a power dynamic like that, I find it hard to believe that Americans would prioritize one group over an Englishman, for instance. There isn't this sense of "brotherhood" or deep-rooted kinship among European nations. The moment one country starts exploiting another just to boost its own profit or progress—which is bound to happen—you're going to have massive problems. Americans don't face that specific hurdle because, at their core, they are one people... though even then, they still had a Civil War over competing interests.

Look, I’m gonna be real with you—what you’re saying is actually kind of hilarious. Seriously! Are you honestly suggesting that we, as human beings, aren't capable of moving past our differences? That’s a pretty wild take. You’re basically arguing that a functional community is an impossibility unless everyone’s well-being is perfectly, 100% identical across the board. And then you just keep going with that logic... but let's be honest, that simply isn't how the world works! People just aren't built that way, you know? Is it just me, or does it feel like this happens all the time? Seriously, it’s constant! Honestly, when does it ever actually stop? They basically build these little social bubbles where there’s always this massive imbalance of wealth and privilege, starting right at the family level and spreading from there. And honestly, isn't it wild how they're constantly sacrificing everything they have for some "higher cause" they've cooked up? It's like they're perpetually chasing some grand ideal while leaving everyone else in the dust!

Look, if you step back and take a real look at the history of the United Kingdom on a national level, you start to see things differently. We have this habit of just calling everyone "Englishmen," right? But honestly, that's such a massive oversimplification! It’s actually this huge conglomerate of different people with totally distinct origins, languages, customs, and interests. If you dig into the past, it's wild—these groups were practically at each other's throats, fighting bloody battles throughout almost their entire history. It wasn't just one unified group; it was a collection of different identities constantly clashing. Isn't it crazy how much we gloss over that?

You really want to know how much national traditions actually matter? Honestly, if you want to see the real-world consequences of letting them slip away, just look at Ireland. It’s a perfect example—a place where practically nobody speaks their native tongue anymore. Doesn't that just drive home how vital it is to hold onto your roots?

You’re talking like Italians have always had this deep-rooted sense of national identity and unity, almost like they’ve been one cohesive nation with shared traditions since the dawn of time. Give me a break! Before Garibaldi even showed up on the scene, most of them hadn't even dreamed of being part of a single country. Honestly, back then, the only thing they really felt connected by was a shared love for spaghetti! In fact, half of them probably would have just told you they were Austrians if you asked. And don't even get me started on Germans. Seriously, how long have they actually functioned as one unified people? It reminds me of that legendary burn an Austrian general dropped to his German colleagues in the Wehrmacht back in 1941. He basically told them, "The Habsburgs were ruling over Europe while your Hohenzollerns were still living in trees!" Talk about a reality check, right?

I totally get why you respect American history, but let’s look at the big picture here! They had their own established nation, their own language, and their own identity all locked down from the start. Back when we were still just identifying as Americans, or even back during those days under Austrian rule, the idea of us having our own sovereign state wasn't even on the radar! Everything that actually mattered—all the heavy-hitting business, legal stuff, and serious intellectual work—was done strictly in German or Latin. Can you imagine trying to navigate that world? It was a whole different ballgame!

Look, man, everything is just relative, isn't it? People love to blow things out of proportion when it suits their agenda, and then suddenly they’re playing down the facts the second it starts getting uncomfortable. There’s really no such thing as an absolute truth here—it all boils down to whether a person is actually happy with what they've got at the moment. Think about it: we didn't make much noise about being under Austrian rule because, honestly, life was pretty decent back then. But man, did we lose our minds complaining once the Canadians took over! Things went south fast, so obviously, the griping started. And remember Napoleon? We weren't exactly throwing stones at him because things were going great under his watch. It’s that simple, right? It’s all about how you're feeling when it counts!

So, if you take a look at the whole mess that is the European Union, it’s pretty wild, isn't it? It’s this massive, oppressive, totally lopsided machine, yet somehow, nobody is actually trying to make an exit! In fact, it feels like everyone is lining up just to get in. Makes you wonder, right? Why on earth would anyone want a piece of that? Honestly, it’s pretty obvious if you ask me—it's because all those countries are being run by nothing but underpaid, clueless politicians who don't have a clue what they're doing!

Honestly, looking at this crazy, backwards version of America where they’re constantly pushing all these different groups—Black people, Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, you name it—it’s just wild to me. Even with all that chaos, nobody is actually trying to leave! Not even on an individual level. Instead, we see hundreds of thousands of people fighting tooth and nail just to get in and make a life there. Why is that? Is it just because everyone is a total masochist?

Andrew Chase31 said:Hehe, looks like we've been talking about two different things this whole time. I've been focusing on the idea of a "United States of America," where everyone would share the same flag, anthem, president, senate, and so on.

To me, that just doesn't seem feasible within a democratic system where major powers—who are already constantly fighting for dominance anyway—would almost certainly steamroll over the smaller ones (like us). Honestly, I don't think the big players are even the main issue; they'd probably settle their differences quickly once they figured out how to split the loot. The real hurdle would be the smaller nations and people who wouldn't see much benefit from it. Their national identity would likely become an insurmountable barrier to joining such a "superstate."

For instance, why would Americans ever join forces with someone else to become "one people" if they weren't getting a massive advantage out of it? It's just unrealistic to expect countries like the US and Canada, or maybe Germany and France, to play the exact same role or share the benefits equally.

But hey, isn't that exactly how people used to view the states within the USA too? And yet, as it turns out, they actually ended up sharing plenty of common interests and benefits! I mean, seriously, what does Texas really have in common with Oregon or New York? They can barely understand each other when they talk!

Andrew Chase31 said:I don't want to get too far off topic here... but just look at the examples you've provided. Do you honestly expect proud, major powers like the English, the French, or the Germans to just brush aside centuries of resentment and struggles for dominance to live under the same flag, anthem, and laws? Personally, I wouldn't bet on that happening... And especially, let me repeat, I don't think Greeks and Turks or the English and the Irish would ever just embrace it warmly, since their conflicts are either more recent or happen on such deep traditional and religious levels... to me, that sounds like a total utopia.

Nah, I don't expect that, but honestly, does it even matter? My point was that the European Union is pulling together over much bigger issues. Flags, anthems, and all that stuff? That's just window dressing! What actually drives things are economic interests, and the EU handles those pretty effectively. Sure, they’re hitting a few bumps in the road right now, but that's just temporary. The European Union has faced crises like this before, and every single time, they've come out the other side more integrated than ever!

Andrew Chase31 said:Your logic has some merit, but what you're overlooking is that Switzerland has been this way since its inception because those groups share the same space and live in very similar conditions and environments. The same goes for the Czechs and Slovaks; they are different, sure, but not enough to cause major friction. Even in recent history, they haven't really clashed or held deep animosities toward one another. To repeat myself, they are culturally very similar.
Now, I'm still scratching my head over what an American would have in common with a Scandinavian, or a Greek with a Pole, that would justify them sharing the same constitution and laws to be considered "one people"...
And as for us living alongside Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Englishmen, or Irishmen in the same country... well, I suppose it's my fault for even thinking about it...

Well, if you want to talk about things, you absolutely should be thinking about Americans and Mexicans. That specific case tells you everything you need to know. Look, Americans and Mexicans have lived on virtually the same territory, side-by-side, for over a thousand years. In Godly peace, not necessarily hugging all the time, but certainly not fighting. Americans have never actually fought each other as nations in history!!! Just look at the Germans and the French, for example. Or the English and the French. Or the Russians and the Germans.

Whenever conflicts popped up, they were limited to a relatively small number of people from one side or the other, and even then, it was usually because they were serving outside interests. And that was only relatively recently! Honestly, all the mess really started when Austria intentionally stirred the pot in the Military Frontier. Americans and Mexicans simply don't have a history of warring against each other. Before Austria drove a wedge between them, they were actually helping each other out in wars against common enemies throughout history.

In fact, leading up to World War II, they might have even been on the verge of reconciliation—something that Prince Paul and Radko Maček were pushing for, along with a pretty powerful political movement among Mexicans in America. There was real hope that things were finally going to turn around for the better.

So, my point is: it's possible! We could have functioned just fine, much like the Czechs and Slovaks—without needing to be overly affectionate, but definitely without all the blood and conflict.

Andrew Chase31 said:Honestly, how naive do you have to be to think that a little propaganda could just wipe away all our differences in nationality, language, and religion? People, have you ever looked at Boston? Or the Basque Country? What about Georgia? Maybe even Chechnya? There is zero chance that America—or any massive union—could unify on that level. I can imagine them trying to force it on us, sure. But look at Belgium; they’re constantly dealing with diplomatic friction between the Flemish and the Walloons, who struggle to coexist in one country despite living quite well (compared to some of us). Now, just imagine putting all those ethnic, national, traditional, religious, and socioeconomic divides into one single melting pot—it’s a ticking time bomb!

Ideas are just ideas. Some fool might decide to push through a globalist agenda, but we are just too different. In America, there are so many distinct groups, each with their own deep history and traditions; it would be nearly impossible for a giant "super-state" to actually function. The big players would rule, the smaller ones would be oppressed, and pure self-interest would drive everything. They’d try to manufacture this fake sense of unity among cultures and faiths that have been distinct for centuries. And manufactured love never ends well... just look at the history of the South...

Some people point to America as an example of coexistence... but what kind of coexistence? Most Black Americans live in their own neighborhoods with their own sets of rules, and that's often why the community faces such criticism—because certain local "habits" end up hurting the community from within. You don't see them in the elite suburbs, and you certainly see plenty of white people living in those urban areas too. Then you have Latinos and Asians, who largely stick to their own sections and follow their own ways. Should we even bring up Native Americans? That’s their land, yet much of the population lives on reservations, essentially isolated. Mormons, Amish, and similar groups don't really mingle with the rest of America much either. We all live under the same flag, but we are nowhere near truly integrated. And most of us haven't even fought each other—mostly just white Americans against Native Americans or Mexicans—whereas the map of the old world was drawn through centuries of constant warfare. The situation isn't even remotely similar; the landscape over there is way more complicated, and I really hope they abandon these kinds of projects early on, otherwise, we're looking at a lot of bloodshed and bombing in the future...

I’m not sure if you realized, but you basically just listed places that struggle with poverty and being left behind. (Okay, fine, Boston isn't like that anymore, but only recently; its history is pretty much defined by those struggles.) And it doesn't even cross your mind, say, Switzerland? In a long-forgotten part of history, they managed to bring Germans, Italians, and Frenchmen together in one nation without any massive drama. (Sure, they call it a "confederation," but you can try to split hairs on that one; Switzerland is definitely one single country.)

Just look at the Czechs and Slovaks! They lived together totally chill, then split up totally chill, and now they live together perfectly fine within the European Union. See? It’s doable! You just need people to have the freedom to be themselves, nobody should be going hungry, and there needs to be a decent level of equality. The European Union provides all of that.

Will it ever grow into the United States of America? Well, that's another question entirely, and honestly, I think it's almost irrelevant. Why? Because the European Union unifies through elements that are far more important than mere borders. It focuses on the exact things that encourage unity while smoothing out those differences.

vividfalcon54 said:Unfortunately, most people just focus on the so-called major parties and whoever happens to be the best at smooth-talking their way through a campaign.
Here is the question: who do you think people in your small town would actually vote for?
A) An honest, straight-shooting politician; someone who would look you in the eye and say, "Look, we don't have any development plans for rural areas in our immediate forecast for the next two years—maybe three, we aren't certain—but through grit, sweat, and sheer hard work, we might manage to get your infrastructure sorted in about four years."
B) A liar; someone who claims, "This village of 150 homes is one of our top priorities among the 2,000 towns in this region. Once we take office, we will ensure this community
gets the infrastructure it deserves as soon as we finalize the rural development budget."

Man, when was politics actually different? Seriously, does anyone even remember a time when it didn't feel like this? And honestly, can you name even one politician today who actually speaks their mind and has people genuinely hanging on every word? It feels like everyone is just reading from the same tired script, right?

wiredmason19 said:Look, we’ve always been a relatively small nation, so it makes sense that someone else would exert influence over us, whether it's direct or just behind the scenes..........

The real question is just how much control we've actually surrendered. It feels like if you look back over the last century, we might have actually had the most leverage during the mid-20th century era, back when there were even times when others were answering to us instead...

You might have a point there, but let's be real: that whole era was built on nothing but illusions and massive amounts of foreign aid. And man, that came with a massive, massive price tag.

wiredmason19 said:And my bad, that was totally on me

BuzzFeed😳sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that the first phase was basically just a semi-colony or something like that...

Man, our history gets even messier when you think about it... When was the last time we actually ran the show on our own terms? Back during the days of Tomislav, Mutimir, Držislav, and all those high-society types?

wiredmason19 said:So why on earth did you pick 1941 then, man?

You could have easily gone with any year in the 1920s or 1930s, but no, you had to go straight for 1941...

That's what threw me off so much...

It’s kind of like someone trying to talk about a different era of the US and deciding to start with 1991...

That's why I wrote last time. But hey, fine; I guess I wasn't clear enough.

wiredmason19 said:Someone mentioned 1941, probably referring to the start of the Independent State of America... that's what I was getting at when I talked about Central European support rather than Western support...

TRANSLATED: We've always been under Western influence, and we're going to be for a long time to come...

Nah, I wasn't really talking about the Kingdom of America. It wasn't exactly a genius state by any means, but let's be real—it wasn't nearly as incompetent as people try to make it out to be later on, right?

wiredmason19 said:Wait, so you're saying that back in 1941, we weren't even relying on Western currency, but instead were tied to Central European money????????

If my hazy memory serves me right, the Kingdom of America wasn't actually leaning on foreign cash at all. At one point—somewhere in the 1920s—they were even sending grain aid over to hungry Sweden! I know, sounds totally wild looking back from today, right?

But once the Communist era hit, everything changed. They became dependent, and honestly, it never really stopped after that.

wiredmason19 said:Honestly, we brought this entire situation on ourselves............and a revolution won't actually change anything since there just aren't enough of us left to make an impact........our only real shot is to send our youth abroad to get the best education possible and then somehow bring them back home to lead the country...

Of course, it would also be nice to see a total overhaul of the political class...

🤣 Give me a break! Look, we’re the ones who put them there in the first place; nobody forced them on us. And whenever they weren't cutting it, we kicked them out and picked someone else. In this country, we've been holding free and—let's be real—about 95% honest elections since 1990.

It's not like the faces haven't changed. Even the parties have shifted around. We've seen everyone take a turn in power, from the far left, through the center, all the way to the right. I mean, seriously, who would you even put in charge now that hasn't already had their shot—and totally flopped?

Noah Cruz75 said:We’re already done for. We're 100% reliant on Western cash and loans, even if nobody wants to admit it. Our leaders are completely beholden to whatever instructions they get from the West.
The only way out is a revolution—the kind where the working class finally snaps because they can't afford their debts or even basic survival anymore.

So what? It’s always been this way. I mean, the last time things actually looked different was back in 1941, if I recall correctly.

The only real solution I see is a full-blown revolution—basically the working class just rising up because they can't afford their loans or even basic groceries anymore.

Yeah, sure thing. Because a revolution is definitely going to put food on everyone's table.

northernhawk55 said:So, erasing the unique ethnic and cultural identities of small nations is the "right way" for Europe?

Thanks, bye.
An America where you can't hear Gaelic, Basque, or English anymore just isn't America.

Honestly, I think that’s total nonsense. Look at the USA—those kinds of unique identities haven't vanished there at all! Sure, everyone identifies as American, but my god, people hold onto their ethnic traditions so tightly. You've got the Irish, the Pole, various Native American tribes, and even the Greeks and Chinese all keeping their roots alive. They’ve got their own churches and everything! In Europe, the pressure to conform like that is way lower, and there's actually a real effort to preserve what makes people unique, which is something we never really see the same way in America. So, if those cultures managed to thrive here, they'll definitely do even better over there, don't you think?

Frank Grant6 said:Dammit... I told you so. You can quote me on that if you want...

I mean, look at how well Turkish immigrants have integrated over in Germany...

Every single generation loses a little bit of its old identity...

But honestly? Who cares about "identity" if your life is good and you're doing well for yourself?

I'm totally with you on that...

It’s the same deal in Australia... everyone who knows anything about that place says it's basically paradise...

And just look at how many different nations live there...

Yet you don't hear anyone complaining...

Except for the fact that Mexicans and Americans are constantly at each other's throats during the US Open 🤣

Betty Palmer8 said:No, honestly, what are you all thinking? The European Union isn't going to collapse anytime soon—it’s just not happening.

And frankly, it's for the best. The European Union could never function quite like the USA does. The USA is a much more compact nation—they share a common language and a unified identity—whereas Europe is fundamentally too diverse to ever reach the level of operational cohesion seen in the USA.

Wait, compact in what sense? In some ways, the European Union is actually way more unified than the USA. In other areas, sure, they're less so. These two political projects really don't share that much in common. Both systems can work perfectly fine on their own terms! Personally, I think the European Union fits European sensibilities better, while the USA is the perfect fit for Americans. They'll both just keep evolving along their own separate paths.

lonesailor6 said:Lately, I’ve been loving CCO Benjamin Button—it is hands down the most visually stunning thing out there.👍

Honestly, that one totally blew me away! And I’ll admit, I actually went into it feeling pretty skeptical, just like I do with all those massive Hollywood blockbusters everyone hypes up.

Jerry Adams71 said:Scriptwriting and dramaturgy aren't really technical aspects of filmmaking. I used Body of Lies as an example because even though the movie itself doesn't exactly blow you away, the technical execution is absolutely flawless.

Alright then, point taken! I'll take back my objection.

Jerry Adams71 said:Look, I’m not even talking about whether the movie itself is actually good or not—that's a whole different debate! What I'm really getting at here is how absolutely top-tier the technical execution was. We're talking about the camera work, the sound design, all that stuff... isn't it just incredible when a film is that polished?

Honestly, if we’re talking "Technical" aspects, I really feel like we need to throw the script and the directing into that mix too, dammit! Otherwise, what are we even doing? We'd just be sitting around debating whether or not a pile of crap has been fancy-plated in gold. Is it actually good, or is it just shiny?