Posts by quietbadger34

Does anyone actually know which platforms are decent for playing Challenger? I feel like I'm constantly hunting for a spot where the competition isn't just total chaos.

Joseph Wells3 said:I’m just wondering, what even is the UEFA League...😕

Does that thing even exist? How am I supposed to get rid of something that isn't a real thing?
And why do they use these clickbait headlines when nothing is actually being canceled—it's just a change to the tournament format.

Like what was mentioned earlier, this whole concept is just some fiction cooked up by our local sports journalists. Nobody else out there actually uses that term.

All that exists is the UEFA Cup group stage.

cosmicowl732 said:To be completely honest, I don't really get why there's such massive pushback and overwhelming conservatism whenever people suggest making changes to the rules of soccer.

It’s all about keeping that sense of history alive, you know?

If we just tinkered with the rulebook every single year based on whatever whim some official had, the whole game would
completely lose its connection to where it came from. Most of the fundamental rules have basically stayed the same since 1922—that was the last time we saw any truly massive shifts.

That old-school conservatism has actually done wonders for soccer, which is pretty much the biggest sport on the planet at this point. Part of the reason it's so huge is because people know exactly what to expect when they sit down to watch. That consistency is key.

In fact, it's probably a good thing that the British still hold four of those eight permanent seats on the IFAB board.

rapidstag2 said:Are you genuinely pretending to be oblivious, or is there some other reason for this inquiry? Perhaps he will choose to leave solely because he insists upon it, or perhaps he will go simply because his parents are attempting to live a life of luxury through him. And yet, it is always HE who is burdened with the obligation of building a career.

In truth, you might actually have a point. If one relocates from Italy to Spain, and should they discover new interests or suffer a debilitating injury after a couple of years, staying in a foreign country is hardly a catastrophe. In fact, it might even prove easier to find a new job, secure a home, and simply continue one's existence in that second country.
Besides, what is the inherent difficulty in a ten-year-old learning Spanish? What if they discard him in a few years because he failed to meet their lofty expectations?

One does not simply move to another country as if it were a trivial matter; you are essentially starting an entirely new life—try to grasp the gravity of that situation. The entire family moves because of you; surely, that doesn't create any pressure at all?

Look, I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of children being commodified; they are still at an age where they play soccer for reasons far more meaningful than profit. That is my position, I have stated my view, and I have no desire to dwell on this subject any further. 🙂

Look, he doesn't "have" to make a career out of this—it's not like he's going to be training twenty-four-seven. It’s just going to be a major part of his life, kind of like how a kid goes to music school and spends two or three hours a day grinding away at the piano. Let's be real, 99% of these kids aren't going to end up playing for Real Madrid, but they’ll probably have access to the best coaches and facilities imaginable. If the kid has actual talent and doesn't lose interest, there's a massive chance he becomes a solid pro player and secures a very comfortable lifestyle for himself.

rapidstag2 said:Are you genuinely pretending to be oblivious, or is there some other reason for this inquiry? Perhaps he will choose to leave solely because he insists upon it, or perhaps he will go simply because his parents are attempting to live a life of luxury through him. And yet, it is always HE who is burdened with the obligation of building a career.

In truth, you might actually have a point. If one relocates from Italy to Spain, and should they discover new interests or suffer a debilitating injury after a couple of years, staying in a foreign country is hardly a catastrophe. In fact, it might even prove easier to find a new job, secure a home, and simply continue one's existence in that second country.
Besides, what is the inherent difficulty in a ten-year-old learning Spanish? What if they discard him in a few years because he failed to meet their lofty expectations?

One does not simply move to another country as if it were a trivial matter; you are essentially starting an entirely new life—try to grasp the gravity of that situation. The entire family moves because of you; surely, that doesn't create any pressure at all?

Look, I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of children being commodified; they are still at an age where they play soccer for reasons far more meaningful than profit. That is my position, I have stated my view, and I have no desire to dwell on this subject any further. 🙂

There is absolutely no "selling" involved here. Parents have every right to weigh their options and think about where their child's talent can actually flourish, considering all the potential downsides before making a call.

For instance, imagine some kid in a small town in rural Ohio shows insane tennis talent, and by age ten, he's already hit a ceiling there.

In that case, his parents would have to sit down and decide if moving to a big city like Chicago or somewhere else is worth it.

This situation feels a bit different because Udine probably has decent coaching anyway, and if he wants the best, he could always move to one of the bigger clubs in Italy without even leaving the country.

The whole thing strikes me as being mostly made up.

We're talking about a single-sentence news blurb from some totally unreliable site like TribalFootball.

quietpanther9 said:I really hope Michel Platini manages to push through that law to ban teams from buying players before they even hit 18.

But hold on a second—what does "buying" even mean in this context?

The way I see it, these kids aren't even under contract with any clubs yet, so there isn't any transfer fee involved, which means there isn't even a "purchase" happening in the first place.

And let's be real, parents should have every right to pack up and move to a different city if they think it’s going to give their kid a better shot at life.

Plus, let's not forget that the source for all this news is completely and utterly unreliable.

rapidstag2 said:True, but won't that just shift the entire burden of the decision onto the shoulders of a ten-year-old?

I mean, seriously, what kind of pressure are we talking about right now?

A kid isn't the one making the call to pack up and move across the country.

rapidstag2 said:Of course they have parents who act as the ultimate deciding factor in all of this.

Look, if Real Madrid offers better terms than Udine, what can a ten-year-old do about it? A child that age isn't exactly in a position to sign a binding contract; the decision rests entirely with the parents. In all likelihood, the choice will hinge on what Real Madrid can provide for the family—securing employment for the parents, finding housing, and potentially relocating the entire household to Madrid. (I am not certain if that is the exact protocol for every case, but typically, the whole family moves together.) How much influence can a ten-year-old realistically exert over such matters?
Even if the child were to express dissent, how could they possibly argue against parents being offered a significantly higher standard of living and financial stability than anything they would ever find in Udine?

Then, one must consider the reality of a ten-year-old leaving their home country, abandoning their friends, their school, and their entire support system, all for the sake of soccer. Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee of success; instead, it merely adds an immense layer of pressure onto the child's shoulders. Is it not somewhat absurd that a ten-year-old is essentially dictating the life trajectory of their entire family?

I just can't see any reason to go after the clubs in all of this.

Plus, parents might get a better job offer in a different city.

And then they have to sit there and figure out how that move is going to impact the kids.

Look, these kids have parents for a reason.

If their folks decide it’s actually better for the kids to go train in Madrid instead of Udine, then what exactly is the issue? I don't see one.

Does it honestly make you guys sick to your stomachs when parents choose to send their children off to train tennis at some high-end academy somewhere else?

Most pro players have an insane amount of technical skill with the ball, it’s just that they don't show it—and honestly, they can't even pull it off—once they're facing other pros.

Take someone like Hrvoje Veić, for example. If you watch him out on a massive pitch during a high-stakes, legitimate match, you might walk away thinking he barely has any real ability on the ball at all.

But then, the second he steps onto a small turf field to play some pickup games with the local crew, he looks like prime Zidane.

It is practically impossible to strip the ball from him; he’ll nutmeg you whenever he feels like it and spin you around like a damn coin.

And I'm not talking about him bullying some random amateurs who couldn't kick a can; I mean he does this against guys who actually know what they're doing or used to play at a pretty serious level.

But man, being able to pull that off against other professionals? That is a completely different beast. Very few people can actually do that, and that’s exactly why they’re considered legends.

Richard Wilson4 said:Too much freedom just leaves people feeling disconnected and miserable. All the data shows the happiest folks are living in places like Rwanda or Sierra Leone, while the most depressed people are over in France, the United Kingdom, or Germany...

Do you maybe have a link to an actual study for this? Because honestly, it’s starting to sound like one of those urban legends someone cooked up online and now it’s just spreading like wildfire through the internet.

Noah Ross7 said:I guess the English Premier League is just hands down the strongest league in the world right now. They have so much foreign investment flowing in, so maybe other clubs from different leagues see those overseas investors as their only real shot at actually competing with the big English sides...

You’re totally mixing up cause and effect here.

Most of these foreign investors aren't jumping in because they want to "balance the scales"—they're being lured in by the massive revenue English clubs generate; they're buying in because there's a huge chance to make a profit. It’s the exact same deal with Agent Glazer, the guys over at Liverpool FC, or even Lerner with Aston Villa.

Roman Abramovich is, obviously, the complete opposite extreme—he poured more cash into Chelsea FC than all these other owners will ever make combined.

Look, if we're talking about clubs as private corporations, it’s perfectly logical that they can be owned by foreigners. Sure, fans might feel a bit stung when their local icon gets bought out by someone from halfway across the globe, but honestly, you should have thought about that before turning the club into a business. Once a club becomes a company, anyone can buy it, and that buyer just happens to be a foreigner—which isn't inherently a bad thing.

In Germany, you don't see this kind of takeover, but it’s not because they have some weird grudge against outsiders. It's because even a German can't take them over! All those clubs are what we call non-profit associations where everything is run democratically by the members. It doesn't matter if you're willing to dump millions into the club; at the annual meeting, you still only get one single vote, just like any regular member who pays their sixty-five bucks in membership fees.

That’s why all this talk about fans taking over Hajduk is absolutely hilarious to me. You could have done that back when they were still a community association! You just walk in, join up, vote for the board, and you've got the right to look at the books. But now? Now they’re talking about having to go out and buy shares like they're trading stocks on Wall Street...

copperdriver21 said:unbelievable... you still haven't fixed the headline! it's not "fraud," it's "scam"—and it's "European," not "europskom"... get it together😠

Look, I’m telling you, it’s not even a debate if you actually look at the rules, because there are literally style guides out there that give you the green light for both options! It’s like when you’re arguing about whether a hot dog is a sandwich—people lose their minds, but technically, depending on which culinary manual you're holding, you could go either way. It’s the same deal with grammar; some authorities say one thing, others say another, and honestly, if you follow the right guide, you aren't wrong regardless of which path you take. It's just a mess of conflicting opinions, really.

I’m not gonna lie, I was genuinely floored when I first caught a glimpse of him out there in the freezing cold at Laziu; I honestly thought it was going to be a total joke, thinking he wasn't even remotely agile or quick enough to pull this off.

But then you see him out there absolutely tearing it up, handling the ball like it's nothing, just sprinting down that sideline with such speed it'll make your head spin if you try to keep up...

Look, you've got heavyweights like Real Madrid and FC Barcelona running rosters packed with African talent just to hit those three non-European Union player quotas.

And honestly? That’s exactly why they’ve been lobbying so hard to get African players removed from that specific foreigner count.

The only reason players from outside the EU are still being lumped in as "foreigners" is because, frankly, there aren't enough of them clogging up the squads in Spanish clubs right now, so they haven't felt any real pressure to change the rules.

But this decision actually swings the door wide open for non-African players since they won't be eating up those limited non-EU slots anymore—plus, let's be real, South Americans playing in Spain can usually snag citizenship after just two years of living there. Germany has basically been an open door for all kinds of foreign talent for two years now, and it looks like Spain is finally catching up to that mindset.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Look, capitalism isn't anything other than just plain old private property.

And honestly, if you aren't a fan of recognizing private property rights, then I really hope you don't have a problem with the government seizing your stuff and handing it out to whoever they deem needy.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

The rule of law is quite literally the only way a society can function without falling into total chaos. Sure, the legislative process is always going to be messy and the actual content of the laws will never be perfect, but ignoring them entirely would be a thousand times worse than any flaw they might have.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

That’s just a leftover relic of feudalism in places that haven't fully transitioned into a liberal democracy yet. You aren't going to find that kind of concentrated mess in South America, Europe, Japan, or Australia.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Both of those are products of state-run enterprises, period. And look, there's always going to be an exception to every rule, but generally speaking, private entrepreneurship has absolutely crushed planned economies to such a degree that it's almost laughable.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Look, Japan respects private property and the rule of law just like we do. That makes them way closer to the USA than they ever were to the USSR. Everything else is just minor details.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Yeah, sure, if you want to be dramatic, but the world hasn't exactly split open like a ripe watermelon.

In actual reality, the planet is cleaner than it was forty years ago, and more people than ever before are living with a high standard of living.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Are you kidding me? Look at the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, or New Zealand—these places all have literacy rates between 95 and 99 percent.

northernbison63 said:No, no—Verizon isn't saying private property and the rule of law are crimes, it's northernbison63 who's claiming capitalism equals crime.

And while we're on the subject, what's the actual point of the rule of law if the guy who used "original capital accumulation" to rig the game gets way more say over those laws than the person who had their "accumulation" stripped away? "Rule of law" is just a fancy little phrase people use to mask the rule of big capital. It's a joke.

And seriously, what kind of "private property" are we talking about when one single person owns, I don't know, half the farmland in the entire country?

Quincy:

without private property, there's absolutely no incentive for work or innovation.

Sure! And then some "lazy masses" have to use a Space Shuttle to drag a "privately innovative" Space Shuttle into orbit.

God, I bet the definition of incentive for hard work and innovation is a hell of a lot more complicated than just "owning stuff." Look at how motivated the Japanese are to work—it’s a completely different vibe than what you see in the US. Plus, the Japanese social system is built on totally different foundations than the American one.

Quincy:

everything you create or invent would belong equally to everyone.

Who does the invention of fire belong to?

Quincy:

the inefficiency of such a system has been so clearly demonstrated in every society that tried it.

Oh, so the "efficiency" of capitalism is shown by—the total destruction of the planet we're seeing right now? Is that it?

How is it that this "efficient capitalism" hasn't managed to even teach its own population how to read or write in 200 years, while "inefficient communism" pretty much pulled that off in 20? Makes sense, right? Not.

Efficiency without a plan... doesn't that sound suspiciously like the legendary, undisputed efficiency of Auschwitz? What's going to happen to most of the Earth at this rate?

Oh, please, we're talking about National Socialism now...

What does that have to do with capitalism?

Everywhere where they've actually implemented private property, the rule of law, and limited government power, people enjoy a decent standard of living.

Even in places where those principles are only halfway there, you can still live a pretty decent life with average effort.

Even a blue-collar worker like me.

When Orange claims that capitalism is basically just one big crime, what they’re actually saying is that private property and the rule of law are criminal.

I mean, let's be real—without private ownership, there isn't a single shred of incentive to actually work hard or come up with anything new. Everything you build, everything you invent through sheer grit and brainpower, would just be handed over to everyone else equally.

The absolute, crushing inefficiency of setting things up that way has been proven time and time again by every single society that ever tried to make it work.

What kind of "Queen Mother" are we even talking about here? The woman passed away ages ago and I'm pretty sure she never handed out a single medal in her entire life.

Emily Smith22 said:It’s all wonderful and all, but I honestly don't get why nobody was firing off anything. I was sitting here hoping that once we secured the win, someone would start blasting guns or at least set off some fireworks, but instead—absolute silence. What happened to us? Have we just become completely numb? Not a single shot... not even a trumpet blast or anything. We need something to actually wake us up and get us in the mood to celebrate! This American apathy is driving me absolutely insane. First, we all brag about how we want gold in every single sport imaginable, but then when we actually pull it off, there's nothing but dead silence! There was a time when we actually had some life in us, but now we're just a bunch of critics!!!! 🙄
It was exactly like that a few years back during the World Cup, when it was a 2-2 tie between the US and France in soccer. If we had won, we would've celebrated, but no—we’d be doing this or that, and in the end, nothing happens... we just know how to complain, we have no idea how to actually celebrate a victory. I think I need to write a new song!!

Are you really upset because nobody was shooting guns? 😲

Personally, I would be thrilled if we finally stopped using firearms as our primary way of expressing joy.

I don't think that's really what the issue is this time, though.

The reality is probably that in America, there are more people who need to be paid just to sit through a water polo match (unless it’s the finals or they're playing against the Mexicans) than there are actual fans willing to pay to watch it.

And most people already know that water polo is a serious game played by about six major nations, so winning one out of every ten big tournaments is basically the baseline expectation.

I can already see the outrage coming when the US wins gold in underwater fishing and nobody fires a single shot in celebration.

Man, someone clearly had one too many whiskeys before deciding to post this nonsense.

The odds of this actually happening are about the same as finding lasting peace in the Middle East.

Honestly, the whole proposal is just idiotic; it would basically just give defensive-minded teams an excuse to sit back and park the bus.

A draw wouldn't just net them a single point anymore; half the time, they’d be walking away with two.

At this rate, we might as well have specialists brought on specifically to take penalty kicks in the 90th minute... it’s a total circus.

Richard Wilson4 said:

Let’s be real, the Champions League is basically just a revolving door for the same seven or eight elite clubs anyway, so why not just let every single country buy up the TV rights? It would actually be great—we could sit down every single weekend and watch high-stakes, top-tier football instead of this filler stuff.

Look, we’ve seen 12 different winners over the last 15 years, which proves my point!

Richard Wilson4 said:
Honor in the game died a long time ago—honestly, the exact moment that Italian defender Fabio Cannavaro walked away with the Ballon d'Or, the soul of the sport just evaporated.

You won't even want to watch the games anymore because you'll know the journalists at FF just voted for him because they felt like it, rather than based on actual merit.

That is such a typical, cynical take.