Matthew Young35 said:Think about social solidarity, for instance. Or consider cases where the government simply shouldn't be the one handling things—like managing animal shelters and stray populations. Then there are matters that practically cannot be tackled without external financial or logistical support, such as aiding the sick or fighting forest fires. Or perhaps it's because certain groups simply lack the capital required to preserve essential cultural values.
One could certainly go on for quite some time.
I had no idea the definition of "solidarity" included forcibly snatching someone else's hard-earned cash! ☕
True solidarity happens when people voluntarily support those causes, which really comes down to culture and how we're raised. Instead, what we have is an all-powerful state that insists on doing it for us—and predictably, it ends up being expensive, corrupt, and inefficient (to be honest, that's basically everything the government touches). Because of this, we as individuals just wash our hands of everything; there's zero personal responsibility left.
Do you realize just how brainwashed we've become? It's become impossible to even imagine doing anything without the interference of an omnipotent state. And then, of course, we sit around complaining about corruption and chronic national debt! 🙄🙄
Let’s move past the cheap moralizing for a moment. Please, help me understand: why on earth should taxpayer money be used to fund some private citizens' association? Why is there such a widespread assumption that it’s perfectly fine to take from everyone just to hand it out to a select few?
Matthew Young35 said:Good heavens, it would be a massive hit... Especially if you also cut off the funding for volunteer fire departments, since they're technically civic associations too.
I happen to have some inside knowledge on how this works 😉
You’ve got genuine volunteers who are actually putting in the work, and then you have the bureaucrats pocketing nice little paychecks funded by the taxpayers who are just trying to get by. 😉
Anthony Jackson2 said:Now Yellow will jump in to explain how this is just leftist hysteria.
It seems like at every single turn, one group sees nothing but old-school communists, while the other side screams "fascists!" Honestly, what would they even do without each other? It’s almost as if they can't function unless they're busy stirring up panic or fighting these pseudo-ideological wars. Isn't it just a cycle?
Elizabeth Mendoza said:I'd love to see someone actually try to tax the church here in the States. You'd quickly see how much the government would absolutely lose its mind🤣, it would be a total disaster.
Taxation isn't the answer; that's just more of that same old statist garbage.
Instead, we should pass laws banning the funding of all religious communities, civic associations, NGOs, and the like. Let them fund themselves through membership dues and leave it at that. As an active Catholic, I personally have zero issues with that approach.
And believe me, there would be massive pushback, even from the left. When it comes to spending other people's money, everyone acts exactly the same!
The show is basically a walking nightmare; there’s no debating that. It's just wild how Bujati keeps acting like he's some serious intellectual when, honestly, Malnar was the ultimate class act who actually knew how to have a laugh.
Beyond that, these extreme right-wingers are practically National Socialists in disguise—because the moment you start talking about actual economics, they turn into hardcore Bolsheviks.
Anthony Jackson2 said:Seriously, where’s the hysteria? I’m just poking fun at the brainless clerics over at Hrast and the idiots in the Republican Party—hardly a meltdown.
Then you’ve got the crowd from the daily news outlets rambling about "uprisings and unrest in Australia"🤣, and the group terrified that men are going to sneak into women's restrooms just to cause trouble in a stall—pure nonsense. Who exactly is being hysterical here?
I actually have a friend who works as a lever operator. He keeps me updated on a daily basis regarding what they're publishing on the local news site. I get the distinct impression that this tacky little portal survives solely on the engagement from Red Sox fans.🤣
The USSR might have had one of the most democratic and beautifully drafted constitutions on paper, but in reality, it didn't mean a damn thing. It’s the exact same story with all those international declarations, conventions, and mandates out there today.
All these international conventions are just a total joke. I mean, look at that famous Istanbul Convention—it was ratified by places like Turkey and Belarus, so what's the big deal? 🤣
But Americans? We’ll fight tooth and nail over some insignificant scrap of paper, just so we can shift the spotlight away from the economy.
By the way, can we talk about the sheer amount of leftist hysteria going on over at ESPN? 🤦
I actually attended one of those famous professional seminars myself back when I was still hunting for a real career—let me tell you, it was an absolute waste of time. 🙏
There’s honestly nothing more unproductive than working in the public sector.
Anthony Jackson2 said:That whole thing about salaries is largely a myth. A girl I know works for the government on minimum wage and she can't wait to get out. A friend of mine too—and even a buddy of mine in an IT department within the public sector makes less than average.
Why on earth would IT professionals settle for minimum wage when working for the government?
Public sector salaries are generally way too high—that’s just a fact. On top of that, you've got shorter work weeks, endless privileges, people doing next to nothing, constant breaks, non-stop sick leave, getting paid to stay home during holidays, and the fact that it's practically impossible to get fired.
Are we all just descendants of executioners? It feels like my display case is overflowing with nothing but the eyes of our old enemies 🙄
That’s exactly what I’m getting at, old friend. Look, I have absolutely no issue with people having different perspectives, but some folks just lose their minds the second you question the dogma surrounding the "golden age" or their beloved leader. And if you ask me, most of them come from the exact same circles.
Anthony Jackson2 said:ha, descendants of the red brigade 🤣
Well, speaking from experience, they always end up jumping through hoops at the last minute. Heaven forbid you even question their sacred doctrines! Of course, there are plenty of people on the other side who act just as stubbornly.
James Anderson5, you have completely lost the plot! What kind of "enlightened absolutism" are you even talking about? What on earth 😁
I have never been one to question the suffering of others. It’s like that old saying goes: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." What I find truly problematic, however, is how the descendants of those who supported the old regime always jump to the defense whenever someone dares to critique their ancestors' unchecked rule. It’s almost as if they believe only their specific version of tragedy carries any weight. Should we really be expected to stay silent about the terror that so many people endured, even now in the 21st century?
brightpilot6 As I was saying: Has there been a genuine tectonic shift in how we view social mobility? I can't help but wonder: is it finally possible for someone to rise from the depths of poverty and lack of opportunity to achieve this kind of lifestyle, education, and career? It feels like a massive departure from the past, when our old-school industrial titans and landed elites never gave the average American even a fighting chance at such success. Is the playing field finally starting to level out?
The elite will always exist—that’s just human nature, wasn't it? It was the same way back during the era of communism. But if you look at the "little guy"—someone who didn't spend their life sucking up to the regime—life was actually much more manageable then than it is today. Wouldn't you agree?
It’s a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it? While there was certainly repression at times—varying in intensity depending on where you were—to claim that it was a universal rule applied to everyone is simply incorrect. The truth is, those who didn't push back against the regime lived their lives just like anyone else, regardless of whether they were party members or not. It was specifically those who dared to oppose the status quo who faced harassment and targeting. But even so, I have to point out: you at least had the freedom of choice. Isn't that a massive distinction? Under a fascist regime, someone targeted for being Jewish or part of a minority group wouldn't have had that luxury at all.
I’m certainly not disputing that progress has been made. But honestly, hasn't there been some kind of shift happening almost everywhere? It makes you wonder if we're all just witnessing the inevitable spirit of the times. In the West, that transition felt much more jarring and intense. That said, don't get me wrong—I have absolutely no intention of defending feudalism or any of its lingering remnants!
Let’s set aside that classic American tendency to call for silence—that "I don't want to get involved" attitude—and that general submissiveness toward authority. It’s just not true to say there weren't people targeted back then. Thank God, I know this from firsthand experience! If you happened to come from a family deemed "undesirable," you were essentially untouchable; you were treated like the lowest class of citizen. Because of that, people were fleeing the country illegally throughout the fifties, and later on, they were doing it legally too. Honestly, thanks to the "benefits" provided by the regime, I don't have relatives scattered all over the globe! 🙂