GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Relevance of Serenity

POSTED BY: MARSORBUST
UPDATED: Sunday, May 7, 2006 22:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6061
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:54 AM

MARSORBUST


Howdy,
Like everybody else here i think that Serenity/Firefly is about the shiniest thing ever, but I wonder how many fans understand the metaphors pertinent to our own society and the direction that it is heading.
As an aspiring writer and avid reader of History, it has occured to me that Humanity can be generally divided into two different and diametrically opposed gestalt-consciousnesses. There are Freedom People and there are Security People.
"Freedom" as conceived of in the American Experienceis one that was born and fostered in a frontier environment. The idea being that we are free to do as we please as long as we are not physically harming another individual or damaging another's property. As anyone can see, we have moved very far away from this and have for the most part done so willingly in exchange for a greater amount of perceived Security.
Part of this or maybe most of it is due to population density. The more people there are in any given space, the more thier activities will have some effect on others. In other words, the more people there are, the less freedom you have.
This is manifested today in the legal phenomena known as Community Rights. We see more and more the rights of the individual being submerged in the interests of the collective. As population continues to grow roughly exponentially, how is it that freedom will survive this century? To me the obvious answer is that it won't, at least for those not willing to say good-bye to this world and exchange its security for the freedom of the Frontier.
It is likely that before mid-century that we will live under a Global Government. We will all have health-care, large-scale warfare will be non-existent, everybody will get an education, criminal enterprise will be very difficult, our children will be very safe...and we will all do exactly what the f*** we are told.
I think that most relevant metaphor represented in this wonderful story is that greater security will always come at the price of reduced freedoms.
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?
I am new here, so I'm quite sure that this topic is common on this board. I'm just trying to get a feel for who's out here and why other than for thier justifiable love for Serenity.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:17 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Wait, I'm confused here. Browncoats would be conservatives? I'm sorry, but who is it in the Big House tryin to take all our freedoms away and saying it's for security purposes?
Other than that one, I guess I don't disagree on any particular point. I'm pretty freedom-loving myself, though I wouldn't see anything wrong with a better education system. Just seems like educated people make more of their freedoms, but that's just my impression. I think totalitarianism is wrong, and that people should be able to live their lives, but isn't there a happy medium somewhere? Freedom doesn't mean total anarchy, y'know? I don't like war, or an overabudnace of ignorance, or having to worry about safety, but then if you have to do whatever you're told, you're not really safe, are you? No, not at all. I think there's a halfway decent system in place right now; a nice balance of freedom and security. Should be basically left alone. Of course it won't be.

*************************************************
One summer.
One mission.
One legion of Browncoats.

Starting June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:18 AM

FOLLOWMAL




MarsorBust,

First off, I like your nick, I always tell my children if they opened up the space shot to Mars to regular folk, their Mom would be waiting in line to go.

Second, and this is not on the topic of your post, and I hope you don't find this silly, but I'm a gonna do it anyway... cuz I usually do what the hell I wanna do.....

I hand out browncoats - albeit virtual to new folks as a sort of greeting...

*hands MarsorBust a browncoat that fits... somehow they always do!*

There now that the ceremony has been stood on, so to speak...

In answer to your post... I think you will find many different minded folks on this site, some are liberal/anti-Alliance, some are conservative/anti-Alliance and there are shades in between. I don't believe personally that being a believer in personal liberty is not compatible with many ideas. I think they can dwell well together.

My two cents... I'll bet you get lots of answers.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy our boat, it's the nicest and share the 'verse with lots of folks, please, we all want more!

"You hold. Hold 'til I get back." Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:33 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?


Interestingly enough, I consider myself a liberal (small l) and see myself as a Browncoat (i.e. I favor freedom over tyranny).

This may just be my opinion, but I see the Conservatives as the group that wants to destroy personal freedom the most. The Liberals certainly restrict freedom more than I would like, but their aims seem to be to make everyone treat each other fairly and be nice to each other. On the other hand the Conservatives just want everyone to conform to their religious beliefs (which I do not hold). So in my opinion, while they are BOTH guilty of Alliancizing our country, the Liberals are the lesser of the evils (barely). My 2 cents.

P.S. While I agree in principal that the government will move towards complete globalization, I think that a century is not enough time. While I think that there is a good chance that we will be well on our way by the end of the century I think that there is still too much nationalism and independence for a complete World Government anytime soon.

P.P.S. Who wants to bet how long it takes for this thread to be moved to Real World Discussions?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:47 AM

MARSORBUST


Well Rose, I suppose it would depend on one's filter.
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:05 AM

MARSORBUST


Thanks for the coat Mal.
It is intersting that both sides of the Culture War regard themselves to be the Brown-Coats.
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.
However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.
The list can go on and on.
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats. There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.
It is interesting to note that in the pilot, Mal kissed a crucifix on his necklace and Book was obviously a Christian missionary. This seems to have inverted in the movie with the Operative's references to "sins". It is a bit fuzzy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:18 AM

SACREDCHAO


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
. . . I suppose it would depend on one's filter.

Absolutely, though many forget that they too have such a filter in place.

Quote:
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.

I am not sure I agree, though it could take too many words to explain. I think have ONE governing body over too many people leads to problems (perhaps addressing your reference to 'over population') as does the policing of too many activities.

Quote:
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.

Agreed.

Quote:
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.

To me, it does little to lower my taxes and continue to spend at an ever increasing rate (even when accounting for increased expeditures due to wars the past 4+ years). This money will have to be accounted for, whether by me & you or our children. If not a tax now, on us, then a tax on those yet to be born. Personally, I would rather have the spending cut AND THEN address tax cuts. I also do not trust the government on the issue of guns either. I feel few in Washington know the true nature of the Second Amendment.

Quote:
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.

Many are, and I feel that many Capitalistic corporations are 'globalist' as well. Also, remember NAFTA and President Bush's expansion. The Republicans are no better in this regard, but instead of being driven by what they feel will help the poor, they seem to be driven by what the feel with help the corporations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:20 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.


Agree completely except that there is a fix to overpopulation. Mandatory limits on how many children can be had. I know that this didn't work in China but that was mainly because the Chinese place so much emphasis on having boys that girls would be kicked to the curb and the couples would try again.


Quote:
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.


Agree completely.

Quote:
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.


I agree with the guns and sovereignty parts, but you are aware that spending the same\more while cutting taxes causes problems right?

Quote:
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.


I am glad you said many and not all. I identify more with the liberals\democrats but I would favor a much more isolationist "let them srew themselves why should we care" viewpoint for our Foreign Affairs.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:31 AM

MARSORBUST


I think that we will see Global Government much sooner than you think my friend, for the following reason:
There appears to be what I call a "Quasi-Logarythmic" scale to History.
Are you familiar with Dialectic Theory?
Dialectic Theory began with George Hegel in the 19th Century and was co-opted by Karl Marx as the philosophical basis of Socialism/Communism.
The Marxist Dialectic diagram depicts History as a series of struggles between classes that he beleived would result in a socialist utopia.
If you have never seen the digram, it is basically a series of triangles set on on top the others; anchored on a diagonal axis that represents linear time. The base of each triangle is called the Struggle line.
Each triangle represents an Era of History. The idea being that no idea triumphs over its opposite. They instead eventually co-opt each other and become one new thing. Thesis vs. Antithesis= New Synthesis.
Unorganized Society(prehistoric man) vs The Division of Labor (invention of tools and weapons) resulted in the Empires of Antiquity.
The Empires of Antiquity vs. Barbarism resulted in Aristocracy( the Barbarian warlords becoming the Nobles that ruled the outer reaches of the Empires under oaths of fealty).
Aristocracy vs. the Merchant class resulted in Democratic Capitalism.
Marx beleived that Democratic Capitalism would struggle with the working class producing a world-wide Communist Utopia. That didn't happen obviously.
Instead, Democratic Capitalism struggled with various forms of Totalitarianism ( Fascism and Communism), producing the current hybrid: Communitarianism.
Global Communitarianism is now in Struggle with Theocracy and its primary vehicle: Terrorism.
One can only imagine that the result will be Global Theocratic Communitarianism. Religion will be State and Stae will be Religion. The War of the Three Faiths as I call it (Christianity vs Islam vs Liberal Humanism) is merely the battle that will determine the dogmas and sacraments of the new Regime.
The hitch is this: If one moves linear time to the struggle lines of the diagram, a disturbing picture emerges. The Progressive Eras were not of equal length.
One can say that it required less than 100,000 yrs for the struggle between Unorganized Society and the Division of Labor to produce the Early Empires. It took less than 10,000 yrs for the struggle between Empire and Barbariwm to produce Aristocracy. Less than 1000 yrs for the struggle between Arostocracy and the Merchant class to produce Democratic Capitalism. Less than 100 yrs for the struggle between Democratic Capitalism and Totalitarianism (fascism/communism) to produce Communitarianism. So if the model follows it will require a decade or less to produce the Final Result of History.
History has a shape. It is a Pyramid and we're almost at the top of it. It is shrinking to Zero becasue the venue ( the Earth) is finite. We are running out of what I call "Geo-political Space-time".
According to this model, the only way for History to go on and avoid Orwellian Totalitariansim is for the venue to expand to incorporate the whole of the Solar System; Mars in particular.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:40 AM

SACREDCHAO


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.

Really? Which party constantly tells Americans that they must give up freedoms in the name of security? NSA warrantless wiretaps are for our own good. Operation TIPs, Total Information Awareness, etc., under which government were such agencies set up and funded?

Quote:
However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance

Just as shaky an arguement . . . many conservatives desire the United States to rule over everything since we are the sole remaining super power. Therefore, US = Alliance?
Quote:
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.

I agree with the last portion of that statement, but are you aware the President Bush expressed a desire to sign an assault weapons ban? Also, what good does a handgun do when the potentially tolitarian government commands Abrams and Apaches?
Quote:
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".

Again, Republicans spend just as much or more (this did not used to be the case) and while they do not tax you personally, it still represents a debt that must be paid, either by you (and me) or our children & grand-children. I would rather bear the brunt than pass it along to those yet to be born. Though, it would be nice to have spending brought under control and be done with it.
Quote:
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.

And what do you make of Conservatives pushing into the realm of governing bedroom behavior? Do you forget or forgive those intrusions?
Quote:
The list can go on and on.

Yes, though we should avoid generalities when possible.
Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.

I strongly disagree. If any individual group were to definatively "the Browncoats", I feel it would have to be Libertarian. I go my way, you go yours . Your mileage may vary.

Quote:
There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.

Really? Then what about the big "hubbub" over Bush being such a good Christian (a claim, I feel, is flatly wrong)?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:42 AM

MARSORBUST


Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:01 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.


True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:03 AM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by sacredchao:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.

Really? Which party constantly tells Americans that they must give up freedoms in the name of security? NSA warrantless wiretaps are for our own good. Operation TIPs, Total Information Awareness, etc., under which government were such agencies set up and funded?

As a fromer participant in the Militia Movement in this country in the 90's, I am well aware of the survaillance environment in which we live. Do you beleive for one second that this apparatus wasn't there prior to 9-11? It was already there and simply expanded. Do you really bleleive that this apparatus will be dimantled if the Dems retake power? Nope, it will be there and retooled for further domestic spying. This time with greater emphasis of "domestic terrorism" which is liberal code for all those not liberal.
Folks were not buying guns, burying them in the hills and forming into cells for nothing back then my friend. I was far more fearful for my Constitutional freedom back in those days than I am now.

Quote:
However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance

Just as shaky an arguement . . . many conservatives desire the United States to rule over everything since we are the sole remaining super power. Therefore, US = Alliance?

Well, perhaps that is a conundrum. Perhaps there is no equality and either the US will rule or be ruled. If those are my only choices then: God Bless America.

Quote:
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.

I agree with the last portion of that statement, but are you aware the President Bush expressed a desire to sign an assault weapons ban? Also, what good does a handgun do when the potentially tolitarian government commands Abrams and Apaches?

Totally agree. Jefferson would want you to have all kinds of toys in your garage for that specific reason. Personally, all of this is why i am such a Mars Advocate as it seems my choices will be one of three: Slave, Oppressor, or Pioneer.
I prefer the third choice.

Quote:
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".

Again, Republicans spend just as much or more (this did not used to be the case) and while they do not tax you personally, it still represents a debt that must be paid, either by you (and me) or our children & grand-children. I would rather bear the brunt than pass it along to those yet to be born. Though, it would be nice to have spending brought under control and be done with it.

9-11 and the War on Terror provoked the Republicans to stray from their normal philosophical choices..out of neccessity. I too would like to see spending and taxes cut.

Quote:
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.


And what do you make of Conservatives pushing into the realm of governing bedroom behavior? Do you forget or forgive those intrusions?

Personally, I haven't been visited by the Sex-police..have you?

Quote:
The list can go on and on.

Yes, though we should avoid generalities when possible.
Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.

I strongly disagree. If any individual group were to definatively "the Browncoats", I feel it would have to be Libertarian. I go my way, you go yours . Your mileage may vary.

I agree completely. I view myself as a Libertarian with conservative leanings. Libertariaism seeks to maximize personal freedom AND personal responsibility. Liberals stress the former without the latter, expecting the tax-payer to subsidize their lifestyle and that is my biggest problem with them.

Quote:
There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.

Really? Then what about the big "hubbub" over Bush being such a good Christian (a claim, I feel, is flatly wrong)?


No where is there a call in the Republican Party a call for Theocracy ( the Church as State, the Bible the law of the land). Everybody in this country is going to vote for policy that reflects their values or lack thereof. That is a long way from a Christian version of Iran..pure paranoia.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:12 AM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.


True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.


Well Sir, governemntal infrastructure, once established is never roled back. Power, once acquried is never relinquished willingly.
The expansion of Federal powers during WW2 were meant to be rescinded at the end of the war but found new impetus with the Cold War and now again with the War on Terror.
The expansion of government power for ANY reason is dangerous to our freedom.
I personally do not feel that there is any answer short of getting the hell off the Earth.
Freedom require Frontier and there is none to be had here on the Earth. Mars isn't far enough away IMO but its the only thing on the menu at current rates of propulsion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:30 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It is intersting that both sides of the Culture War regard themselves to be the Brown-Coats.


Yes it is.

Quote:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.


Don't disagree, but the Conservatives are the ones puching the Patriot Act (which strips away freedom fore security), pushing the wiretaps (the president has the freedom to do ANYTHING to increase security). The liberals are the ones fighting these things (admitedlly probably jsut because it is Bush but still)

Quote:
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance


I have heard of (and met) some liberals who are like this, but most of my friends are liberal and most don't really look forward to a world government.

Quote:
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.


Don't disagree.

Quote:
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".


As opposed to the neo-cons who increase the size of government and cut taxes, screwing over the future generations.

Quote:
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.


Unfortunately as population grows this is a neccesity. I don't neccesarily like it but in an urban environment, individual rights have to take a second-place position because every action can affect so may people.

Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.


If you say so, but that sounds like a filter to me

Quote:
There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.


Abortion, Gay marriage, ineffectual abstinence training in schools, ten commandments everywhere, "intelligent design" instead of science. No Christian leanings at all, nope not the Republicans.

[pquote]It is interesting to note that in the pilot, Mal kissed a crucifix on his necklace...


Joss was pointing out that at the time he was a Christian, but that he lost his faith in Serenity valley.

Quote:
...and Book was obviously a Christian missionary.


Joss wanted to put in a strongly religious person I guess, perhaps to highlight Mals lack of faith.

Quote:
This seems to have inverted in the movie with the Operative's references to "sins". It is a bit fuzzy.


not 100% sure what you meant by this last paragraph, could you clarify please?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:31 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.


True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.


Well Sir, governemntal infrastructure, once established is never roled back. Power, once acquried is never relinquished willingly.
The expansion of Federal powers during WW2 were meant to be rescinded at the end of the war but found new impetus with the Cold War and now again with the War on Terror.
The expansion of government power for ANY reason is dangerous to our freedom.
I personally do not feel that there is any answer short of getting the hell off the Earth.
Freedom require Frontier and there is none to be had here on the Earth. Mars isn't far enough away IMO but its the only thing on the menu at current rates of propulsion.


True, but my point was that with population control (theoretically) the power creep could at least be stopped, even if it would not go back.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:37 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:


It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom,
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.
Sir, your ideas are fixed and calcified. I consider myself 'liberal' in many areas, and hold to NONE of the above. Likewise, many 'conservatives' do not hold with Bush's (and Cheney's) RADICAL ideas of global oil control.

Leave ego, and the need to be on the 'correct side' out of it, and I suspect we have a great deal to agree upon.

*appologizes in advance for traces of leftover RWED snarkieness*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:08 AM

MARSORBUST


Well my friends, perhaps the answer is the formation and developement of a viable Libertarian Party.
I fear that I have given my fellow Browncoats the impression that I am some die-hard Republican. Not at all, I just consider them to be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider the sh** we are in to be a case of "Good guys vs bad Guys"; oh no..its bad guys vs worse guys and its just a matter of one's filter as to who the worse guys are. Its Aliens vs Predator, baby..no matter who wins we lose.
How about we all start thinking about the formation of an Interplanetary Libertarian Party that advocates the following:
-the opening of the Solar System to colonization through the private sector.
-low taxes and low spending
-freedom of religion or freedom from it.
-complete freedom of choice in all matter concerning one's own body. This would cover everything like smoking, drugs, sexual preference, diet, etc.
-freedom to bear arms.
-add yours here.
The truth it seems to me is that freedom requires frontier. That being said, freedom will always be in flight away from the institutionalized infrastructure that always comes with high population densities.
Do not let my apparent Republicanism fool you: I fully advocate the idea of cigarette smoking, dope smoking, cheese-burger eating homo-sexuals with assault rifles..lol. I also advocate for monastic religious freaks to be monastic religious freaks as long as they keep it to themselves.
In other words I like freedom for all as long as everybody is willing to accept personal responsibility for that freedom.
IMO, those who advocate for higher taxes and bigger government seek to "empower" themnselves at the expense of others freedom from big government. Perhaps that is the nature of the beast: one persons freedom causes the enslavement of others..one way or the other. I just want to get the F*** out of here before the trap completely closes.
If one reads my post on the quasi-logarythmic scale of History; one might see that we are all headed to the same destination.
One can take the Red car or the Blue Car (Hmmm..Blue Sun), the ultimate destination is the same:Totalitarianism.
Personally I choose the Red car because IMO its going slower, War on Terror not withstanding, which buys us more time for the struggle to break gravity and expand into a Solar System paradigm rather than a planetary one.
Intersting reads for those interested are:
"The Future of War" by George and Meredith Friedmann and "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:24 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
I fear that I have given my fellow Browncoats the impression that I am some die-hard Republican.


Exaclty the impression you were giving.

Quote:
Not at all, I just consider them to be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider the sh** we are in to be a case of "Good guys vs bad Guys"; oh no..its bad guys vs worse guys and its just a matter of one's filter as to who the worse guys are. Its Aliens vs Predator, baby..no matter who wins we lose.


Agree with the lesser of two evils, disagree the Republicans are the lesser.

Quote:
How about we all start thinking about the formation of an Interplanetary Libertarian Party that advocates the following:
-the opening of the Solar System to colonization through the private sector.
-low taxes and low spending
-freedom of religion or freedom from it.
-complete freedom of choice in all matter concerning one's own body. This would cover everything like smoking, drugs, sexual preference, diet, etc.
-freedom to bear arms.
-add yours here.


You forgot arming bears I know its cheap and stupid but it still brings a smile to my face.


Quote:
The truth it seems to me is that freedom requires frontier. That being said, freedom will always be in flight away from the institutionalized infrastructure that always comes with high population densities.


I think is what being a Browncoat is truly about.

Quote:
Do not let my apparent Republicanism fool you: I fully advocate the idea of cigarette smoking, dope smoking, cheese-burger eating homo-sexuals with assault rifles..lol.


So I'm safe then? just kidding, I don't like cheeseburgers.

Quote:
In other words I like freedom for all as long as everybody is willing to accept personal responsibility for that freedom.


And the lack of personal responsibilty is what I hate the most about our civilization.

Quote:
IMO, those who advocate for higher taxes and bigger government seek to "empower" themnselves at the expense of others freedom from big government.


Interestingly enough with the Patriot Act Big Brother has never been bigger, but that was put into place by the low tax people.

Quote:
I just want to get the F*** out of here before the trap completely closes.


Bush is going to beat you to Mars, better just shoot for...for...um...well...I suppose one of Jupiters moons...I guess.

Quote:
If one reads my post on the quasi-logarythmic scale of History; one might see that we are all headed to the same destination.


Assuming that it is 100% accurate.

Quote:
One can take the Red car or the Blue Car (Hmmm..Blue Sun), the ultimate destination is the same:Totalitarianism.


Yep.

Quote:
Personally I choose the Red car because IMO its going slower, War on Terror not withstanding


Have to disagree, but I don't think that it will accomplish anything, oh well.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:36 AM

MOSS


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Howdy,
Like everybody else here i think that Serenity/Firefly is about the shiniest thing ever, but I wonder how many fans understand the metaphors pertinent to our own society and the direction that it is heading.
As an aspiring writer and avid reader of History, it has occured to me that Humanity can be generally divided into two different and diametrically opposed gestalt-consciousnesses. There are Freedom People and there are Security People.
"Freedom" as conceived of in the American Experienceis one that was born and fostered in a frontier environment. The idea being that we are free to do as we please as long as we are not physically harming another individual or damaging another's property. As anyone can see, we have moved very far away from this and have for the most part done so willingly in exchange for a greater amount of perceived Security.
Part of this or maybe most of it is due to population density. The more people there are in any given space, the more thier activities will have some effect on others. In other words, the more people there are, the less freedom you have.
This is manifested today in the legal phenomena known as Community Rights. We see more and more the rights of the individual being submerged in the interests of the collective. As population continues to grow roughly exponentially, how is it that freedom will survive this century? To me the obvious answer is that it won't, at least for those not willing to say good-bye to this world and exchange its security for the freedom of the Frontier.
It is likely that before mid-century that we will live under a Global Government. We will all have health-care, large-scale warfare will be non-existent, everybody will get an education, criminal enterprise will be very difficult, our children will be very safe...and we will all do exactly what the f*** we are told.
I think that most relevant metaphor represented in this wonderful story is that greater security will always come at the price of reduced freedoms.
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?
I am new here, so I'm quite sure that this topic is common on this board. I'm just trying to get a feel for who's out here and why other than for thier justifiable love for Serenity.



The only thing that keeps me from moving around from place to place wondering "what the hell is going on in the world?" is my wife and kids.

In the "verse" the Alliance world is much the same as our own, Mal & his crew are outlaws, breaking the law, robbery, smuggling etc. As in every walk of life there are good people as well as bad, I suppose you could call the crew "good outlaws".

I doubt if the crew of Serenity would even bother about politics, rather seek to avoid authority, make enough money to enjoy life as they see fit.

As to whether I am a freedom lover or security lover. Before I was married I was definately a freedom lover however, I wouldnt have been able to find a wife and have children if I wouldn't have tried to fit into society. So in answer to your question, in my heart I am a browncoat in reality I have had to choose to live in the "secure" world.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:54 AM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
I fear that I have given my fellow Browncoats the impression that I am some die-hard Republican.


Exaclty the impression you were giving.

Quote:
Not at all, I just consider them to be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider the sh** we are in to be a case of "Good guys vs bad Guys"; oh no..its bad guys vs worse guys and its just a matter of one's filter as to who the worse guys are. Its Aliens vs Predator, baby..no matter who wins we lose.


Agree with the lesser of two evils, disagree the Republicans are the lesser.

Well my friend, if you beleive that all that(Patriot Act/Homeland Security) is going to go away if the Dems retake power in November and '08, I will have to call you naive. The emphasis will merely shift from external threats to "internal threats". Clinton ignored many of the threats posed by Islamis extremism in favor of emphasis on "Domestic Terrorism" The apparatus you fear was already there, it was merely expanded after 9-11.
Do you remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? Many will give Clinton carte blanche on those because the folks they killed were either white seperatists or Christians, but that doesn't change the fact that what occured in those incidences were wholly unconstitutional. If I have to choose from an apparatus that spies on al-qaida or one that spies on me for being a white guy with a gun..I will choose the former.
Please note that Red China is a Democratic Party contributor. Thats enough for me. If the Communist Party in China wants Dems in power..I don't.

Quote:
How about we all start thinking about the formation of an Interplanetary Libertarian Party that advocates the following:
-the opening of the Solar System to colonization through the private sector.
-low taxes and low spending
-freedom of religion or freedom from it.
-complete freedom of choice in all matter concerning one's own body. This would cover everything like smoking, drugs, sexual preference, diet, etc.
-freedom to bear arms.
-add yours here.


You forgot arming bears I know its cheap and stupid but it still brings a smile to my face.


Quote:
The truth it seems to me is that freedom requires frontier. That being said, freedom will always be in flight away from the institutionalized infrastructure that always comes with high population densities.


I think is what being a Browncoat is truly about.

Quote:
Do not let my apparent Republicanism fool you: I fully advocate the idea of cigarette smoking, dope smoking, cheese-burger eating homo-sexuals with assault rifles..lol.


So I'm safe then? just kidding, I don't like cheeseburgers.

Quote:
In other words I like freedom for all as long as everybody is willing to accept personal responsibility for that freedom.


And the lack of personal responsibilty is what I hate the most about our civilization.

Quote:
IMO, those who advocate for higher taxes and bigger government seek to "empower" themnselves at the expense of others freedom from big government.


Interestingly enough with the Patriot Act Big Brother has never been bigger, but that was put into place by the low tax people.

Conservatives will always favor a larger security apparatus during times of conflict and advocate its downsizing or dismantling in times of peace. The Dem advocate expanded government in any case.

Quote:
I just want to get the F*** out of here before the trap completely closes.


Bush is going to beat you to Mars, better just shoot for...for...um...well...I suppose one of Jupiters moons...I guess.

The nature of the struggle of history is that it has always been propelled by military considerations. The struggle is currently breaking gravity with the militarization of space.
an undeclared space race between the US and China is already underway. It is unfortunate that this is the case, but private citizen will eventually follow. I really don't care how it happens..as long as it does.
As far as Mars goes, whoever establishes it as a frontier is unimportant. It will be a frontier nonetheless.

Quote:
If one reads my post on the quasi-logarythmic scale of History; one might see that we are all headed to the same destination.


Assuming that it is 100% accurate.

Quote:
One can take the Red car or the Blue Car (Hmmm..Blue Sun), the ultimate destination is the same:Totalitarianism.


Yep.

Quote:
Personally I choose the Red car because IMO its going slower, War on Terror not withstanding


Have to disagree, but I don't think that it will accomplish anything, oh well.


Well, I hope you enjoy Hillary's turn-key police state. The War on Terror will become the Alliance Unification War as libs will make no distinction between Islamic terrorists and domestic social conservatives as the Humanist/Globalist filter views them both as being different facets of the same threat to their Globalist hegemony.
Domestic spying will not be curtailed under Dem rule my friend, it will expanded to include you if you disagree with them on their agenda.
I know you don't like Big Oil..I don't either, but one has to be very careful who they get in bed with to address thier greivances.
My dad was carreer military..intelligence community during the Cold War. I am weel versed in the history of the Marxist movement and the end of the Cold War was not the end of the struggle. They are still amonst us and many of them can be found under the label: "Liberal".
I will take my chances with Big Oil fat cats, thank you very much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:03 PM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by Moss:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Howdy,
Like everybody else here i think that Serenity/Firefly is about the shiniest thing ever, but I wonder how many fans understand the metaphors pertinent to our own society and the direction that it is heading.
As an aspiring writer and avid reader of History, it has occured to me that Humanity can be generally divided into two different and diametrically opposed gestalt-consciousnesses. There are Freedom People and there are Security People.
"Freedom" as conceived of in the American Experienceis one that was born and fostered in a frontier environment. The idea being that we are free to do as we please as long as we are not physically harming another individual or damaging another's property. As anyone can see, we have moved very far away from this and have for the most part done so willingly in exchange for a greater amount of perceived Security.
Part of this or maybe most of it is due to population density. The more people there are in any given space, the more thier activities will have some effect on others. In other words, the more people there are, the less freedom you have.
This is manifested today in the legal phenomena known as Community Rights. We see more and more the rights of the individual being submerged in the interests of the collective. As population continues to grow roughly exponentially, how is it that freedom will survive this century? To me the obvious answer is that it won't, at least for those not willing to say good-bye to this world and exchange its security for the freedom of the Frontier.
It is likely that before mid-century that we will live under a Global Government. We will all have health-care, large-scale warfare will be non-existent, everybody will get an education, criminal enterprise will be very difficult, our children will be very safe...and we will all do exactly what the f*** we are told.
I think that most relevant metaphor represented in this wonderful story is that greater security will always come at the price of reduced freedoms.
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?
I am new here, so I'm quite sure that this topic is common on this board. I'm just trying to get a feel for who's out here and why other than for thier justifiable love for Serenity.



The only thing that keeps me from moving around from place to place wondering "what the hell is going on in the world?" is my wife and kids.

In the "verse" the Alliance world is much the same as our own, Mal & his crew are outlaws, breaking the law, robbery, smuggling etc. As in every walk of life there are good people as well as bad, I suppose you could call the crew "good outlaws".

I doubt if the crew of Serenity would even bother about politics, rather seek to avoid authority, make enough money to enjoy life as they see fit.

As to whether I am a freedom lover or security lover. Before I was married I was definately a freedom lover however, I wouldnt have been able to find a wife and have children if I wouldn't have tried to fit into society. So in answer to your question, in my heart I am a browncoat in reality I have had to choose to live in the "secure" world.

Yes, I'm a single father myself and it seems that having a family moves one from the freedom side of the spectrum to the security side.
It is interesting that as Americans, we talk a lot about freedom but i don't think that most of us truly know what it is and most of them wouldn't want it if they did. They don't want to be free. They want to be entertained and taken care of. They have traded thier freedom for what the Romans refered to as "bread and circuses".
The freedom of the frontier will not be for the timid or the easily bored as it will be akin to warfare psychologically: tedium punctuated by moments of sheer terror.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:17 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well, I hope you enjoy Hillary's turn-key police state.


Not going to vote for Hillary, if it comes down to her or some a**hole who thinks the Bible is the law and corporations are victims then I'll vote Green or Libertarian.

Quote:
The War on Terror will become the Alliance Unification War as libs will make no distinction between Islamic terrorists and domestic social conservatives as the Humanist/Globalist filter views them both as being different facets of the same threat to their Globalist hegemony.


And you are the person saying that thinking that Republicans being a Theocratic front is paranoia? The evidence for that is fairly strong, I havn't seen a liberal who thinks social conservatives are terrorists.

Quote:
Domestic spying will not be curtailed under Dem rule my friend, it will expanded to include you if you disagree with them on their agenda.


Are you sure your name isn't PirateNews? While I agree that domestic spying is probably here to stay, I find it unlikely that the Democrats will be much worse than the neo-cons in this regard.

Quote:
I know you don't like Big Oil..I don't either, but one has to be very careful who they get in bed with to address thier greivances.


I think that supermodels are a good choice seriously though at least the liberals put on a show about helping the little guy, the conservatives and big corporations don't even pretend.

Quote:
My dad was carreer military..intelligence community during the Cold War. I am weel versed in the history of the Marxist movement and the end of the Cold War was not the end of the struggle. They are still amonst us and many of them can be found under the label: "Liberal".


That explains the paranoia. The term Liberal means anyone on the left (unfortunately). Just like the term Conservative means anyone on the right (Islamic militants, fundamentalist christians who belive that everyone who disagrees should be punished (e.g. the Phelps clan)). As for the Marxists who are "still among us", perhaps you would like to ressurect the House Un-American Activities Commitee?

Quote:
I will take my chances with Big Oil fat cats, thank you very much.


You are quite welcome to make that choice. If you change your mind, the rest of us will be welcome you (or at least I will).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:25 PM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by sacredchao:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
. . . I suppose it would depend on one's filter.

Absolutely, though many forget that they too have such a filter in place.

Yes, I have a freedom filter.

Quote:
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.

I am not sure I agree, though it could take too many words to explain. I think have ONE governing body over too many people leads to problems (perhaps addressing your reference to 'over population') as does the policing of too many activities.

Quote:
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.

Agreed.

Quote:
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.

To me, it does little to lower my taxes and continue to spend at an ever increasing rate (even when accounting for increased expeditures due to wars the past 4+ years). This money will have to be accounted for, whether by me & you or our children. If not a tax now, on us, then a tax on those yet to be born. Personally, I would rather have the spending cut AND THEN address tax cuts. I also do not trust the government on the issue of guns either. I feel few in Washington know the true nature of the Second Amendment.

Quote:
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.

Many are, and I feel that many Capitalistic corporations are 'globalist' as well. Also, remember NAFTA and President Bush's expansion. The Republicans are no better in this regard, but instead of being driven by what they feel will help the poor, they seem to be driven by what the feel with help the corporations.


Well my friend, here we find the two parallel routes to the Alliance. The Free market Global Economy is obsoleting the the institution of the Nation-State as we understand it. Old Mutual-Security constructs like the nation-state are going away. Its Oneness vs Otherness. As Globalization takes more control of society's higher functions (Oneness), Balkanization results as Otherness downsizes in order to retain a sense of cultural/ideological/religious/ take your pick identity.
Eventually there will be no nation-state big enough or powerful enough to resist UN rule.
We are headed for that here in the US. The US did not win the Cold War; the Cold War powers destroyed each other..they just died first. The Culture War with its deep divisions excarbated by Mexican pan-nationalism that uses American liberalism as a vehicle will probably result in the break-up of the US into at least 3 peices: Red, Blue, and Brown.
Then China will be the only remaining super-power and will assume the UN Peace-Keeping role that we are currently filling. The word that comes to mind is Screwed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:39 PM

FREDGIBLET


Piratenews needs to read this thread.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:46 PM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well, I hope you enjoy Hillary's turn-key police state.


Not going to vote for Hillary, if it comes down to her or some a**hole who thinks the Bible is the law and corporations are victims then I'll vote Green or Libertarian.

Actually I very well might vote Libertarian myself. Never green however as environmentalism is often just a vehicle for more socialism.

Quote:
The War on Terror will become the Alliance Unification War as libs will make no distinction between Islamic terrorists and domestic social conservatives as the Humanist/Globalist filter views them both as being different facets of the same threat to their Globalist hegemony.


And you are the person saying that thinking that Republicans being a Theocratic front is paranoia? The evidence for that is fairly strong, I havn't seen a liberal who thinks social conservatives are terrorists.

I have encountered plenty of them. They make no distinction.

Quote:
Domestic spying will not be curtailed under Dem rule my friend, it will expanded to include you if you disagree with them on their agenda.


Are you sure your name isn't PirateNews? While I agree that domestic spying is probably here to stay, I find it unlikely that the Democrats will be much worse than the neo-cons in this regard.

And won't be as long as you agree with them.

Quote:
I know you don't like Big Oil..I don't either, but one has to be very careful who they get in bed with to address thier greivances.


I think that supermodels are a good choice seriously though at least the liberals put on a show about helping the little guy, the conservatives and big corporations don't even pretend.

Yes, "put on a show" is the operative phrase. Thier agenda is a world-wide socialist state and they will sell that to you anyway they can.
Capitalism/free enterprise lifts up the whole of Humanity albeit slower than most of us would like. Ask yourself: 100 yrs ago who had plumbing and electricity in thier homes? Rich folks of course. Who has it now? Just about everybody (in Western Civilization).
Free Enterprise gives the people the ability to empower themselves. Socialists want to be carried.
If socialism prevails, the profit motive which has lead to the creation of almost every major invention that makes our lives so much easier and more interesting than it would otherwise be will be stymied to the point of technological stagnation.
Study the Soviet Union my friend, You don't want it.

Quote:
My dad was carreer military..intelligence community during the Cold War. I am weel versed in the history of the Marxist movement and the end of the Cold War was not the end of the struggle. They are still amonst us and many of them can be found under the label: "Liberal".


That explains the paranoia. The term Liberal means anyone on the left (unfortunately). Just like the term Conservative means anyone on the right (Islamic militants, fundamentalist christians who belive that everyone who disagrees should be punished (e.g. the Phelps clan)). As for the Marxists who are "still among us", perhaps you would like to ressurect the House Un-American Activities Commitee?

it is not a matter of paranoia. Its a fact. Read Antonio Gramsci's "Long March Through the Institutions" its all right there. Most of the Dem Party leadership are former 60's radicals that advocated the overthrow of our way of life in favor of a socialist system. That is not paranoia..it is a fact.
Perhaps the Fascists and the marxists were correct in that democracy will eventually give way to one or the other. Either the US will be submerged under a UN global socialist regime or the world will be crushed under the jackboots of American fascism. It seems I'm being given the choice of Oppressed or Oppressor. I prefer to get the F*** out of here a be a pioneer, but you can call me the names you like..if I am limited to the two first choices..well better to be the one doing the screwing than being the one getting screwed.
I'd rather opt out of the whole argument and get my ass to Mars. Hurry up Burt Rutan..the world needs you more than you know I think.

Quote:
I will take my chances with Big Oil fat cats, thank you very much.


You are quite welcome to make that choice. If you change your mind, the rest of us will be welcome you (or at least I will).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:10 PM

FREDGIBLET


First please learn to use the quotes, it makes posts really hard to read when the quote tags are screwed up.

Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Actually I very well might vote Libertarian myself. Never green however as environmentalism is often just a vehicle for more socialism.


But it is not much worse than the crap we put up with now.

Quote:
I have encountered plenty of them. They make no distinction.


I will have to take your word for it.

Quote:
Capitalism/free enterprise lifts up the whole of Humanity albeit slower than most of us would like. Ask yourself: 100 yrs ago who had plumbing and electricity in thier homes? Rich folks of course. Who has it now? Just about everybody (in Western Civilization).


And capitalism gets ALL the credit? I seem to remember that even the Soviet Union had some advances in technology.

Quote:
Free Enterprise gives the people the ability to empower themselves. Socialists want to be carried.


Some of them maybe. Me I just don't want to be in debt for rest of my life because I went to college or got sick.

Quote:
If socialism prevails, the profit motive which has lead to the creation of almost every major invention that makes our lives so much easier and more interesting than it would otherwise be will be stymied to the point of technological stagnation.


Agree, however it should be balanced, unrestricted capitalism causes problems even as it fixes others. For instance, Wal-Mart screws over its employees s othat it can wring every last bit of profit from them. Enron uses the lack of regulations to screw over everyone else while they make billions, the list goes on.

I am not anti-capitalist, but I do think we should have restrictions.

Quote:
it is not a matter of paranoia. Its a fact. Read Antonio Gramsci's "Long March Through the Institutions" its all right there. Most of the Dem Party leadership are former 60's radicals that advocated the overthrow of our way of life in favor of a socialist system. That is not paranoia..it is a fact.


OK, I am way to lazy to read a whole book just to debate with you, so I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately the Republican leaders have shown a remarkable lack of interst in protecting the people as well. Essentially our entire governmental systm is broken and both sides are to blame. I just think that the people who insist that I follow their religious beliefs, and bow down to the mega-corps are not the people I want to follow

Quote:
Perhaps the Fascists and the marxists were correct in that democracy will eventually give way to one or the other.
Either the US will be submerged under a UN global socialist regime or the world will be crushed under the jackboots of American fascism. It seems I'm being given the choice of Oppressed or Oppressor. I prefer to get the F*** out of here a be a pioneer, but you can call me the names you like..if I am limited to the two first choices..well better to be the one doing the screwing than being the one getting screwed.


The problem is that you would not be the one doing the screwing, unless you are a politician or a corporate elite. In a Republican-run government the little guys (you and me) get screwed so that the big guys can get another billion.

Quote:
I'd rather opt out of the whole argument and get my ass to Mars.


I hear that its pretty chilly and lonely there, send a card. :)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:33 PM

MARSORBUST


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
First please learn to use the quotes, it makes posts really hard to read when the quote tags are screwed up.

Please don't be a pretentious ass.

Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Actually I very well might vote Libertarian myself. Never green however as environmentalism is often just a vehicle for more socialism.


But it is not much worse than the crap we put up with now.

Yes, but worse nonetheless.

Quote:
I have encountered plenty of them. They make no distinction.


I will have to take your word for it.

Quote:
Capitalism/free enterprise lifts up the whole of Humanity albeit slower than most of us would like. Ask yourself: 100 yrs ago who had plumbing and electricity in thier homes? Rich folks of course. Who has it now? Just about everybody (in Western Civilization).


And capitalism gets ALL the credit? I seem to remember that even the Soviet Union had some advances in technology.

Copied from western civilization.

Quote:
Free Enterprise gives the people the ability to empower themselves. Socialists want to be carried.


Some of them maybe. Me I just don't want to be in debt for rest of my life because I went to college or got sick.

And progressive taxation under a liberal regime is going to help that..LOL.

Quote:
If socialism prevails, the profit motive which has lead to the creation of almost every major invention that makes our lives so much easier and more interesting than it would otherwise be will be stymied to the point of technological stagnation.


Agree, however it should be balanced, unrestricted capitalism causes problems even as it fixes others. For instance, Wal-Mart screws over its employees s othat it can wring every last bit of profit from them. Enron uses the lack of regulations to screw over everyone else while they make billions, the list goes on.

Yes, the Enron guys should be shot, I agree. Wal-Mart on the other hand is the product of market forces. You don't like Wal-Mart..get folks to stop shopping at Wal-Mart..Good Luck.

I am not anti-capitalist, but I do think we should have restrictions.

Quote:
it is not a matter of paranoia. Its a fact. Read Antonio Gramsci's "Long March Through the Institutions" its all right there. Most of the Dem Party leadership are former 60's radicals that advocated the overthrow of our way of life in favor of a socialist system. That is not paranoia..it is a fact.


OK, I am way to lazy to read a whole book just to debate with you, so I'll take your word for it.

And here is the crux of the matter. You and yours take the word of a media that was infiltrated and taken over by socialists decades ago and you do so apparently without question. By your own admission, you are too lazy to go and honestly investigate it for yourself. The books are all there in your public library my friend. Go look and get an honest assessment of what is going on before you condemn those that disagree with you, especially those of us that have developed their own informed opinion by investigating what the facts truly are for themselves.

Quote:
Perhaps the Fascists and the marxists were correct in that democracy will eventually give way to one or the other.
Either the US will be submerged under a UN global socialist regime or the world will be crushed under the jackboots of American fascism. It seems I'm being given the choice of Oppressed or Oppressor. I prefer to get the F*** out of here a be a pioneer, but you can call me the names you like..if I am limited to the two first choices..well better to be the one doing the screwing than being the one getting screwed.


The problem is that you would not be the one doing the screwing, unless you are a politician or a corporate elite. In a Republican-run government the little guys (you and me) get screwed so that the big guys can get another billion.

I trust the private sector with those billions far more than I do an impending socialist regime that will use that revenue to further erode my freedoms in the name of "equality'. An equality that will be defined ever downward as time goes on. We will all eventually be equal: equally impoverished, equally powerless, equally tyrannized and enslaved. Then perhaps you and yours will be happy.

Quote:
I'd rather opt out of the whole argument and get my ass to Mars.


I hear that its pretty chilly and lonely there, send a card. :)


It won't be for everyone. You are more than welcome to stay here and chase your pinko utopian ideas into totalitarian oblivion if you wish. Mars will be for the capable, not for the timid looking to be taken care of. A Browncoat you are not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 2:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
You are more than welcome to stay here and chase your pinko utopian ideas into totalitarian oblivion if you wish. Mars will be for the capable, not for the timid looking to be taken care of. A Browncoat you are not.
Whoah there, Tex, the first mark of a non-Browncoat is thinkin' they can judge who is or ain't Browncoats (Browncoats also don't generally use the word 'pinko'). Not sayin' you ain't one, just be careful, we're all here for the same reasons, and should respect each other, K?

Let's get back to talkin' about Mars, or some such thing.

Suddenly, moderator Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 3:38 PM

SAVEWASH

Now I am learning about scary.


Wait, we're going to Mars? Yea!

Wait, we have to be capable and won't be taken care of there? You mean, there aren't any amenities on Mars?

Wait, we have to go with someone who calls someone else a pretentious ass for making a reasonable request? (It IS hard to read. Fred wasn't making it up.)

I guess you can count me out. I'll just wait for the flight to Europa. No trolls there, so I've heard.


"We need to keep our heads so we can ... keep our heads."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:26 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Please don't be a pretentious ass.


Ah yes, name-calling, the mark of a post that should in Real World Discussions. I was not trying to be a pretentious ass and I'm sorry if it sounded that way, I was just trying to point out that your posts were strangely formatted because of the quote tags.

Quote:
Copied from western civilization.


Most of it was, but I have a hard time believing that eveything in the Soviet Union was copied.

Quote:
And progressive taxation under a liberal regime is going to help that..LOL.


I never said that, I just wish the government would give a hand to sick people instead of a finger.

Quote:
Yes, the Enron guys should be shot, I agree.


Finally we agree on someting

Quote:
Wal-Mart on the other hand is the product of market forces.


Agree, again.

Quote:
You don't like Wal-Mart..get folks to stop shopping at Wal-Mart..Good Luck.


Most of the people I know don't, the rest are the type who don't care about the business practices of the companies, all they care about is getting crap for cheap.

Quote:
And here is the crux of the matter. You and yours take the word of a media that was infiltrated and taken over by socialists decades ago and you do so apparently without question.


OK, who should I believe? A guy on the Internet who for all I know could be joking? FOX news who tell me that the president is perfect? Some nut who writes about what the voices in his head say and then prints it on an underground newspaper? Where can I find the truth?

Quote:
By your own admission, you are too lazy to go and honestly investigate it for yourself. The books are all there in your public library my friend.


Yes I am, but assuming I could get off my lazy ass and get down to my library, which books are true? I can probably find books in the library that will support and refute you views, which ones are right? Since you are biased towards your point of view I can't trust you to objectively inform me of which ones to read, so how do I choose which ones to believe?

Quote:
Go look and get an honest assessment of what is going on before you condemn those that disagree with you


Once again, where? You say that the media has been infiltrated by the EVIL, socialists (which I am aware of by the way), how do I know that they haven't gotten to the books too?

Quote:
especially those of us that have developed their own informed opinion by investigating what the facts truly are for themselves.


Well the problem with this is is simple, I can't be sure that you have your facts straight. I'm not trying to say that you are mis-informed but rather that I can't know how you were informed so I can't tell for sure that you are properly informed. Just so you know, I do not claim to be well-informed myself.

Quote:
I trust the private sector with those billions far more than I do an impending socialist regime that will use that revenue to further erode my freedoms in the name of "equality'. An equality that will be defined ever downward as time goes on. We will all eventually be equal: equally impoverished, equally powerless, equally tyrannized and enslaved. Then perhaps you and yours will be happy.


So you would rather give more money to the next Enron?

As for being equally impoverished, the system we have in place continues to divert more and more money into the pockets of people who don't need any more, many of whom were born into their positions and have never really worked for their money, taking it away from the rest of us. Equally powerless? We have a President (a Conservative no less) who already ignores the will of the people, and he is a Conservative with deep ties to Big Oil and corporations, not very socialist to me. Equally tyrannized and enslaved? Yeah probably but that will happen no matter who we put in charge.

Quote:
It won't be for everyone. You are more than welcome to stay here and chase your pinko utopian ideas into totalitarian oblivion if you wish.


More name-calling 'sigh'. Totalitarianism is not restricted to socialists, if you would like to see a future that we may very well be heading straight for try picking up "Neuromancer" by William Gibson. The world of Neuromancer is a dysotopian world where mega-corps are the new world governments, and it isn't very pretty. I am not really a pinko, I just have the view that the government can help the little people sometimes instead of just the billionare-CEO crowd. And oblivion? Sounds good to me

Quote:
Mars will be for the capable, not for the timid looking to be taken care of. A Browncoat you are not.


Was that reverse-name-calling? I am not looking to be taken care of but with the cost of health care and education rocketing into the stratosphere it is already out of the reach of some and will soon be out of the reach of many. So when less than half of the population can afford basic health care and less than a quarter can afford to go to college who wins? No one.

As for Mars, I just don't like the thought of living in a place where leaving the door open can kill me, thats why I don't want to live in Alaska.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:36 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by SAVEWASH:
Wait, we're going to Mars? Yea!


Woo Hoo!!!

Quote:
Wait, we have to be capable and won't be taken care of there? You mean, there aren't any amenities on Mars?


Yep it'll be like roughing it in teh Wild West, except with almost no oxygen, and a touch cooler.

Quote:
Wait, we have to go with someone who calls someone else a pretentious ass for making a reasonable request? (It IS hard to read. Fred wasn't making it up.)


Thanks for backing me up on this
EDIT: on second though I probably could have worded it better, but still...

Quote:
I guess you can count me out. I'll just wait for the flight to Europa. No trolls there, so I've heard.


Actually they have Ice Trolls on Europa, but they are easier to kill because they don't regenerate and take double damage from fire

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:45 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Suddenly, moderator Chrisisall


This is new

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:51 PM

MARSORBUST


Whoah there, Tex, the first mark of a non-Browncoat is thinkin' they can judge who is or ain't Browncoats (Browncoats also don't generally use the word 'pinko'). Not sayin' you ain't one, just be careful, we're all here for the same reasons, and should respect each other, K?

Let's get back to talkin' about Mars, or some such thing.

Suddenly, moderator Chrisisall

Sorry 'bout the fuss Chris but this guy is being a pretentious ass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:54 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Suddenly, moderator Chrisisall


This is new
I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler Chrisisall.
But this is Marsorburst's first day, he is kinda rude...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:59 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:

Sorry 'bout the fuss Chris but this guy is being a pretentious ass.
We kid because we love. Fred can be a little rough around the edges, but he's cool.

Chrisisall, who's never rough around the edges. Just in the center of his own evil, rotten heart.
Sometimes. When he's doing his imitation of Ghandi.
You know, if he was really pissed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:05 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Fred can be a little rough around the edges, but he's cool.


What the??? 'reads it again' I'm cool? Awesome!!! Go me!!!

Seriously though, to Marsorbust, I should have worded that differently it was a bit harsh. It's just that with all the writing to go through to keep up on a lot of these threads it gets really annoying when the formatting is working against the reader.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:19 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sometimes. When he's doing his imitation of Ghandi.
You know, if he was really pissed.


I've seen Ghandi pissed man, it's not the sort of thing to joke about...it still haunts my nightmares...I still wake up crying thinking about it. ''hears a soft noise behind him and runs screaming into the bathroom'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:19 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It's just that with all the writing to go through to keep up on a lot of these threads it gets really annoying when the formatting is working against the reader.
I know, ya have to read twice as slowly when the format works against you.

Chrisisallorbust

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:22 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:


I've seen Ghandi pissed man, it's not the sort of thing to joke about...it still haunts my nightmares...I still wake up crying thinking about it. ''hears a soft noise behind him and runs screaming into the bathroom'
You gettin' all bendy, Fred?

Lights, I see lights Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:36 PM

MARSORBUST



Ah yes, name-calling, the mark of a post that should in Real World Discussions. I was not trying to be a pretentious ass and I'm sorry if it sounded that way, I was just trying to point out that your posts were strangely formatted because of the quote tags.

Give me a break, I'm new to this. Is this any shinier?



Most of it was, but I have a hard time believing that eveything in the Soviet Union was copied.

There was nothing in Soviet science or industry that was not stolen from the West. If you do not bleive that..investigate it for yourself. The Soviet suystem robbed the people of personal iniative as all basics became "rights". The profit motive was removed and with it the drive to innovate and/or excel.

I never said that, I just wish the government would give a hand to sick people instead of a finger.

The people also have to be willing to help themselves.




Most of the people I know don't, the rest are the type who don't care about the business practices of the companies, all they care about is getting crap for cheap.

Which is altogether natural.


OK, who should I believe? A guy on the Internet who for all I know could be joking? FOX news who tell me that the president is perfect? Some nut who writes about what the voices in his head say and then prints it on an underground newspaper? Where can I find the truth?

Well here we find that reality appears to be entirely subjective. Folks make value judgements based upon thier own experiences and sadly on what they want to be true rather than what actually is. The Christian, the Muslim, and yes, the Humanist liberal all have something in common: they all beleive in things that are not supported by the empirical evidence. The War of the 3 faiths.
It is up to the individual to investigate the matter for themselves. I can tell you my friend that at least Fox news attempts to give voice to both sides of the arguments as opposed to the liberal networks that all but completely ignore any viewpoint save for the liberal one and that is very much on purpose. There is an agenda.
The books are there. Go find them. The socialists have not been able to erase the truth they just blind you to it by framing the debate the way they wish because they have enjoyed a total monopoly on the media until the advent of talk radio and Fox news.
In my opinion, the liberals are in fact a disjointed conglomeration of varoius interests that have grouped together against what they percieve as a common enemy. They all have thier own little pet thing that directs thier opinion on all matters.
For example: a radical feminist's pet thing is the abortion issue. Saving her "right" to destroy her child as a form of birth control is paramount to her. The Republicans are opposed to this as we know, so in her mind the Republicans must be defeated no matter what. This would remain even if it was found that Saddam had all the WMD in the world. Another plan of attack would then be engaged.
The Dems support her "right" to have her child sucked out of her body with a vacuum, so they are "right" on all matters no matter what; because they tell her what she wants to hear.
Just one example.


Yes I am, but assuming I could get off my lazy ass and get down to my library, which books are true? I can probably find books in the library that will support and refute you views, which ones are right? Since you are biased towards your point of view I can't trust you to objectively inform me of which ones to read, so how do I choose which ones to believe?

Yes..Iwill fully admit that I am biased against any ideology, no matter how well meaning that seeks to deprive me of my freedom for ANY reason. You should be too if freedom is something that you enjoy.
The Dems will takes us closer and closer to a Soviet system. That is a fact. Investigate what life was like in the Soviet Union and decide then if a world run by Wal-Mart and Big Oil is worse.



Once again, where? You say that the media has been infiltrated by the EVIL, socialists (which I am aware of by the way), how do I know that they haven't gotten to the books too?

Just so you know, I don't form my opinions from reading material from Palidin Press or Right-wing nut-job.com. I am well versed in Hegelian/Marxist Dialectic theory and the History of the Socialist/Communist movement since its beginnings. Read their own material and compare it to the results that History has offered: Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, the Pol Pot regime of Cambodia.
My friend, every despotic regime in History began as a Utopian dream..fear the Utopians.
"Sooner or later, they are going to swing back to the idea that they can make people better..and I don't hold to that".

Quote:
especially those of us that have developed their own informed opinion by investigating what the facts truly are for themselves.


Well the problem with this is is simple, I can't be sure that you have your facts straight. I'm not trying to say that you are mis-informed but rather that I can't know how you were informed so I can't tell for sure that you are properly informed. Just so you know, I do not claim to be well-informed myself.

See above.



So you would rather give more money to the next Enron?

Better that than to help finance the next Soviet Union.

As for being equally impoverished, the system we have in place continues to divert more and more money into the pockets of people who don't need any more, many of whom were born into their positions and have never really worked for their money, taking it away from the rest of us. Equally powerless? We have a President (a Conservative no less) who already ignores the will of the people, and he is a Conservative with deep ties to Big Oil and corporations, not very socialist to me. Equally tyrannized and enslaved? Yeah probably but that will happen no matter who we put in charge.

Well, if you want to be a Browncoat, that means that we have to have money to invest in aggressive space technologies. The Dems will not allow that as that is the funds they need to power the bureaucracies that power them. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers..no Browncoats.

Quote:
It won't be for everyone. You are more than welcome to stay here and chase your pinko utopian ideas into totalitarian oblivion if you wish.


More name-calling 'sigh'. Totalitarianism is not restricted to socialists, if you would like to see a future that we may very well be heading straight for try picking up "Neuromancer" by William Gibson. The world of Neuromancer is a dysotopian world where mega-corps are the new world governments, and it isn't very pretty. I am not really a pinko, I just have the view that the government can help the little people sometimes instead of just the billionare-CEO crowd. And oblivion? Sounds good to me

Those billionaires that you refer to are also the captains of industry that reinvest that money into further technological development.
There is no way we can regulate thier profits without nationalizing huge segments of the economy and shazam: Soviet Union. Like it or not.
You may want to empower the Dems to curtail the activities of the monied interests but we will do that at our peril. These folks don't want to simply regulate the private sector, they want to do away with it.

Quote:
Mars will be for the capable, not for the timid looking to be taken care of. A Browncoat you are not.


Was that reverse-name-calling? I am not looking to be taken care of but with the cost of health care and education rocketing into the stratosphere it is already out of the reach of some and will soon be out of the reach of many. So when less than half of the population can afford basic health care and less than a quarter can afford to go to college who wins? No one.

As for Mars, I just don't like the thought of living in a place where leaving the door open can kill me, thats why I don't want to live in Alaska.


On Mars there is no health-care, no college loans, no bureaucracies, no affirmative action, no feminism, no infrastructure.
The freedom that is metaphorized in Serenity will find its real world(s) application there.
Those not willing to embrace that have in effect embraced the "Alliance" that is taking shape around us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:31 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Give me a break, I'm new to this. Is this any shinier?


It's a little better, if you know HTML it works just like those tags. At the start of each quote you type ]quote[ only with the brackets flipped in, at the end of the quote you type ]/quote[ with the brackets in (I am typing it with them out so that you can see). The tags can be nested as well i.e. ]quote[ ]quote[ stuff from the first quote ]/quote[ stuff from the second quote ]/quote[ I hope this helps, with some practice you will get it.

Quote:
The people also have to be willing to help themselves.


So if I have leukimia and can't afford to get a marrow transplant it's my fault? I don't have the money so I'm not "helping myself"?

Quote:
Quote:
all they care about is getting crap for cheap.


Which is altogether natural.


Actually the need for crap is caused by the TV which reminds me I need to buy some new Nikes

Quote:
Well here we find that reality appears to be entirely subjective. Folks make value judgements based upon thier own experiences and sadly on what they want to be true rather than what actually is. The Christian, the Muslim, and yes, the Humanist liberal all have something in common: they all beleive in things that are not supported by the empirical evidence. The War of the 3 faiths.
It is up to the individual to investigate the matter for themselves. I can tell you my friend that at least Fox news attempts to give voice to both sides of the arguments as opposed to the liberal networks that all but completely ignore any viewpoint save for the liberal one and that is very much on purpose. There is an agenda.
The books are there. Go find them. The socialists have not been able to erase the truth they just blind you to it by framing the debate the way they wish because they have enjoyed a total monopoly on the media until the advent of talk radio and Fox news.


Once again how do I sort out the truth from the chaff? I have spent my entire life forming opinions, some on facts some not. Everything I read will be colored by my previous experiences and most of what I read will either be not true at all or only partially true. Unless I am willing to spend every waking minute hunting down the truth the Powers That Be, liberal and conservative, will be able to fill the airwaves, libraries, and yes bulletin boards with too much crap to sort through.

Quote:
In my opinion, the liberals are in fact a disjointed conglomeration of varoius interests that have grouped together against what they percieve as a common enemy. They all have thier own little pet thing that directs thier opinion on all matters.


That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Quote:
For example: a radical feminist's pet thing is the abortion issue. Saving her "right" to destroy her child as a form of birth control is paramount to her. The Republicans are opposed to this as we know, so in her mind the Republicans must be defeated no matter what. This would remain even if it was found that Saddam had all the WMD in the world. Another plan of attack would then be engaged.
The Dems support her "right" to have her child sucked out of her body with a vacuum, so they are "right" on all matters no matter what; because they tell her what she wants to hear.
Just one example.


This works both ways, many of the people who vote Republican vote that way because they believe that abortion is wrong. They then get emotionally attached to their loyalty and begin to just spout the party line. But you are right, and blind loyalty is a very bad thing.

Quote:
Yes..Iwill fully admit that I am biased against any ideology, no matter how well meaning that seeks to deprive me of my freedom for ANY reason. You should be too if freedom is something that you enjoy.


One of the freedoms that I enjoy is the freedom to choose my religion instead of having it mandated by the state. The Republicans want to make the Bible law and I do not hold to the tenets of the Bible so I do not want to live in a place where it is law.


Quote:
The Dems will takes us closer and closer to a Soviet system. That is a fact. Investigate what life was like in the Soviet Union and decide then if a world run by Wal-Mart and Big Oil is worse.


Is the depiction of the Soviet Union in the book Mig Pilot (the story of Viktor Belenko) accurate? If so I would prefer Wal-Mart and Big Oil, but not by that much, I am rather attached to breathing and drinking water.

Quote:
Just so you know, I don't form my opinions from reading material from Palidin Press or Right-wing nut-job.com. I am well versed in Hegelian/Marxist Dialectic theory and the History of the Socialist/Communist movement since its beginnings. Read their own material and compare it to the results that History has offered: Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, the Pol Pot regime of Cambodia.
My friend, every despotic regime in History began as a Utopian dream..fear the Utopians.
"Sooner or later, they are going to swing back to the idea that they can make people better..and I don't hold to that".


Just about every system of government, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Oligarchy, and Theocracy look better on paper than they do in real life. The problem is that the people who write up the plans assume that people will be perfect in their system, which is never true.

Quote:
Better that than to help finance the next Soviet Union.


All right, that's your choice.

Quote:
Well, if you want to be a Browncoat, that means that we have to have money to invest in aggressive space technologies. The Dems will not allow that as that is the funds they need to power the bureaucracies that power them. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers..no Browncoats.


I think this is a touch of over-simplification, the amount of money that would be required to build and man the kind of migration you are talking about would be enormous we Browncoats have put a lot of money into the show, but even if all of us gave 10-20% of our income it would probably still take decades if not centuries to succeed. Getting into space can be done relatively cheap, staying in space and getting lots of people in space is much more expensive.

Quote:
Those billionaires that you refer to are also the captains of industry that reinvest that money into further technological development.


True, and they are also the people who can wipe themselves with hundred-dollar bills and not care. The ones who worked for their money I can respect, but in the past century or so the corporate system has spawned a group of people not so different from the nobility in past centuries (i.e. they are rich because they are rich, not because they contribute to society).

Quote:
There is no way we can regulate thier profits without nationalizing huge segments of the economy and shazam: Soviet Union. Like it or not.


Actually there is, its called taxes.

Quote:
You may want to empower the Dems to curtail the activities of the monied interests but we will do that at our peril. These folks don't want to simply regulate the private sector, they want to do away with it.


I would not support efforts to do away with the upper-class. However, given the choice between having CEOs that do nothing, getting millions of dollars for driving companies into the ground and not having an upper-class...

Quote:
On Mars there is no health-care


Goody

Quote:
no college loans


And no College

Quote:
no bureaucracies


Yet

Quote:
no affirmative action


Cool

Quote:
no feminism


Also cool

Quote:
no infrastructure


Not so cool

Quote:
The freedom that is metaphorized in Serenity will find its real world(s) application there.


Let me know if it works out

Quote:
Those not willing to embrace that have in effect embraced the "Alliance" that is taking shape around us.


Or they just want to be able to leave their doors open...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:34 PM

MAGHAFFAR


OK, where'd I put my asbestos underwear...

Been reading this thread and waiting to see if there's any new historical perspective light gonna be thrown on it all -- haven't yet so here goes...

I, too, am a student of history, and I, too, come from a military dad upbringing. My old man was in the Air Force, was in the service during the whole Cold War, and he once told me the only thing the military ever taught him was how to hate and how to drink. He died an alcoholic, but at least he stopped the hating thing pretty much once he got out. Took loads of marijuana to make that happen, I suspect. Anyway...

What's always fascinated me is that when you look at "liberalism / socialism" at work in societies invariably it is always a reaction to the captilist or aristocratic totalitarianism fostered by those seeking control over other people's economic resources. The history of all wars is rooted in acces to and control / monopolization of power and resources.

Revolutions -- i.e. those promulgated by "the people" to procure their freedom from Gov't / Aristocracy rule or oppression -- usually come out of populist socialist movements. The American revolution was the browncoatish colonists against the English King -- tho, it should be noted that many of the early colonists did NOT want to break away from England, they just wanted to be treated fairly. What drove them into "we're gonna be rebels" camp was the fact that England's solution to the colonists' fussin' was to give them a big ol' spanking (via all them imported Hessian "peacekeeping" troops) instead of treating them like the English citizens they believed they were -- the whole "No taxation without representation" thing was a "crying foul"about the Americans not having a vote in parliament over what affected them in the ol' pocket. In fact, the Boston Tea Party, it has been plausibly argued, was the American Tonkin Gulf incident: something that the colonists could use to their advantage in fomenting dissent against England.

Also, England was at war with France, which kept England militarily occupied, which meant that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" which is why we went to France for military aid and without their warships and arms and money we would never have beaten England and become "independant."

In Czarist Russia, it was the intellectual leftists and masses of poor peasants fueled by Marxist ideology who started the Bolshevik revolution. In China after WW2 it was the peasants led by Mao who "reacted" against the corruption of the warlords and the ruling Chiang Kai Shek U.S. backed government looting the country (read "The Soong Dynsty" by Sterling Seagrave -- great book) which fomented the whole communist rise to power. "Power to the people" is a powerful idea -- worked wonders here, right? Our entire self-image as a freedom-loving democracy is rooted in this idea.

In Cuba, it was Castro's organization of the peasants against the tryanny and oppression of Batista's U.S. mafia and Government installed regime that resulted in the communists taking over there. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Mihn went the same route against the French. He originally came to America for help in the late 1940s I believe to get us to help him kick out the French. We rebuffed him so he went to the commies who were more than willing to help him.

Same thing applies to the Muslim militants in the 1920s and '30s who were staunchly anti-comunist on religious grounds cus the commies were atheists, so when the American gov't rebuffed the Muslims (also on religious grounds) the commies as well as Hitler did everything they could to aid Muslim nationalists after the collapse of the Ottoman empire and in all countries where Muslims were under Western occupation or influence. It was Hitler's SS boys who originally set up the Bath party in Iran as a vehicle for totalitarian police state rule back in the '30s. And this list goes on and on, sadly... We aid Osama cuz he's anti-communist and will shoot down those pesky Soviet helicopters for us. But as soon as the war is over, we ditch him -- so he takes his CIA training and Saudi oil/family money and hatred for the "great satan" and we get Al Qaida -- which is NOT a true reflection of Islamic teachings. Osama wants to overthrow the Saudis as well -- tried in fact, but got booted instead of killed cuz of his family ties -- and he wants to set up a Muslim gov't police state. He'll fail. All his ilk will.

Trouble with almost every "people-powered" revolution thang is whoever winds up in power just turns it into their own fiefdom. This is axiomiatic with virtually every well-intentioned "freedom" movement cuz once a few people get a lot of pwer they generally want to keep it, which results in the Big Brother apporach -- secret police, spying, control of banking, trade, resources, etc. Com,munism has proved itself a major failure on every level except good intentions. Capitalism unchecked always engenders monopolization which is just another term for economic totalitarianism. In societies that allow dissent like in America, you get the predictable "Leftist / liveral" reaction and struggle to overthrow the Fat Cats.

Trouble with a lot of leftist thinking is it gets bogged down in those pesky human rights worries (sarcasm in case you can't tell). Something Big Money types and corporations are generally not hampered by.

One political scientist guy once remarked that fascist regimes and socilaist regimes tend to meet up with each and exchange positions with predictable results due to the expansion of their political powers and territories. Think of the definitions of "democrats" and "republicans" from the 1860s. Their ideologies and temperaments were virtually 180-degrees opposite of what we think of them as being today. In less than 100 years they've gone through just the "swapping out" of ideologies predicted with Fascist / Socialist powers.

Point being, that every political or economic extremity tends to generate its opposite response. Being a Browncoat is far more a philosophical outlook of desiring to be free to think & speak (liberal), act responsibly (libertarian), and not be told what to do by the gov't (conservative) than anything inferred or implied by the titles themselves.

I would heartily recommend the history lessons related through James Burke's works (PBS shows and books like "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed") for a keen view of how technology, societal forces and human foibles have changed and shaped the world we live in. Like for instance, it was Darwin's "Origin of Species" in 1858-59? that spurred BOTH the capitalist "survival of the fittest individual or corporation" at the expense of the worker ethos AND Marx's idea of the right of the society and its people as a "species" to have the right to survive against the ill-effects of capitalism run amok, i.e., the survival of the group superceds the rights of the individual. Ironically, both political/economic systems (capitalism and communism) excel at destroying human freedoms, only they do so under different ideological banners -- the result is the same.

This is why in America,and other Western industriualized countries where capitalism is the ruling system, the "greatness" of these societies is always reflected in the humanist / socialist ideologies that try to create an environment of justice for the under-class and middle-class. And who or what always opposes these forces? Why big corporations and the governments they buy with their influence.

As for anyone going to Mars anytime soon, you can forget it. The environment is powerful ugly when it comes to keeping humans alive unless they want to live in underground caves or domed enclosures. Face it, the earth is plenty big -- it's just that most people tend to be congregated in cities and along the shores of oceans, rivers and lakes so it looks like massive overcrowding -- which it is -- and it's just this crowding that creates the need for governmental infra-structre and rules and bureacracy a la the Alliance. We can be Browncoats in our hearts, but we still rely on the "Alliance" for everything we have materially. Mal wouldn't have nothin' to steal if there were no Alliance, nothing to rebel against and go to war over.

Maybe we should have Nathan run for president. Get a real Independent in the White House. His slogan can be: "I aim to misbehave." cuz everybody, deep down, admires a troublemaker for their sheer willingness to be all manner of stuopid in defense of their right to be free.

Flame away...


===============================================================
Jonathan M.A.Ghaffar - Your Firefly/Serenity MP3 Ringtone Guru!
Free MP3 uploader program (PC) at: www.tonethis.com
Website for free ringtone downloading: http://mindfulmusings.net/cellupload/singleupload.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAGhaffar@wayoftheseekers.com
http://www.WAYoftheSEEKERS.com
http://www.TombofJesus.com
http://www.alislam.org

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:50 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by MAGhaffar:

Flame away...


Gorram, boy! Got nuthin' to flame you about. I applaud a new voice with as much knowledge and thoughtfullness as you display!
You go girl (guy- whatever)!

Sometimes inappropriate Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:54 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Quote:
no feminism


Also cool

Quote:
no infrastructure


Not so cool

Quote:
The freedom that is metaphorized in Serenity will find its real world(s) application there.


Let me know if it works out

Quote:
Those not willing to embrace that have in effect embraced the "Alliance" that is taking shape around us.


Or they just want to be able to leave their doors open...

LOL, you are bad, F.

ChrisisallBwahahahahahaha

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:05 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by MAGhaffar:
OK, where'd I put my asbestos underwear...


Did you find it? I have flamethrower I'd like to try out

Quote:
My old man was in the Air Force, was in the service during the whole Cold War, and he once told me the only thing the military ever taught him was how to hate and how to drink. He died an alcoholic, but at least he stopped the hating thing pretty much once he got out.


The great part about the military is that you always see the worst of the other side, and everyone around you hates them, groupthink.

Quote:
What's always fascinated me is that when you look at "liberalism / socialism" at work in societies invariably it is always a reaction to the captilist or aristocratic totalitarianism fostered by those seeking control over other people's economic resources.


Hippies against "the man"

Quote:
The history of all wars is rooted in acces to and control / monopolization of power and resources.


You forgot land, although I suppose it can be considered a resource, and ideologies are also quite powerful, although many wars caused by ideologies actually have deeper roots.


Quote:
"Power to the people" is a powerful idea -- worked wonders here, right? Our entire self-image as a freedom-loving democracy is rooted in this idea.


Unfortunately it has become power to the rich, although I suppose that when the U.S. started only rich white men could vote, now everyone can vote but only rich white men can actually influence the government, progress.

Quote:
We aid Osama cuz he's anti-communist and will shoot down those pesky Soviet helicopters for us. But as soon as the war is over, we ditch him -- so he takes his CIA training and Saudi oil/family money and hatred for the "great satan" and we get Al Qaida


A lot of people don't seem to realize how many of these people we have created attempting to contain the Soviet Union.

Quote:
Trouble with almost every "people-powered" revolution thang is whoever winds up in power just turns it into their own fiefdom. This is axiomiatic with virtually every well-intentioned "freedom" movement cuz once a few people get a lot of pwer they generally want to keep it, which results in the Big Brother apporach -- secret police, spying, control of banking, trade, resources, etc.


Yep, I wonder how many of the revolutions were started by a small group of people for the SOLE purpose of putting themselves into power.

Quote:
Communism has proved itself a major failure on every level except good intentions.


Yep, which is why I'm not afraid of it.

Quote:
Capitalism unchecked always engenders monopolization which is just another term for economic totalitarianism. In societies that allow dissent like in America, you get the predictable "Leftist / liberal" reaction and struggle to overthrow the Fat Cats.


Which is why I'm afraid of it

Quote:
Trouble with a lot of leftist thinking is it gets bogged down in those pesky human rights worries (sarcasm in case you can't tell). Something Big Money types and corporations are generally not hampered by.


So very true, if only we cared as little about people as the Right-wingers.

Quote:
One political scientist guy once remarked that fascist regimes and socilaist regimes tend to meet up with each and exchange positions with predictable results due to the expansion of their political powers and territories. Think of the definitions of "democrats" and "republicans" from the 1860s. Their ideologies and temperaments were virtually 180-degrees opposite of what we think of them as being today. In less than 100 years they've gone through just the "swapping out" of ideologies predicted with Fascist / Socialist powers.


The Republicans were the "party of Lincoln" who had the liberal thought of freeing the slaves, until the 50's when the Black people wanted to vote too, then the Republicans switched to Conservatism.

Quote:
Being a Browncoat is far more a philosophical outlook of desiring to be free to think & speak (liberal), act responsibly (libertarian), and not be told what to do by the gov't (conservative) than anything inferred or implied by the titles themselves.


So very true I could cry.

Quote:
Ironically, both political/economic systems (capitalism and communism) excel at destroying human freedoms, only they do so under different ideological banners -- the result is the same.


Because we keep putting humans in charge and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Quote:
the "greatness" of these societies is always reflected in the humanist / socialist ideologies that try to create an environment of justice for the under-class and middle-class. And who or what always opposes these forces? Why big corporations and the governments they buy with their influence.


Who don't want to have to pay fair wages, or health-care.

Quote:
As for anyone going to Mars anytime soon, you can forget it. The environment is powerful ugly when it comes to keeping humans alive unless they want to live in underground caves or domed enclosures.


Don't leave the door open...

Quote:
Maybe we should have Nathan run for president. Get a real Independent in the White House. His slogan can be: "I aim to misbehave." cuz everybody, deep down, admires a troublemaker for their sheer willingness to be all manner of stuopid in defense of their right to be free.


I'd vote for him, I hear that Christopher Walken is running:
http://walken2008.com/

Quote:
Flame away...


Did you find your underwear?

Thank you for your post, its gotten mighty lonely out here (Chrisisall and savewash notwithstanding).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:42 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
LOL, you are bad, F.

ChrisisallBwahahahahahaha


Yeah, well I just get tired of being completely serious all the time, I think it is a waste to not be funny when you can.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 10:22 PM

EMMAZULE


Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Thanks for the coat Mal.
It is intersting that both sides of the Culture War regard themselves to be the Brown-Coats.
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.


Um. What.

I certainly don't. One can only "empower" oneself, thankyouverymuch. The government doesn't do much, really, it's the culture that affects how easy it is to express said feelings of empowerment or not. :P

Quote:

However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance


Um. I don't. I sure as HELL don't. I like America where and for relatively what, it is, thanks. :P

Seriously though, where do you get the "Liberals = supporters of the New World Order", in not just the 'verse but our own world, which is what that comment implies to me? Few people actually do seem to want a full on "World Government", and even fewer actually advocate one.


Quote:

-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.


I would appreciate it if you would say "seem to" or somesuch, as I do NOT advocate overturning 2nd Amendment rights, and I consider myself a liberal and possibly even a Liberal. :P

I do support making sure a person isn't a psychotic serial killer before you sell it to them, or teaching gun safety, but taking away the right completely?

Sorry, no. Don't support it.

Quote:

-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".


That... I'm sorry, this is going to seem rude, and I apologize in advance for it, but...

You did not describe "Liberals". What you just described is politicians in general.

Has the Bush administration actually decreased the size of government? No. It has, in fact, increased it by, among other things, creating a new, redundant position in the White House Presidential Cabinet.

Has the Bush administration taken what WAS a surplus and run it into a several-hundred-trillion dollar debt in a matter of a single term, obviously because it's trying to fund a large bureaucracy that, like ALL previous administrations, it does essentially nothing to fix or improve so that it DOESN'T waste everyone's money?

Yes indeedy.

I'm not saying a Liberal prez couldn't have done the same (heck, the fact that Clinton's admin managed to produce a surplus is amazing, albeit helped considerably by the fact that his presidency was during the late 90s boom), but to say that a Liberal one would and a Conservative one wouldn't flies in the face of current events, human nature, and logic.

Sorry, but all politicians do it, no matter what color they go by.

Quote:

-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.


Three letters for ya:

W, T, and F.

It's true that for many, Liberal politics (in the U.S., at least) = caring for the community, bordering on Socialism.

But "'Community Rights' over individual liberities"!?!

WTF!!!!!

NO.

As an example: Bush hasn't said ONE WORD on that piece of CRAP thing still in our nation's laws - Eminent Domain. The law states that the government take up and take away your land and property to provide services to the community - as of late, this has been extended to include RESELLING THE LAND TO DEVELOPERS TO PRODUCE STRIP MALLS AND CONDOS, with the reasoning being that it was intended for "economic improvement".

I'm, for all intents and purposes, a diehard "Liberal", and at the very least, somewhere in between but leaning Lib. If you called me a "Conservative", I would cringe, possibly even give me a none-too-nice look.

But Eminent Domain needs to fucking have its head chopped off and fed to a meat grinder, and I will DIE before I refute that statement (heck, the fact that I used the f-word would tell you I am HELLA serious in that, since I don't use it unless I damn well mean it).

Not all Liberals are Alliance, my friend.

Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.


Wrong. Browncoats come in Liberal and Conservative flavors, and Alliance comes in perverted Liberal form, IMO. ;) (The Alliance is indeed very Socialist and "progressive", so it really would have to be Liberal by default, you are right about that much)

Quote:

There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.


I think it's people noticing that non-Christian Theocracy-supporting Republicans don't yell as loud. :P

Which is true, lately.

Quote:

It is interesting to note that in the pilot, Mal kissed a crucifix on his necklace and Book was obviously a Christian missionary. This seems to have inverted in the movie with the Operative's references to "sins". It is a bit fuzzy.


Not really. Christianity has nothing to do with it, really, it's just that since Firefly was written with a Western audience in mind originally, the cross was the easiest visual cue for "this man has youthful, innocent, exuberant faith". ;)

On a side note, I find it BIZARRE that Libertarians are consistently referred to as "Conservatives".

To me, their philosophy looks pretty damn liberal - "eh, so long as you don't hurt nobody, do whatever ya want". That's liberal. I can tell because I actually agree with some of it (like the "who gives a crap if people smoke marijuana so long as they don't try to drive and run somebody over" aspect, for instance, and despising Eminent Domain). Just curious, do you know enough about Libertarianism to explain why it's percieved as "Conservative"?

I mean, heck. The word "liberty" (from which the party's name is taken) and the word "liberal" come from the same root, after all.

Will be interested in reading your response.


~Love, Emma

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts
WHY DID THEY CANCEL THIS??? *FIREFLY* Ep 14 Reaction Movie Night with Jacqui Episode -1-14 Reaction
Thu, October 24, 2024 00:04 - 14 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL