Are You for Unification or Independence if You Lived in the FireFly 'Verse? by RiveR6213

FIREFLY EPISODE DISCUSSIONS

Are You for Unification or Independence if You Lived in the FireFly 'Verse?

POSTED BY: RIVER6213
UPDATED: Monday, January 2, 2006 19:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15489
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:27 PM

I'm gonna shock everyone here...
*pulls out a car battery and jumpers*
Seriously, I'm confounded by the fact that some don't get the 'Do not blindly or completely trust any government' message in Serenity (You all know who you are...).

Funny, I can't even get through 20 minutes of the movie Air Force One; Harrison gives that speech at the beginning, and I'm all like "No way in HELL a man like that would ever hold the office!!!" Fantasy at it's most fantastic, IMHO. I'd sooner believe the Ice Caps were'nt meltin'.

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:30 PM

HUMBUG

Great question, River 6213!!!

I think I'd be a pragmatistic, like Jayne, and go along with the kinda people who disrupted my life as little as possible. By inference that would NOT be the alliance. But I would not actively support the independants. Just keep my head down and get on with living my life that way I wanted................

...............by Jayne's side!!!

I'd be a kind of floating voter, if you will. With no firm attachments to any side or party. Voting with my conscience on the situation and issues of the day.

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:42 PM

KHANVALHERU

That's so funny, I thought was living in the alliance right now! .... ok, tongue in cheek answer aside, I would see myself as a "normal" folk of the alliance, who has no ideas about reavers and mercenaries and what not. I can see that, because that's exactly how I'm living right now within the great ole US. I know there's world hunger, uncivilized heroes, and epidemics in the rest of the world, but it's something easy to forget, living where I am y'know. I think on a gut level, though, all of us would root for the independence movements as the underdog is more heroic and romantic an idea.

War - The absence of meaningful communication.
Communication - The change in behavior from the exchanging of ideas.

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:52 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by khanvalheru:
That's so funny, I thought was living in the alliance right now!

That's the unsettling part: you are.

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 3:05 PM

HUMBUG

Quote:
Originally posted by khanvalheru:
I thought was living in the alliance right now! ....
War - The absence of meaningful communication.
Communication - The change in behavior from the exchanging of ideas.

Good point, Khanvalheru.

I guess we're all living in an "alliance" of first world governments. We don't realise how lucky we are until we reach out and travel to other parts of the world, like Africa, Asia or South America....... where you can find people dying of curable diseases, lack of basic sanitation/ hygeiene, famine, civil wars, dictatorships, lack of basic education, abuses of human rights (especially for women/children/those who speak out against corrupt govts)..... the list goes on.....

The thing I love about this messageboard is that people from across the world can communicate and share ideas........................ & hope fully prevent misunderstandings or even conflict!!!

Humbug

"She's damaging my calm" - Jayne, Serenity

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 3:30 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Since Joss has actually described the Alliance as “progressive,” a term used by Liberal Democrats to characterized their Left-wing philosophy, and since we know that Joss created the heroes in Firefly, specifically Mal, to be people he would not agree with, I think it stands to reason that Joss created the Alliance in much more the shape of the Left-wing Liberal “Progressive” Democrat sort of ideal, since we know that Joss is, himself, more of a political Liberal then a political Conservative. For myself, being a Right-wing leaning Libertarian Southern Republican with a strong federalist bent and a gun, I would have to think that I would not be on the Alliance side, since I personally would probably sympathize much more strongly with the Right wing independent states’ rights point of view then I do with the Left-wing aristocratic entitlement state point of view.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

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

Sunday, January 1, 2006 3:37 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
Quote:
The cause of the Civil War was not the issue of slavery.
The facts do not support this claim.

I have to disagree with you on that. If the Civil war was caused by slavery that would mean the war was about it and imply the Union was against it, which it wasn't. Lincoln was very specific about his intention to maintain slavery in order to win the war. Why the hell would you continue slavery in order to stop it?

On the other hand, the war was not about it, it was not caused by it, but it certainly had a huge effect. When Lincoln said, in the Emancipation Proclamation, that he would free the slaves “within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,” on January 1, 1863 that was about slavery. Note specifically what it says, the slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not freed by this (in fact slaves in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia all had to wait for freedom) but more importantly any Confederate state that rejoined the Union by January 1, 1863 would also have been allowed to keep its slaves.

It is a very good thing, with respect to slavery, that Lincoln didn’t get his way because if he did than that would mean that as of January 1, 1863 all of the Confederate states would be a voting part of the Union again and thus to pass an amendment without their approval would require 33 states all voting for it. That would mean there would be 44 states total. There wouldn’t be enough states in existence to abolish slavery until Wyoming came along in 1890, and that is only if a) the four Union slave states voted for abolition, b) no new state voted against it.

If the Lincoln had had his way slavery would have existed for at least 25 years longer than it did, and Lincoln is the cause of the Civil war. Here in Maine the predominate feeling was, “Let them leave,” Maryland, though not wanting to join the Confederacy, was pushing for their recognition. This was not limited to states starting with M, for example Kentucky favored neutrality.

Lincoln caused the war, Lincoln was the one who pushed the Confederate hand at Fort Sumter, and Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves until he thought it was in his best interest, if the war had gone his way it never would have been in his best interest. It is only because the war went far enough away from his way that the Confederate states didn’t rejoin, but close enough to his way that the Confederates lost, that freed the slaves.

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

Monday, January 2, 2006 6:46 PM

SHINYTALENT

I'd be for the independence, I can't stand that overly ordered, overly polished and hygenic worlds of the core. Give me the dirt of the rim, or a life out in the black.

Also I get mighty ornery when people tell me that something doesn't exist when it's ravaged entire towns *cough_reavers_cough*

The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.

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

Monday, January 2, 2006 7:00 PM

KOMELION

I like Jayne's position.
"I didn't fight no war, best of luck though."

------
Well, here I am.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE