First caveat: I've only been on two Browncoat forums, so this is a VERY small sampling. That said: Pizmo mentioned in another thread when I said that p..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Browncoats and politics...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 18:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2189
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, November 2, 2009 7:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


First caveat: I've only been on two Browncoat forums, so this is a VERY small sampling. That said:

Pizmo mentioned in another thread when I said that probably all the right-wingers here were crowing at recent developments (like the New York 23rd):
Quote:

Unfortunately there aren't enough right wingers here really - it would probably make more threads degenerate more quickly, but I think it would still be worth it to hear what they have to say to balance the debate. (and not the ones that are just loopy and spiteful).
That got me thinking.

Yes, liberals outnumber conservatives here, and additionally we have other viewpoints as well. The other board I was on, the equivalent of RWE was all but "owned" by right wingers; anyone else was attacked vociferously and almost all they posted was pretty vicious anti-lib, anti-dem, anti-Obama, you name it. Only slightly less so than PN and a couple his equal, so you get the idea.

Here, others are in the majority and most of what I'd call "Republicans" (if I may be so bold as to include Conservatives, as that is the general use of the word) are about the same as what I saw there, "loopy and spiteful". Not to say the left-wingers aren't as well, and DEFINITELY not to say there aren't sensible views from the right, only limited to a couple of intelligent ones.

But beyond that, here I find actual "debates" of the issues--intelligent, reasoned, educated ones filled with, of course, the bickering, pretty much equal on both sides from what I see.

So, given that from my observation, the representation from the right on both forums was much more crazy; the representation from the left more tolerant (in that other sides are at least listened to and, when they make sense, usually debated).

I know I currently am a pretty staunch liberal, so some will say my view is overly subjective, but it makes me wonder. I know there has been craziness on the left in political history just as there has been from the right; but it seems to me that what I see "out here" in the real world exemplifies what I see on both forums, in the majority: craziness and alternative-universe beliefs and thinking.

Second caveat: I think, from what I observe, that Browncoats do tend to be anti-establishment (not surprising) in their views, and maybe forums represent the extremes of this.

What I got to wondering is this: Does Firefly attract a particular brand of right-wingers, fanatic, conspiracy-seeing, "loopy"; are right-wingers in general less tolerant and open to civil debate; is it the current mentality in the country; or is there another explanation?

I know the internet tends to attract people of extremes from all sides, and I don't go to political forums (for obvious reasons, from past experience!), nor have I ever been on another fan site. I tend to dismiss it as being just the internet, since I found reasonable, tolerant lefties both here and on the other site (tho' I didn't get to know those at the other site very well, as they were shouted down so consistently and I was driven out). So when Pizmo mentioned that, it got me to wondering.

Any suggestions?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Monday, November 2, 2009 2:16 PM

AG05


THIS right-winger is tired of arguingover the same thing again and again. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine, so why bother? Firefly kicks ass. Leave it at that.



Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, November 2, 2009 7:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


Firefly is pretty right wing for Joss, who is somewhat left wing like the media. It's libertarian as is he, and so that's an obvious bent.

Liberals are not more tolerant. It's about the same. A few people will listen to the other side, most will just reject. We used to have a lot more Rush Limbaugh types here, but they've faded over the last couple years.

At the moment I'd politically identify with the Tories as the best political party around, I have no use for the republicans. The whole thing in Watertown is doing a lot of damage to any respect I had left for the party, and FOX is also committing suicide. I thought they would be the useful critique of democratic abuses of power that was so badly needed during the Clinton years.

I tend to restrain from making too many political points, every once in a while I do, that's usually a sign that someone has ticked me off.

In general, politics is a waste of time. If you want to communicate on the topic, it's best to take as much of a neutral centrist position as possible.

I hold a lot of right wing positions, particularly on social values and economics, I hold a lot of libertarian positions, and a few positions that might be left or right depending on where you are. I'm pretty strongly environmentalist, which is left in the US and right in the UK, and anti-globalist, which is right wing in most of the world, probably just anti-establishment here, i'm pro-peace, which is left here, mostly. Lately I've reconsidered a position and decided in favor of gay marriage. That's a left wing position, but here i'd say civil liberties trump my overall conservatism. I'd support frem's children's rights ideas, but that doesn't hit left or right. The right wing ideas that i'd disagree with, i don't support the death penalty, i think it's a violation of RTL, but in general, I fall right of center. I took an online test that asked 100 questions and I came out as a 75 on a 1=left to 100=right. McCain is 88, Inhoffe is 99. I think this puts me somewhere around Lugar

overall, you're going to see a lot of liberalism in the US after a bad conservative govt., just like there was a lot of conservatism after Clinton. If obama wrecks things, it might swing back the other way

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

Monday, November 2, 2009 7:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


Firefly is pretty right wing for Joss, who is somewhat left wing like the media. It's libertarian as is he, and so that's an obvious bent.

Liberals are not more tolerant. It's about the same. A few people will listen to the other side, most will just reject. We used to have a lot more Rush Limbaugh types here, but they've faded over the last couple years.

At the moment I'd politically identify with the Tories as the best political party around, I have no use for the republicans. The whole thing in Watertown is doing a lot of damage to any respect I had left for the party, and FOX is also committing suicide. I thought they would be the useful critique of democratic abuses of power that was so badly needed during the Clinton years.

I tend to restrain from making too many political points, every once in a while I do, that's usually a sign that someone has ticked me off.

In general, politics is a waste of time. If you want to communicate on the topic, it's best to take as much of a neutral centrist position as possible.

I hold a lot of right wing positions, particularly on social values and economics, I hold a lot of libertarian positions, and a few positions that might be left or right depending on where you are. I'm pretty strongly environmentalist, which is left in the US and right in the UK, and anti-globalist, which is right wing in most of the world, probably just anti-establishment here, i'm pro-peace, which is left here, mostly. Lately I've reconsidered a position and decided in favor of gay marriage. That's a left wing position, but here i'd say civil liberties trump my overall conservatism. I'd support frem's children's rights ideas, but that doesn't hit left or right. The right wing ideas that i'd disagree with, i don't support the death penalty, i think it's a violation of RTL, but in general, I fall right of center. I took an online test that asked 100 questions and I came out as a 75 on a 1=left to 100=right. McCain is 88, Inhoffe is 99. I think this puts me somewhere around Lugar

overall, you're going to see a lot of liberalism in the US after a bad conservative govt., just like there was a lot of conservatism after Clinton. If obama wrecks things, it might swing back the other way

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

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:48 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, I wasn't thinking of you, right or left. You fell into the
Quote:

DEFINITELY not to say there aren't sensible views from the right
(OR left) category to me when I was typing it.

AGO, if you're sick of arguing about it, why did you bother to post a response? Seems more logical to let the thread disappear down the line to me. Just sayin'.



________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:24 AM

AG05


Niki, you asked a question regarding the mindset of the right leanin members of this board. It was asked with no malicious intent that I know of. It seemed like an honest question, and I thought you deserved an honest answer.


Dammit, there I went and did it again!!

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:33 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Like I said....

And just to get ahead I'm going to call the next poster a complete JERK before they even post!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:42 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


And just to get ahead I'm going to call the next poster a complete JERK before they even post!



Kinda the reverse of that other thread that's running--- the next person who posts here would be a complete *L*O*S*E*R*-- :<)


" OH, wait, that'd be me...."

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:54 AM

DREAMTROVE


Nik

part of what you're seeing is that the people who make the most noise about partisan issues are the most partisan. I've noticed that any crowd can sound like a left/right wing mafia, but get the people individually, and they will mostly back off, or you realize that they were keeping quiet. There will alway be a few who just stick to their guns.

These people end up in charge of political groups. This is because groups select them for
1) loyalty
2) assertiveness
They need someone who can shepherd the flock, but will never themselves stray.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 8:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


AG, you seem pretty certain that you're not going to change any minds here. Most of us don't share your certainty, or we wouldn't be here discussing these things.

Granted, if someone is so firmly entrenched in their positions that they're unwilling to discuss the issues, then I'm probably NOT going to change their mind (unless I hit them in the head with a cinderblock and change it into mush, of course), but it seems to me that being closed-minded isn't exactly something to be PROUD of or to go bragging about.

I have actually SEEN minds changed here. I've witnessed it, so I know for a fact that it can and does happen.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:18 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have actually SEEN minds changed here. I've witnessed it, so I know for a fact that it can and does happen.


Mostly when they admit I'm right...maybe not in words, but in their hearts and minds they know I am correct and liberalism is wrong for America and the world.

I see a fair amount of good arguments on this board from both sides. I prefer a nice discussion of issues and an honost disagreement.

I also get attacked pretty regular for stating my opinion.

Here are two examples. Sarah Palin and Barrack Obama (aside from the stupid birther arguments). I challenge Obama and support Palin based upon their political positions and actions. Support for Obama on this board is highly emotional and Palin is most often attacked on personal grounds. Same with Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck.

I find the left, both here and elsewhere, have very little substence to their arguments. Failing a substantive discussion of the issues, well aware that the arguments were lost decades ago, they fall back on the 'Republicans are stupid' argument in all its variations.

I don't think liberals are stupid. I think they fall into catagories. These include, but are not limited to: True believers like Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and maybe Barrack Obama. Posers like Hillary Clinton and maybe Barrack Obama. Blue Collars, the rank and file union types who believe in labor ideals AND family issues (often with conservative leanings...aka Reagan Democrats). Radicals, like ACORN, "Meat is murder" types, anarchists, peace protesters, Cindy Sheehan, and maybe Barrack Obama (certainly some of his staff).

I've found you can have good discussions with the True Believers and Blue Collars. Posers and Radical will attack you personally, Posers to stifle political challenge, Radicals to stifle dissent and further their radical agenda.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:35 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

I find the left, both here and elsewhere, have very little substence to their arguments. Failing a substantive discussion of the issues, well aware that the arguments were lost decades ago, they fall back on the 'Republicans are stupid' argument in all its variations.



You start all reasonable-like, then go off the rails right there. Pity.

Pretending all arguments were laid to rest decades ago is ridiculous. Pretending that the only substantial arguments are on the right is equally fallacious. And attacks from the right are just as emotional and personality driven. You should at least try to remove your blinders.




"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You should have seen the board before. It was more... interesting.

Firefly attracts people from all compass points of the political spectrum because of its many facets: The

Independents revolutionary theme appeals to southerners.

Anti-governmentalism appeals to Libertarians.

Gun-slinging machomen/ women appeals to nascent fascists.

Acknowledgement of social/ economic injustice and focus on "the little guy" appeals to liberals and radicals.

I have no idea why Hero and Auraptor watched the show! (Sorry guys, just had to dig you in the ribs a little.)

Like all great shows (and I mean great, not good) it is complex and full of contradictions, like life. Characters and events defy easy categorization, nothing that is purely "good" or "bad" about anything or anybody.

And that's why I like coming here. Most websites winnow down to a narrow viewpoint; this is one of the few places where I feel I can meet and talk to people who have vastly different backgrounds, "life lessons", responses, assumptions and beliefs.

Some of the more authoritarian-minded peeps (Limbaugh dittoheads for example) have left. Alas, some of the independent-minded conservatives like Finn have left, and some of the wild-eyed radicals like Ghoulman have left, and the board is poorer for it.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:45 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I have no idea why Hero and Auraptor watched the show! (Sorry guys, just had to dig you in the ribs a little.)


It was one of the most conservative shows on TV. Mal, the crew, Serenity, even the black all represent different aspects of conservative values.

In short they are folk trying to get by and do the right thing, even if that means being on the wrong side of history.

It follows my firm belief that right and wrong are not subjective. As a lawyer I am bound to follow the law. As a student of the law I am reminded that there once was a principal of law known as Equity that was as powerful as the black letter words we all hold so dear. Equity...making things right.

Thats what I try to do. I've taken a position that puts me in the place to seek justice, but also to protect it, which is why occaisonally, without trumpets and press releases I'll dismiss a case even when the law is on my side. That's why I almost always win...even when I lose.

This week I had a laby who hit a parked car and drove off. She was charged with improper backing (minor misdemeanor), but not the Hit Skip (Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree...6 months in jail). She got a break...then skipped out on court for two years. She shows up and demands an immediate trial. Screams at me, screams at the Magistrate, its my fault her kids are cold and hungry, etc. I dismissed her case...then had her charged with the Hit Skip and arrested, high cash bond (cause she don't come to court). Felt good to do what's right and I can still hear the screams (especially if I walk through the PD by the holding cells).

Then I had a fella got a driving under suspension for not paying a court fee ($15). He admitted he was guilty and was willing to plead. He paid his court fee, I dismissed the case, he keeps his license and his new job. Nice fella, shook my hand and was on his way.

I watched it cause Mal kissed his cross in the first episode then that look on his face when the world fell in on them after his big damn heroics a few minutes later. Watched cause Inara blessed the Shephard, Wash was a leaf on the wind, Kaylee made the ship go (and strawberries), and Jane didn't want anybody to find out what he did. River can kill us all (with her mind or her bare feet) and Book can save our souls (with scary hair). And everybody loves a warrior woman. Never cared for the Doctor...cept when he talks about River, I have a sister too...and once in a while I jab the bad guy with a sword when I don't have to because we can't always be nice and shiny. Good show.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

This week I had a laby who hit a parked car and drove off. She was charged with improper backing (minor misdemeanor), but not the Hit Skip (Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree...6 months in jail). She got a break...then skipped out on court for two years. She shows up and demands an immediate trial. Screams at me, screams at the Magistrate, its my fault her kids are cold and hungry, etc. I dismissed her case...then had her charged with the Hit Skip and arrested, high cash bond (cause she don't come to court). Felt good to do what's right and I can still hear the screams (especially if I walk through the PD by the holding cells).


...

Okay, so she was a bitch. But you sure that the right thing to do was to make the worst case scenario she was screaming about the scenario she's actually living? What happened to the kids?

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:12 AM

STORYMARK


Sounds more like Hero was interested in "getting even" rather than "equity".

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:52 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Sounds more like Hero was interested in "getting even" rather than "equity".


She got a break, skipped court for two years, then was abusive to me and the court staff. She got what she deserved. Getting even is a bonus.

Turns out the kids are fine.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:19 PM

BYTEMITE


I'm curious about the particulars. Generally speaking, a person has the right to defend themselves in court (and should), but yelling at people who are more than willing to hand your ass to you is not the most sound legal strategy...

My second question is, she crazy? Or maybe this was some kind of stress-related blow up?

Or maybe it's like when Frem got dragged to court a month ago despite not being in good health, which put him in a bad mood.

I'm not quite prepared to say what this woman should and shouldn't have been charged with, or what she deserves, but at least the kids are okay.

And I guess technically, she did hit and skip... Maybe? What's the letter of the law say? Is it you have to stay at the scene no matter how minor the damage to the car, or trade insurance, or... what? Seems to me like there should be some lower limit, or you could be fined or charged for accidentally dinging a car door in a parking lot.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I had to jump in here, even though I'm not a regular poster on these boards - but I have posted over at Serenity Boards for many years.

Firefly/Serenity were made in interesting times, politically and the shows attracted people with a wide range of political views, who were surprised when they posted at the politics of each other. In the beginning, emotions ran high - people were very passionate about things like the Iraq war and Dubya - those passions seem to have died down in recent years, or people are tired of the same old discussions.

For what it's worth - Firefly is not a show which holds up conservative values - that's much too simplistic. People find different things to admire in the show - conservate values per se are not strong in the show - but here's how I saw the politics.

Libertarian - 'leave people alone to look after themselves - don't interfere' a sentiment Mal often makes, anti big government
Liberalism - support for the underdog and the lowly, those who need help should get it, 'liberal' values towards sex, particularly prostitution, anti corporation - ie'blue sun'
Feminism - women have power over their own lives and bodies, are capable and strong, can choose military careers, prostitution is an respectable profession
Atheism - Mal's views
Pro gun - look after yourself, no one else will protect you, if someone shoots you, you shoot them back
Anti authority - do what you can to survive, don't worry about laws, belief in 'natural' justice and moral codes


And the list goes on. There was something for everyone, but perhaps what united fans was that appeal to the rebel in all of us.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Remember that "Hero" works for the same criminal cabal of the "justice" system which I constantly and consistently out for the criminal syndicate that it is - and being a willing and gleeful participant and servant of that system, one might certainly question his credibility given the deluge of half-truth and falsehoods that is typical of that system and it's members.

See Also: More Phony Terrorism thread for an excellent example of such bovine excrement shovelling, and just how quickly it falls apart on close inspection.

There's also good cause to suspect the motives of anyone who cheerfully crows about the results of a system so rigged in their favor that no actual effort on their part is required, which is known to regularly convict the innocent.

Ergo, I'd be taking anything he says with a pretty substantial serving of salt, were I you.

That said...

Politically, I don't have a conventional "side" other than folks learning that they don't need someone standing over them offering threats in order to live their lives - that being human is about embracing your humanity, instead of rejecting it in favor of a social and political dynamic that is ultimately self-destructive.

Mostly though, I want people to think, rather than obey - this makes me a natural adversary of anyone who wants the reverse.

"Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
-Philip Pullman.

And that's really what it boils down to, people.
I know what side I am on - but do you ?

-Frem

There must always be a price.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 1:09 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

She got a break, skipped court for two years, then was abusive to me and the court staff. She got what she deserved. Getting even is a bonus.




Just pointing out that for all your talk of equity and right v wrong - you made your call cause she was rude to YOU. It wasn't about equity or even the law - you made it about you.

I can't really blame you - she sounds like a bitch. I might have done the same - but I'm not trying to present myself as above petty personal issues while adhering to "equity".


The fact that you don't see the contradiction in that post is pretty damned funny.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:05 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

People find different things to admire in the show - conservate values per se are not strong in the show - but here's how I saw the politics.

Atheism - Mal's views


Sorry, but I have to correct you on that one. Mal was not an atheist, he was just mad at God for abandoning him and the other Independents in what he considered a just and noble cause.

Joss is an atheist, no denying, but not Mal.




wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I got that he had done with religion and god - he was mad, and I took it that he no longer believed - he certainly did not tolerate the overt practice of religion on his ship.

But I guess that's another example of people reading what they want into the show - a great strength.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


MAGONSDAUGHTER,

mostly agreed, the show took a strong anti-authoritarian stance, and strong libertarian. All I would add was that in doing so, it was on occasion very liberal or very conservative.

Hero is probably correct in saying that the show was the most conservative show on the air, but it's not much of a competition. The usual media drama range is socialist to democrat.

I'd say the conservative streak that I'd support: The show is very faith-based, very value-based, and strongly supports individualism and the rights of any colony to be independent, against the unification of a single authority, as an opposition to "the alliance" a curious name to choose for an enemy, but this is anti-big govt.

I get that these choices were made for libertarian reasons, rather than conservative ones, and it would just as quickly support gay rights or any of a number of liberal issues.

There is one point on the side of the right, and why conservatives might be more likely to flock to the show: Almost all of the left-wing points of view of the show would be supported by a large number of shows on the air. Conservative points would find little support elsewhere. If you believe in the power of faith, say, and are not a christian, there's not a lot of TV which is going to speak to that. etc.

Myself, I watched it because it was Joss. I liked Farscape a lot, and Cowboy Bebop, and this was along those lines, and I'm a big fan of Buffy. That said, Joss alone doesn't do it for me. I was very disappointed by Dollhouse, I found Angel very hit or miss.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MAGONSDAUGHTER,
The show is very faith-based, very value-based, and strongly supports individualism and the rights of any colony to be independent, against the unification of a single authority, as an opposition to "the alliance" a curious name to choose for an enemy, but this is anti-big govt.


re faith based - different characters had different views - really only the Shepherd was a true follower, and you got the feeling that - although his faith was real, his role as a Shepherd was a front or an escape from something - a bit like Mal turning his back on religion.

To say that being value based is a conservative trait is not correct either - it's just that conservatives have conservative values.

I don't see much conservatism is the series, but I get that others do - I might also point out that I might hold different views on what constitutes a conservative - which to me means 'holding traditional values - opposed to change'


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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yeah, I get more than a little tired of the implication that liberals have no values, or that their lives can't be "value-based", just because they have DIFFERENT values than "conservatives" allegedly do. And what the hell ARE those "conservative" values, anyway?

I find Mal & Crew refreshingly liberal in their views. They're exercising their personal freedoms and flaunting them in the face of an overreaching militaristic fascistic government.

So it seems like no matter what your political leanings, everybody can still find something to identify with in Firefly. The show is a mirror - it shows us what we expect to see.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


A little like the implication that atheists have no morals - or are responsible for the moral decline of society.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:12 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Just pointing out that for all your talk of equity and right v wrong - you made your call cause she was rude to YOU. It wasn't about equity or even the law - you made it about you.


I walked in prepared to give her a huge break. She never let me speak. She exploded immediately and to such extent that Court security was called by the Judge's secretary.

I let her vent for five minutes (I let people vent, it helps them). I was unable to make my offer (dismissal with court costs).

She demanded an immediate trial, which was her right. I was, because of a two year delay, unable to produce witnesses at that hearing (I had a week between when she came in and the trial date). Rather then go to the trouble tracking folks down and such for a small issue I was prepared to offer her a dismissal if she paid the court costs. Since the costs her fault, I felt this was fair.

So we went to see the Magistrate and she yelled at him when he called the case...it turned into a screaming fit.

At that point I decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice and instructed my Officer to refile it as a Hit Skip. I have since located my witnesses and the victim. He was out money from the damages, he deserves justice too.

After the Magistrate granted my motion she exploded again and succeeded in nearly having herself jailed on contempt charges. He had her escorted from the building.

No, she was not crazy. Just out of control, blaming the world for her inability to take care of her business. To her benefit she is now represented by the Public Defender and will likely accept the deal I will offer, plea to the original charge (Improper Backing) pay a small fine ($50), court costs from both cases, and restitution for the victim. Ironically the random draw puts her back in front of the same Magistrate.

This is not punishment for her demand for trial...heck, I love trials. Its an understanding that BOTH sides have that right. If she chooses to maintain a not guilty plea the State has the right to a timely trial to prove her guilt. I had the right to try this case when it was originally scheduled, when my witnesses were present and ready (I checked, I had three people and an Officer).

All she had to do was show up on time...not two years late. Then all she had to do was show a little reason and civility, she chose not to. Its pretty much all on her.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:26 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Sheeple dogs for the NWO slaughterhouse

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

I know I currently am a pretty staunch liberal



Operatives use the tactic of divide and conquer. Your sith mind tricks won't work here.

Communism (Democratic Party) and fascisim (Republican Party) are both kosher socialism (British Empire owned by kosher Rothschild banksters).

Patriots are libertarian constitutionalists. Everyone else is guilty of treason.

Under US Code, the punishment for treason is death.

Quote:

18 US Code ยง 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.



Capt Malcolm Reynolds BTW shot a cop in the head and waged civil war. He's a BDH. He's a Deist like the Founding Fathers (God made the universe then went on holiday, so get off your ass and watch your back).

Now go wave your Commie flag, so we can see you more clearly from a distance.


Red Chinese flag flies near White House
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110583




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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:32 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Also a lot of very strange people who were into insane conspiracy theories tended to be attracted to Firefly - I think it was the whole River/Blue Sun subplot

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

This week I had a laby who hit a parked car and drove off. She was charged with improper backing (minor misdemeanor), but not the Hit Skip (Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree...6 months in jail). She got a break...then skipped out on court for two years. She shows up and demands an immediate trial. Screams at me, screams at the Magistrate, its my fault her kids are cold and hungry, etc. I dismissed her case...then had her charged with the Hit Skip and arrested, high cash bond (cause she don't come to court). Felt good to do what's right and I can still hear the screams (especially if I walk through the PD by the holding cells).

Then I had a fella got a driving under suspension for not paying a court fee ($15). He admitted he was guilty and was willing to plead. He paid his court fee, I dismissed the case, he keeps his license and his new job. Nice fella, shook my hand and was on his way.



"Lick my boots your damn scientist!" Sounds like the Brownshirt kid on the original V. He was cannibalized by his own alien reptiles (aka jews according to insane prosecutors of ADL's kosher hate laws of the British/Obama Empire), after an anonymous informant phoned in a false accusation. That's what happens without due process.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40673

No gubmit has authority to license driving (internal passport required by 6th Plank of Commie Manifesto), and no court has jurisdiction over traffic law. Anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of treason, according to US Supreme Court order. 75% of judges in USA lack a license to practice law (a crime), so how can they sentence you to jail for lack of license to drive?
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html


If somebody is injured by another driver, they have the right to sue in civil court for damages, no prosecutor nor traffic cops required at taxslave expense.


This is the future of National SOCIALISTS
www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 6:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Ironically the random draw puts her back in front of the same Magistrate.


Suurrreee it does.

The same way the "random" jury pool selection in certain districts results in an all-white jury pool despite them comprising less than 8% of the population demographic, yeahhhh.

And your slightly overblown, excessive emphasis in official doublespeak does kind of give you away, since that whole "screaming and cussing at me" bit is not only overdone, it's a standard-issue tactic used to discredit suspects, witnesses and victims of the systems abuse - cause when those accounts are cross compared with cruiser cam or internal surveillance tape those allegations usually fall apart right quickly, don't they ?

So lemme pose it to you in your own language.

"Would you like to revise your statement, sir ?"

-Frem

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:06 PM

DREAMTROVE


MAGONSDAUGHTER

"You don't have to believe what I believe, just believe in *something*."

I disagree with this definition:

Quote:

conservative - which to me means 'holding traditional values - opposed to change'


Conserve, to hold, preserve. Yes, this means values, but it also means resources. The negative slant on conservative would be 'stingy.'

Liberal is generous, therefore the opposite of conservative, and is about giving. Conservative opposition is that this giving requires using, and not conserving. The negative slant on liberal would be 'careless' or 'wasteful.'

This doesn't necessarily dictate a relationship to change, but it would indicate conservatives to be less prone to change, or at least, to rapid change.

Re: liberatarian ideals, either side could claim libertarian as rooted in their own ideology:

Liberals could say "we are being generous with the rights of the people"
Conservatives could say "we are conserving the rights of the people"

I support the Tories because they're consistently conservative, at least, far more so than the Republicans. They conserve resources, finances, the environment, civil liberties, sovereignty, etc.

I'm personally very conservative, and tend to support the underlying logic of conservatism. I abhor the use of credit, any centralization of power, or the universal assimilation of anyone. I have no use for public institutions in general, and am very concerned about all resources, personal, national, or global.

That doesn't mean that I support all positions of the conservative party. For instance, while I basically think that marriage should be about conserving the family, after watching several marriages fall apart because one member was gay, hence both unhappy, I decided there is no sense in forcing relationships which cannot hold, and gay people should marry gay people, if they so choose. I'm not the first conservative to ever support the position, and won't be the last. I suspect in time, everyone will support the position. Conservatives, I'll admit, are slower to change.

Certain 'conservative' positions make no sense to me, and perhaps are contradictory, it's just a matter of persistence of "packaged politics." Take the death penalty, for example. I can see the logic of Right to Life, as an issue of preservation of a natural order, and of a right, and harming no living thing is a religious belief for me, as a Taoist. But the death penalty seems to me to be completely contradictory to RTL, regardless of your ideological perspective. Even a judgmental old testament style christian who might argue "yes, you are born free of sin, but if you sin, you lose that god given right" or whatever, still would not hold up against the reality that the govt. is often wrong, and so random innocent people will be executed, a fundamental problem for RTL.

I think the left has similar contradictions in some of its positions. The liberal idea to give generously is coupled with a belief in equality. Towards this end, liberals usually believe in strong job growth. Yet the generosity dries up when it comes to small business, which creates the majority of all jobs, and is replaced with a taxation system that limits job creation. Of course, this is sold as "punishment to the rich" but the rich seem to do just fine, there are just fewer employees.

The driving factors behind such policies are pretty obvious: Conservatives think fear of a death penalty will reduce crime, and preserve social stability. Liberals think that in order to spend generously, they must tax heavily. Still, the positions are internally inconsistent. These are just a couple, I could easily pick out a dozen on either side.

Overall, I see the attraction of liberalism, in that I think it's more "well meaning" than conservatism, which could be seen as less "caring." I just think that it's a short sighted philosophy and doesn't yield long term stability.

An argument could be made that there's short term harm in some of these ideas: A liberal might say "let's help the poor, give them money" and a conservative might respond "but then the incentive will be to get the money. Let's help industry instead, so there will be fewer poor in the next generation," and then the liberal might say, "but people will suffer in the short term," and the conservative might say "but long term we might be buying into a welfare system we cannot afford" etc. etc. etc. But I don't think that the US has seen any liberals or conservatives in a while, so the argument is sort of moot.


Mike,

Conservative values are based on conservation, or conserving. Liberal values are based on generosity and caring. While Mal and his crew occasionally show the latter, they show a lot more of the former, IMHO. What they are trying to preserve is the society that they came from, against a supra-globalist entity trying to change it. They are not overly generous or caring to the masses, certainly not at the expense of available resources.


MAGONSDAUGHTER,

An atheist believes in no God. There is no God in Taoism.

River/Blue Sun was more than a subplot, but this represents corporatism, which is only supported by fascists. Logically, it would conflict with liberals, who are opposed to govt-corporate unions, whom they see as greedy, and not generous. Conservatives also oppose them as they see them as a centralization of power.

I think it was just a commentary on America's increase of corporate-govt. unions, which is not really theory, it's public reality. No one has ever taken the public position to my knowledge that this wasn't happening. The so called centrist govts. of democrats and republicans say that this is good for govt and good for business, but I've seen no evidence of it. Also, the fact that the idea was first floated by Benito Mussolini as one of the key tenets of Fascism proper, before it earned its bad name, also makes me vary wary of the idea.


Hero,

Personally, I liked Simon, he was one of my favorite characters. My favorite was River, because she was a very well done insane. Most shows can't do a decent lunatic. Adrian Monk is the only other one I can think of offhand.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Well I did say I probably have a different definition of conservative than you do, probably different on liberal as well. I think American definitions of those terms differ to take in a whole spectrum of beliefs that I don't see as fitting.

In a very general sense, conservative is about preservation and liberal is about embracing change. People may hold a whole swathe of beliefs and see themselves (or be perceived) as being one or another, but their beliefs or values are really something else.

The belief in preventing centralisation is a very American belief, for example. It says a lot about your history as a nation, but those beliefs are not intrinsically conservative, any more than gun laws - which vary on the political spectrum from country to country, individualism - most liberals embrace this view as well.

So speaking of conservative and liberal isn't all that helpful - serves me a lot better than Dem or republican - which both seem hellishly conservative to me.

Politically, I see myself as a liberal - but my views have changed as I get older - socially, I'm probably more conservative, seeing the value in traditionally family structures (which doesn't mean I believe in persecuting those who don't choose to live that way)

I believe in checks and balances on those in power should also include businesses and corporations. I believe in capitalism but with regulation and safety nets. I don't believe in the ultimate right of the individual, but that we need to compromise the wellbeing of the many with the needs of the individual - a challenge I admit. I support a woman's right to choose whether to carry her baby to term, and that people should be able to choose who to have sex with who they please as long as that person is an adult and consenting. I believe that kids do best when they grow up with a mother and father (preferably their own) but can manage and do okay with a number of loving, caring adults bringing them up- but that they should always be able to know who their real parents are. I don't believe that an individual's right to happiness means they can stuff up the lives of everyone around them, especially not their children or any children. I believe negotiation is better than war, that court is a very bad place to solve most disputes, the UN may be flawed, but it's still a worthy ideal.

So am I a liberal or a conservative? Or just weird.

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


By your definitions, D'rove, I can't think of a single conservative politician. The ones who supposedly want to "conserve" also tend to be the very ones leading the cheers of "Drill, baby, DRILL!" and handing out tax breaks on giant SUVs so that we can burn through whatever fossil fuels there are that much faster.

And as far as I can see, there isn't a single ACTUAL "conservative" supporting any of these people, either. You have your definition of Conservative, and what it means to you, but it seems it's been as sullied by its ill use by evil people as "fascist" was by Mussolini.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:08 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So lemme pose it to you in your own language.

"Would you like to revise your statement, sir ?"


Nope.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:18 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Certain 'conservative' positions make no sense to me,...


Thats because your getting to caught up in the word "conserve".

A political conservative does not mean the person wants to conserve everything anymore then hamburgers are made out of ham.

Conservative in the United States means someone who believes in a variety of political values including but not limited to strong defense, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, pro business, family values, and personal responsibility. Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).

Canadian Bacon is ham, not bacon.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Again, by Hero's definition, I can't think of a single "conservative" politician in this country who actually lives up to what they claim to believe.

So y'all are saying that the idea of a "conservative" is just something mythical and outdated in this country, eh? Have to agree with both of you on that one.

I'm still not clear on what your "family values" are. I mean, other than keeping homosexuality closeted, having multiple affairs while preaching monogamy, and the like. Just as hamburgers aren't made out of ham, apparently "family values" have little to do with either family OR values.



Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:14 AM

DREAMTROVE


MAGONSDAUGHTER,

My definition is etymological, but yes, there are usage differences as well. If people use the word "car" to refer to an automobile and not a carriage for long enough, and universally enough, then it becomes that. Not too long ago, it was a railroad carriage, but before that, it was undoubtedly a horse drawn one.

I don't think this has happened to conservative yet, or liberal, I think most people still use them on their core meaning. There are people like Hero, and some vocal TV personalities who support his definition, but since the Conservative Party US is less successful than the Green Party US, it's not really that defining.

I disagree about change. I think that liberals are very opposed to certain types of change. For instance, there was no liberal support here of any stripe for what was called "school choice" which called for equal funding for private education, vs public, and any parent to choose between the two.

This was a progressive change, but it was a decentralization and privatization, so they opposed it. I mean liberals, not just democrats.

Ironically, another change that was republican supported here was equal funding for black students vs white ones, a move opposed by some democrats. IIRC, it passed in the city, but not statewide. But in this instance I would agree that the republicans were being "liberal" because it was an issue of generosity and support for universal equality, not because it was "pro-black" and the opposition was just being entrenched and corrupt, because it had too much tie to unions and local govts. neither of which wanted to see cash flow out of their zones into someone else's.

But the point being, a change can be conservative. Teddy Roosevelt's "Forever Wild" program was definitely conservative, and yet a radical change in policy. Anything that say's "Let's stop this direction, so we can preserve what we have" is basically conservative, IMHO, whether it's resources or values.

Another such "change" was Newt Gingrich's idea of balanced budgets, PAYGO, and similar ideas. They were changes of longstanding policies in favor of conservation of financial resources. They were criticized for not being "generous." Ironically, Newt, who I think is quite conservative, supported the liberal republican in NY's 23rd, against the Conservative party candidate, supported by Sarah Palin. That resulted in a loss in a three way split I saw this morning

Off topic note: This is the power of showing up. Joe Biden showed up to support the democrat, but Sarah Palin did not show up to support the Conservative. It was so close that I suspect if she had, the Conservative would have won. She had a lot of support in the conservative 23rd.

Oh, small aside, Conservative is a political party, conservative is an ideology, in case anyone gets confused.

Both american parties do support centralisation, but there's not a lot of voter support for it on this scale. There is democratic/liberal voter support for centralizing services, such as our healthcare system, etc. The overall support I would hope is waning, not on this issue, but overall, as the US govt. proves itself incompetent perpetually.

Still, I'd refer back to Europe. Conservatives opposed the EU, liberals supported it. I humbly suggest that this was because they wanted to conserve sovereignty, and their way of life, rather than favor a more generous policy to share resources with former communist countries, or to share power with other nations of Europe, or with the EU council, who are more or less neocons.

Or political parties seem corrupt to me. I can't say they're either liberal or conservative. I think they're somewhat fascist. They support rule and reform by the means of force, tracking of all citizens, merger of corporation and state. I think that Mussolini would be very proud of both of our parties. American people are generally manipulated through minor divisive issues to voting for one or the other out of fear. Republicans usually use direct fear of some foreign enemy, Democrats usually use fear of Republicans, though either side will use the other's tactics.


To us, Australians seem very conservative. I suspect you identify with Labour from your UK days, but the actual perspective, everyone is probably a mix. I would say that I would identify both Mike and Frem as moderate conservatives, but liberal on some issues. Mike probably as a democrat and I'd guess Frem would vote third party if at all. I say this as opposed to people who I think of as solidly liberal here, like Rue, Sig and Niki. I'd say River is a conservative, fairly solidly, though not a the GOP's vision. I'd say Geezer is very conservative, more so than Hero, who I think is generally conservative, but much more republican than conservative. I'd also identify Byte as more conservative than Frem or Mike, probably pretty close politically to myself. I don't know what Wulf is, he doesn't state any ideological political positions. He supports gun control, but so does Mike, and as you said, it's not really a conservative issue, just one that the republicans have taken up. He also opposes black people. I don't think there's a party for that ;) (Again, Ironically, blacks are overwhelming democrats, but I'm not sure why. After being the Slavery/Klan party, I would think they would never get a black vote, just like they seldom get a native vote because of the indian removal act. I know that the GOP lost the black vote over the speed at which civil rights reforms took place. More irony: The republicans started the reforms under Eisenhower, but I would grant that they prefer slow change, and the Democrats came along with faster change. I suspect that this is more economic than political, blacks are lower income, and generous social programs benefit them more. Wealthy blacks are no more likely to be democrats than the general population.)

Quote:


So am I a liberal or a conservative? Or just weird.



That was a hodgepodge of beliefs, I'm going to have to go with weird

You fell to the left and the right of me all over the place, but you also fell mostly to the side. There were some more pro-govt, or pro-structured, less libertarian side, I find myself tending more 'Frem' anarchist. I guess that's partly the effect of the propaganda. I think there are subliminal messages in those posts.

A fair number of those positions are wedge issue ones, and probably holdovers. My belief in RTL is not political, it's religious, I don't actually figure it strongly into my political choices. Sure, if a Taoist ran for office, they'd get my support, but not per se, simply because my views would coincide more. In China, Taoism is considered the core of conservatism, vs. either Confuscianism or Communism, but in Korea, both Confuscius and Lao are on the right, and secularism and communism are both on the left, here, a lot of people might see Taoists as within the McGovern left. Overall, I'd say that Ron Paul is certainly no Taoist, but pretty close to my perspective on a fair number of issues. He would have been my first choice for president, but as he didn't run, I voted for Cynthia McKinney, who was my second. To most Americans, that would make no logical sense. (okay, so you supported a right wing nut and then when he lost the primary you went with the black third party candidate who was to the *left* of Obama? Okay sure, she's not a conservative, but most of her views on not wedge issues coincide with mine: she's environmentalist, anti-war, and very suspicious of govt. and centralization of power, and sure, would fall into a 'family values' set)

On family, I would say "old social structures" but definitely take Frem's point that the family is often a disaster, and shouldn't be revered by default. I tend to agree with his children's rights angle. If I tempered that at all, I would say I do see a lord of the flies situation, where unstructured society might foster youth gangs which in turn would be bad for other young people, like in the story that Wulf was so upset about.


Wulf, who didn't say anything, but speaking of which, Wulf, another thought: Try getting upset about about an issue on its own merits, and not use it for a soapbox for the same issues you have been making everything about. You might find a more receptive audience. If you get upset about the killing of dolphins by fishers or dogs by communists, you can do so without political slant (oh, and without a racial attack against the chinese on either.)


Mike,

There are a couple of conservatives, but not many. Looked at another way, there are precious few liberals in office as well. Do you see "generosity" spilling from the hearts of elected democrats towards anyone buy Goldman Sachs? Or to use the others' definitions posted here, do you see them rally to support "peace?" Do you see them embracing "change?" and being "progressive?"

I suspect there are in deed very few liberals in office as well.

As for the word "conservative"? Nonsense. The word has been used for many centuries and still is, all over the world. David Cameron will run in 2010 on the "Conservative" ticket, embodying pretty much all of my definition above, and probably become prime minister of the UK. We have to remember that the US is now a minority of the English speaking world, and Conservatives run all over the place for office. One was just defeated in Watertown, but no, none were elected here.

If Bush and co destroyed words, they were these:

Republican, he did a lot of damage to, it will be hard to recover.

Neocon is utterly destroyed. It won't appear again on the political landscape.


Hero

I disagree. You've defined "republican" today, and a republican's eye view of "democrat."

But it's still inaccurate. Historically, democrats are more in favor of a strong military. If you see this as a labor issue, govt., and public works, it makes sense on all fronts. And that's basically exactly what we got for most of 200 years.

The only "peace democrats" are the George McGovern crowd, who had almost no influence on politics, even their influence on Carter was questionable. Carter's election year state of the union address essentially promises to go to war with Iran if he's re-election. Maybe that's why he wasn't.

As Heinlein says: It's not your opponent that defeats you, it's your own side. McGovernites abandoned Carter in favor of third party anti-war candidate Anderson. Carter still blames Anderson for this, but I think that's unfair. The McGovern crowd was going to desert him if for someone, if he promised war.

But they proved to be around 7% which is probably a good overall average of the peace democrat contingent. Any democratic primary will reveal this, just like Dennis Kuccinich, Simon, various other candidates through the years, the peace candidates do poorly in most Dem primaries.

Progressive is a different word and a different perspective. The progressive party if you recall was third party conservative.

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 5:15 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

I'm still not clear on what your "family values" are. I mean, other than keeping homosexuality closeted, having multiple affairs while preaching monogamy, and the like. Just as hamburgers aren't made out of ham, apparently "family values" have little to do with either family OR values.



too funny.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 5:44 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Conservative in the United States means someone who believes in a variety of political values including but not limited to strong defense, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, pro business, family values, and personal responsibility. Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).



I've heard other conservatives mention these things and it always feels (and is obviously meant to) sound like these are things exclusive to Conservatives, like Liberals do NOT believe in Family Values or Strong Defense... typical conservative googlie talk.

Seems everyone has different definitions/associations with Liberal and Conservative, even within each group.

My Simplified view in terms of Firefly and the crew: Conservatives are the wealthy land owners (Magistrate Higgins, "I only make the people I own use my title"), the Power Brokers/Users (The Alliance ship in the pilot, "It's a Firefly class... they still make those?"), the country club set (Ash, "I own her.").
The crew are the poor and Liberals - by almost anyone's definition - have been the group that is most closely associate with the underfunded.

Anyone see Beck or Limbaugh welcomed onto Serenity?
I can see Ted Nugent and Jayne having long conversations though...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 5:53 AM

BYTEMITE


Dream, I agree in general with your definition of conservatives versus liberal, however I do think you may be OVERsimplifying all the political identities to fit them into versions of liberal and conservative that I find somewhat too broad.

Here's mine.

Liberals tend to rally around civil rights, establish some baseline equalities then let things run as they will. Socialists like social programs to fix things and often want to MAKE things equal. Conservatives, as you say, want to conserve, hold tight to traditions and values that they fear might otherwise be lost. Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians want to see less big government and are pro-business. Anarchists are anti-government and anti-big business, and are considered extremists because of drastic changes they'd like to see implemented in the socio-economic system.

Neocons have a number of similarity to the tenets of pro-corporatism, nationalism, and government supported economy that are involved in fascism. I don't think the comparison is unjustified. I would even call Neocons right-wing fascists.

Communists already have the nationalism and government supported economy. Increasingly, with the introduction of corporatism, communist nations such as China are becoming increasingly fascist. Though most communist governments actually end up being self-serving, in principle communist governments are intended to be a social program in of themselves, so I consider them left-wing fascists.

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 8:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Certain 'conservative' positions make no sense to me,...


Thats because your getting to caught up in the word "conserve".

A political conservative does not mean the person wants to conserve everything anymore then hamburgers are made out of ham.



Which has about as much to do with hamburgers as if you claimed that the city of Hamburg, Germany was made out of ham, or that frankfurters are made out of guys named Frank.

Quote:

Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).


So in effect you're saying that conservatives are anti-labor (they hate working people), anti-education, pro-war (what's the point of having a military if you're not bombing the fuck out of someone, right?), anti-progress, and against central planning (except for "homeland security", torture, warrantless wiretaps, and secret prisons).

Is that what you meant to say?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


DT, you list me as being "pro" gun control. I think you may not have as clear an understanding of me as you think. To me, "gun control" means hitting what you aim at, and the very best gun control is a steady hand.

I'd like to see RESPONSIBLE gun ownership given some priority, and along with it, some kind of tiered licensing system that would allow you to move up the ladder in what you're allowed to own.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 11:39 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,


I listed you as pro-gun control?!?!?

I don't think so, but maybe I was asleep at the wheel. I probably listed Frem as Dobson's protege and a CFR member, said Pirate News was Jewish and Wulf was a civil rights leader.


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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 11:42 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Wow, Im not even IN this thread and I get snarked.


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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:44 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ago: It was a straightforward question, not maliciously intended. Just what I have observed. But no, your answer does not suffice; you didn't bother to answer the question at all, just expressed your disgust.

DT
Quote:

These people end up in charge of political groups. This is because groups select them for
1) loyalty
2) assertiveness
They need someone who can shepherd the flock, but will never themselves stray.

I agree to a degree; but I don't think never straying comes into it, more that their straying goes unrecognized or instantly forgiven. Interestingly, isn't that just what was postulated by the "Authorities" author I posted long ago?

Hero, I suggest that your views are pretty skewed--from what I see, people who get attacked here are so because of HOW they write, not what they write; tho' in many cases I also see people attacked for stating flatly that something is "so" without any room for dissent, and for stating things so out of reality that it's impossible to respond except for with disdain. I do also see valid arguments attacked, but I don't see what you do.

Limbaugh and Beck are the worst kind of posers; what they do, they do for money, catering to an audience and doing so in the most radical ways possible, to the point of idiocy. I think attacking them is perfectly reasonable. Palin, if investigated carefully, is a joke and nothing more. Whatever she may espouse, it's not what she LIVES and quitting midterm to make money isn't something I admire.

Defining all the various types of beliefs is too complex for me, and since their power is represented by Democrats and Republicans, and those are the only two real choices people have to vote into power, I'll lump conservatives with Republicans and liberals with Democrats, and everyone else as following one or the other in practice.

As to liberals, you obviously leave no recognition for those of us who find value in liberal ideas and conservative ideas, but are not radicals to either side and are of a more liberal bent for a number of reasons. To say Joe Lieberman is a "true believer" goes a long ways to discount your view of liberals for me, as well. What you espouse is way too black and white, as compared to reality, in my view.

I'm with Sig and Magon in what I see here by way of values and "parties". I do agree, however, that Mal wasn't an atheist, he rejected religion CONSCIOUSLY (but I'd say not subconsciously) because he felt God abandoned him. As well, I see the Alliance as the "conservative" aspect of Firefly, in that they are the ones in power, representatives of big business,pro-military might, in favor of using labor with no regard to its quality of life, class based, and energetic in stifling dissent.

I also agree with Story, in that I see at least as many absurd arguments from the right as from the left, if not more. I'm not sure what you consider "substantive", but I'm pretty sure it's not what I consider it, nor even close.

I, too, wonder why some of the posters here watched the show...or CAME here, for that matter, but I would add PN at the top of the list. For Hero to say it was the most conservative show on TV blows my mind, and shows how differently people see things.

For me, your choice of name and signature, Hero, says a lot about you, as does what you write. I usually find you less offensive than the hard-corers, but pretty much as close-minded.
Quote:

Conservative in the United States means someone who believes in a variety of political values including but not limited to strong defense, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, pro business, family values, and personal responsibility. Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).
I have difficulty with this definition. From what I have seen, "strong defense" is more often "strong offense", "pro-military", and "pro-war" in the ACTIONS of the party that is considered "conservative". I have seen "low taxes" represented by "tax breaks for the rich", and would add "pro-business" behaves more like "pro-BIG business" and "anti-environment". As to "family values" and "personal responsiblity", I see those as being spoken far more than acted upon.

For liberals, I don't see them as "anti-military", but as "anti-IRRESPONSIBILE military" and "pro-communication" with other nations. I know tons and tons of liberals who PRACTICE family values (including many gays/lesbians/bis, who have a lower divorce rate), they're just not as loud about it, and I see "family values" in practice by those who consider it their core value as being more exclusive of anything not specifically what is considered "family values"--i.e., same-sex marriage, woman's right to choose--in fact I would say that what I have seen from the Conservative/Republican side in general is mostly exclusion, rather than inclusion. I also see a willingness to embrace violence in "defense" of those "family values" as more right than left, currently at least.

You also forgot "pro-religion", which I've seen practiced more as "pro-religious power" and again exclusive, not inclusive. I would also add that one of the core values of liberalism is tolerance (of "others", not necessarily of other political views), as opposed to the intolerance I see all too often on the right.

As far as Republicans being conservative and Democrats being liberal, I don't think either party truly embodies the values of conservative/liberal as we accept them, tho' each party is viewed as holding said values. There's a big difference, to me, beyond the "values" ESPOUSED and those values PRACTICED. Doesn't do much good to say "my values are such-and-such" when actions belie the words.

All the other viewpoints I will leave to others; in our country as it is right now, things are pretty much divided and conservative means Republican, liberal means Democrat. No other political viewpoint is represented and until one is, that's pretty much the divide.

By the way, buddhism has no "god" either; that doesn't make us atheists except by the definition of believing in a personal, specific entity. We do believe in a force beyond ourselves, just not an individual to which we bow and from which we expect judgment.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:24 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,


I listed you as pro-gun control?!?!?

I don't think so, but maybe I was asleep at the wheel. I probably listed Frem as Dobson's protege and a CFR member, said Pirate News was Jewish and Wulf was a civil rights leader.




Believe it or not, you really did. I thought it was a bit jarring myself, because you included Wulf as well. And Wulf may be many, many things when it comes to guns, but "control" isn't a word I'd use in association with him.

Relax, Wulf; I'm just snarking you a bit more for pointing out that you got snarked via drive-by in this thread!

Quote:

Posted by DreamTrove:

[emphasis added is mine, and I quoted the whole section just for the sake of context.]

To us, Australians seem very conservative. I suspect you identify with Labour from your UK days, but the actual perspective, everyone is probably a mix. I would say that I would identify both Mike and Frem as moderate conservatives, but liberal on some issues. Mike probably as a democrat and I'd guess Frem would vote third party if at all. I say this as opposed to people who I think of as solidly liberal here, like Rue, Sig and Niki. I'd say River is a conservative, fairly solidly, though not a the GOP's vision. I'd say Geezer is very conservative, more so than Hero, who I think is generally conservative, but much more republican than conservative. I'd also identify Byte as more conservative than Frem or Mike, probably pretty close politically to myself. I don't know what Wulf is, he doesn't state any ideological political positions. He supports gun control, but so does Mike, and as you said, it's not really a conservative issue, just one that the republicans have taken up. He also opposes black people. I don't think there's a party for that ;) (Again, Ironically, blacks are overwhelming democrats, but I'm not sure why. After being the Slavery/Klan party, I would think they would never get a black vote, just like they seldom get a native vote because of the indian removal act. I know that the GOP lost the black vote over the speed at which civil rights reforms took place. More irony: The republicans started the reforms under Eisenhower, but I would grant that they prefer slow change, and the Democrats came along with faster change. I suspect that this is more economic than political, blacks are lower income, and generous social programs benefit them more. Wealthy blacks are no more likely to be democrats than the general population.)



I'm not offended or anything, it just threw me a bit. I was like, "Whoa - who's the 'Mike' guy he's talking about?" And then I saw Wulf's name in there as well, and I was REALLY wondering what posts you'd been reading!

Anyhoo, no worries at all. You and I have no problems, just minor quibbles about a few things. We're in agreement on far more than we disagree about; just thought I should point that out, since we seem to be disagreeing more lately than usual, at least on things political.


Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I also agree with Story, in that I see at least as many absurd arguments from the right as from the left, if not more. I'm not sure what you consider "substantive", but I'm pretty sure it's not what I consider it, nor even close.



Well, what passes for "substantive" debate among the "conservatives" I've heard basically amounts to Limbaugh referring to Obama as "boy", saying that it doesn't matter whether Obama actually WROTE the fictional hoax thesis that Limbaugh quoted for more than half his show because Limbaugh knows that Obama actually THINKS it, and Beck saying that Obama hates white people. But you know, as long as they're just attacking him on "the issues", and not attacking him personally, it's all good. :)



Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

To us, Australians seem very conservative. I suspect you identify with Labour from your UK days, but the actual perspective, everyone is probably a mix.

Actually, most Australians would be considered well left of your centre - regardless of what political party they support. To us the American right (neo con) seems very, very far right and libertarians seem a bit crazy.

As a nation, we did drift more towards the right after 9/11.

My point was - most people have a hotchpotch of views like mine - we don't sign a creed of beliefs at 18 (do we?) trying to polarise them one way or another is really counterproductive.

I did say that my definitions of liberal and conservative were basic definitions. I pretty much agree with Bytemite's definitions

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
How psychopaths control society, and why we don't do anything about it
Sun, December 21, 2014 16:39 - 54 posts
2 NYC cops assassinated in retribution for Brown and Garner deaths.
Sun, December 21, 2014 15:24 - 13 posts
No war on women - GOP goes to war WITH women, and WINS !!!!
Sun, December 21, 2014 08:16 - 5 posts
McCulloch Responds to Criticism
Sun, December 21, 2014 08:14 - 11 posts
ICYMI - Mars 'may' actually have life !
Sun, December 21, 2014 00:18 - 5 posts
Sydney Siege
Sun, December 21, 2014 00:08 - 57 posts
US Cuban Embargo Ends
Sat, December 20, 2014 23:42 - 13 posts
The predictions thread
Sat, December 20, 2014 21:20 - 300 posts
Tooday's Collegium Gradutates
Sat, December 20, 2014 17:56 - 35 posts
Ferguson
Sat, December 20, 2014 16:20 - 127 posts
Greece may reject austerity; does a Grexit follow?
Sat, December 20, 2014 15:42 - 3 posts
We tortured some folks
Sat, December 20, 2014 14:38 - 126 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS