"Final Cut" - BSG realism utterly destroyed
Louis
“With good reason Maim."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with ‘progressive thinking’
that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
they in the same situation.
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in the Colonials position would
be doing anything but kissing the feet of the military, who have thus
far been their salvation. The government, the media, the elections, are
all moronic distractions, and I don’t think rational people would be
worrying about “elections” when a Cylon Basestar could be jumping onto
them at any moment. They would be supporting their military, not trying
to undermine them.
Martial law, under the military, would be the only way the Colonials
would survive. BSG is a show, and the writers can present the situation
any way they wish. They can write in elections, a prophet president, and
anything else they want, and make the Colonials prevail in the end…
because they are the writers and this is a television show. But were
this real life, and you think the Colonials would survive were they not
under military martial law, then you are gravely mistaken. They would
have been dead already.
Unless of course, you had giant walking machines, that although they
could run, jump, and scale walls perfectly, they can not shoot a single
person, even though they have the advantage of high ground, and
overwhelming firepower. 8)
--
Sincerely,
Louis
GoingNova
Site Administrator BashAnything.com
Complain - Vent - Debate
BashAnything.com
Skinky
Still, Cylon babes rule!
--
" When people don't want to play the blame game? They're to blame."
- Jon Stewart
Bozo the Evil Klown
Louis wrote:
> "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
>
> "With good reason Maim."
>
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
> I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
> BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with 'progressive thinking'
> that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
> themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
> they in the same situation.
>
Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
thought.
> I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in the Colonials position would
> be doing anything but kissing the feet of the military, who have thus
> far been their salvation. The government, the media, the elections, are
> all moronic distractions, and I don't think rational people would be
> worrying about "elections" when a Cylon Basestar could be jumping onto
> them at any moment. They would be supporting their military, not trying
> to undermine them.
>
How much of the general population in real life grok that it's the boys
and girls in uniform, *not* a piece of parchment in a museum, that
protects the rights we take for granted?
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
OZ: So... do you guys steal weapons from the Army a lot?
WILLOW: Well, we don't get cable, so we have to make our own fun.
Jason McNorton
Evilk...@aol.com says...
>
> Louis wrote:
> > "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
> >
> > "With good reason Maim."
> >
> > ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
> > I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
> > BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with 'progressive thinking'
> > that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
> > themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
> > they in the same situation.
> >
>
>
> Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
> knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
> thought.
I'm conflicted. You'd think they'd be more gracious to the military for
defending them after the cylon attacks, but then again look at the
leftwing of American politics since 9/11. A fair amount of peacenik
insanity has propagated.
I am optimistic that the BSG writers will keep the militaristic survival
approach as the better idea and the goodie two-shoes types will end up
getting slammed.
D. North
news:MPG.1d8c273b7...@news-40.giganews.com...
>> Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
>> knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
>> thought.
>
> I'm conflicted. You'd think they'd be more gracious to the military for
> defending them after the cylon attacks, but then again look at the
> leftwing of American politics since 9/11. A fair amount of peacenik
> insanity has propagated.
>
> I am optimistic that the BSG writers will keep the militaristic survival
> approach as the better idea and the goodie two-shoes types will end up
> getting slammed.
Nah, they're not going for the militaristic survival approach. Roslyn
represents the loopy left just as Tigh represents the nutjob right.
Adama is a "Warrior poet". He's very clear that the purpose of the military
is to serve society, not lead it.
Thomas Smith
> Evilk...@aol.com says...
> >
> > Louis wrote:
> > > "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
> > >
> > > "With good reason Maim."
> > >
> > > ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been
dead!
> > > I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the
new
> > > BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with 'progressive thinking'
> > > that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
> > > themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would,
were
> > > they in the same situation.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
> > knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
> > thought.
>
> I'm conflicted. You'd think they'd be more gracious to the military for
> defending them after the cylon attacks, but then again look at the
> leftwing of American politics since 9/11. A fair amount of peacenik
> insanity has propagated.
>
While the overwhelming majority of Americans supported our actions in
Afganistan immediately after 9/11, that support started to wear away when we
invaded Iraq, and now a majority of Americans think invading Iraq was a
mistake because of the increasing death toll with no perception of progress
being made. If Americans today were aksed to ration their fuel or food for
the war effort, like we were asked to do during World War II, I am confident
you would see riots in the streets that would make the 1968 Chicago riots
look like a garden party. I also want to point out that we have been
chasing down an elderly, infirm cleric longer than it took us to defeat the
combined military resources of Germany and Japan in open warfare.
In the BSG context, the civilian freighters were being ordered to give
supplies to the military, which the civilians thought they desperately
needed. Dividing up very limited resources between military and civilian
uses is always difficult, which is compounded greatly in a time of war.
> I am optimistic that the BSG writers will keep the militaristic survival
> approach as the better idea and the goodie two-shoes types will end up
> getting slammed.
Comparing the current war effort in Iraq with the situation as portrayed in
BSG is completely idiotic. The Colonial forces on BSG are fleeing from a
genocidal enemy while the United States initiated conflict in Iraq with
honorable intentions initially, but based on what turned out to be faulty
intelligence.
--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.
Jason McNorton
thomas....@worldnet.att.net-NO-SPAM says...
If we had the media then, that we do today, D-day would likely have
never happened. And if it did, with all the casualties it would've been
seen as a hopeless case and we'd have given up.
People now are just a bit too.. I dunno what's wrong with it all.
> In the BSG context, the civilian freighters were being ordered to give
> supplies to the military, which the civilians thought they desperately
> needed. Dividing up very limited resources between military and civilian
> uses is always difficult, which is compounded greatly in a time of war.
The BSG balance of things is handled fairly well, I'm impressed with it.
> > I am optimistic that the BSG writers will keep the militaristic survival
> > approach as the better idea and the goodie two-shoes types will end up
> > getting slammed.
>
> Comparing the current war effort in Iraq with the situation as portrayed in
> BSG is completely idiotic. The Colonial forces on BSG are fleeing from a
> genocidal enemy while the United States initiated conflict in Iraq with
> honorable intentions initially, but based on what turned out to be faulty
> intelligence.
I wasn't comparing them directly, I was talking about the far more broad
civilization conflict that the Iraq war represents. It's just a small
part of what is going on.
pbo...@aol.com
>
>"With good reason Maim."
>
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
Without the military to fight for them, yes. Does that mean they'd be
happy with the military running the government? People are grateful to
firefighters who put their lives on the line to rescue them, but that
doesn't mean they'd support an attempt by said firefighters to
overthrow the government - and unlike firefighters, a government under
military control has a lot of firepower at its disposal that would make
it difficult to challenge once the immediate threat is over. You need
look no further than Myanmar to see the consequences of unaccountable
military rule - the fact that soldiers may be good at being soldiers
and protecting people from their enemies doesn't qualify them for a
leadership role in government, and martial law doesn't do anything to
improve the level of protection people have - it's a mechanism for
enforcing social order within the society, not to protect that society
from its foes. I'll grant you that holding elections is somewhat
frivolous in the circumstances (though you will remember Roslin was
effectively forced into honouring this commitment by Tom Zarek), but
civilian government is hardly incompatible with military protection.
Philip Bowles
singha_lvr
wrote:
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
>I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
>BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with ‘progressive thinking’
>that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
>themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
>they in the same situation.
The show originates in Hollywood, California. Why are you surprised
that it's interlaced with 'progressive' thinking.
Lio Convoy
>> Comparing the current war effort in Iraq with the situation as
>> portrayed in BSG is completely idiotic. The Colonial forces on BSG
>> are fleeing from a genocidal enemy while the United States initiated
>> conflict in Iraq with honorable intentions initially, but based on
>> what turned out to be faulty intelligence.
>
> I wasn't comparing them directly, I was talking about the far more
> broad civilization conflict that the Iraq war represents. It's just a
> small part of what is going on.
Yea...our boys are dying over there, and the current leaders want to run it
just like Hussein did. That's good progress.
Louis
Adam Russell
"Lio Convoy" <lioc...@iwonttellyou.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CD58E16DF79li...@69.28.186.121...
No dont start the comparison thing again. You know that 'somewhere' is
documented evidence Saddam executed puppies whose only crime was peeing on
the carpet.
Brenda
"Louis" <bashan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XmBUe.15828$OT1....@fe09.lga...
> singha_lvr wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:14:38 -0400, Louis <bashan...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
>>>I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
>>>BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with ‘progressive thinking’
>>>that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
>>>themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
>>>they in the same situation.
>>
>>
>> The show originates in Hollywood, California. Why are you surprised
>> that it's interlaced with 'progressive' thinking.
>>
> I am not really surprised, just disappointed.
I don't think it is. In the initial days directly after the destruction they
would have clung to Adama's words and suggestions but the authority of a
president would have fostered independence from the military influence. Add
to that a mix of frustration, anger and religious ideology and you have
people who want desperately to stand on their own and take some control back
of their lives. That's not "progressive" thinking and I laughed at your very
narrow view of people, that's human nature.
The Nuclear Marine
news:1126328990.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Louis wrote:
>> "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
>>
>> "With good reason Maim."
>>
>> ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been
>> dead! I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline
>> of the new BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with
>> 'progressive thinking' that is obviously originating from writers who
>> seem unable to place themselves within their own stories, and act as
>> real people would, were they in the same situation.
>>
>
>
> Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
> knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
> thought.
>
>> I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in the Colonials position
>> would be doing anything but kissing the feet of the military, who
>> have thus far been their salvation. The government, the media, the
>> elections, are all moronic distractions, and I don't think rational
>> people would be worrying about "elections" when a Cylon Basestar
>> could be jumping onto them at any moment. They would be supporting
>> their military, not trying to undermine them.
>>
>
>
> How much of the general population in real life grok that it's the
> boys and girls in uniform, *not* a piece of parchment in a museum,
> that protects the rights we take for granted?
>
Complete Bullshit. No man or woman in the military protect the rights of
the standard citizen. Those men and women do their jobs just as others
do theirs.
Remind me how your "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed." is protected by Pfc Johnson cooking eggs and
Lance Corporal Eric updating service records? Why, the same amount of
effort with Farmer Jones (ok corporation Jones) harvesting the eggs and
Banker Eric updating accounts. The military performs a function
(apparently not defense of the US) that en
At some point, its the leaders of the nation that determine that there's
a way of life that must be encouraged. For that, you need infrastructure
and the people to build and protect it (engineers, constructionmen,
farmers, truckers, police, doctors, firefighters, etc.) These people at
times sacrifice (I hate that term by the way) their lives for this job.
The United States generally has not had its military give its life in
the protection of that infrastructure. All military deaths has been in
protection of the US interests abroad for quite a few decades. Most
military deaths are of the same category as civilian deaths
(recreational or on the job accidents).
It's when the things go completely downhill that we see that military
and civilian sectors give their all. BSG, things have gone all the way
down. Yes, I think that they are getting distracted by the window
dressings even though they realize a bull dozer is coming to knock their
house down any moment. Yes, the military is the only thing keeping them
alive.
In the US, the military is not keeping the US alive. It's been a couple
centuries sense that was the case. Although WWII could have placed true
danger onto the land. No, the military unfortunately has had the
unenviable task of upkeeping forward deployed points in areas around the
world. Now, attack the US with a large Army and you will see true
sacrifice put into place. That I don't doubt. But for now, the military
is doing it's job for corporations bottom line (not a bad thing, but not
the touted reason either).
Nuke
--
I'm kinda divided on this whole abortion issue. On one hand, I'm not
about to let no woman control nothing, especially her own body. On the
other hand, I really hate babies.
Bozo the Evil Klown
AFAIK, no population that *wasn't* protected by the military of some
nation has ever enjoyed any sort of rights for any length of time that
was recorded.
In "Galactica" we saw in the Farms on Caprica what happened to
unprotected people there. In real-world politics most people don't
think any higher of folks in competing or enemy (hell, even in
*allied*) nations than the Cylons think of humans.
The Nuclear Marine
So where does the idolatry line end? What good is the military without
the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
EBRENT PRICE
"The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96CD6CE3DB...@68.6.19.6...
> "Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilk...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1126328990.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Louis wrote:
> >> "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
> >>
> >> "With good reason Maim."
> >
> >
I can't remember if I got this from you or not, but this is (so I was told)
the single most decorated Marine in history and his take on the issue in
1933:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
E. Brent Price
Louis
> So where does the idolatry line end? What good is the military without
> the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
> interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
> Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
> protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
> internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
>
> Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
> So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
> of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
> its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
>
> Nuke
>
verge of being utter eradicated 24/7! Every able bodied man and woman
should be helping the military at this point, concentrating on the
survival of the human race. Not being a News Reporter! The notion that
under these circumstances, The Colonials still have reporters,
television shows, sports, elections, and what have you, is PURE FANTASY,
and quite frankly, completely unrealistic. Which is the point of this
thread. Were this realistic, the camera guy would be training to fight,
as would the Ms Lawless' character, as well as every able bodied man and
woman. EVERYONE at this point from the ages of 18-35 should be in some
sort of boot camp, being trained to fight. Once boot camp was complete,
they would be sorted according to their abilities.
To the person who called my comment about "progressive thinking" narrow
minded, what do you call people who think that instead of training
pilots and marines, we should allow people to still be news reporters
and actors? Who else but a "progressive" would think news and actors,
and other luxuries, should still be flourishing when the entire human
race in such dire straights?
The artist formerly known as Bruce in Cleveland
<Evilk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Louis wrote:
>> "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
>>
>> "With good reason Maim."
>>
>> ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
>> I have said it before, and I will say it again, the storyline of the new
>> BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued with 'progressive thinking'
>> that is obviously originating from writers who seem unable to place
>> themselves within their own stories, and act as real people would, were
>> they in the same situation.
>>
>
>
>Heh. I find it more realistic that Fleet politics are based on
>knee-jerk emotionalism, almost completely divorced from rational
>thought.
>
and that is different from current US politcs?
NobodyMan
The difference is that PFC Johnson and LC Eric are both members of the
Armed Services. They have sworn an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and to obey the orders of those
appointed above them. Farmer Jones and Banker Eric never did that.
Neither of them are trained, or expected, to go out and practice the
Oath that they took.
We who are in the military don't need high pay, medals or awards. We
join knowing full well we may get killed, and do it because we believe
it is our duty to protect/defend the US against all enemies. What we
would like is just the smallest inkling of respect. Now THAT would be
nice.
Andy
>
>> So where does the idolatry line end? What good is the military without
>> the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
>> interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
>> Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
>> protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
>> internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
>>
>> Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
>> So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
>> of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
>> its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
>>
>> Nuke
>>
> It ends when every life of what is left of the human race is not on the
> verge of being utter eradicated 24/7! Every able bodied man and woman
> should be helping the military at this point, concentrating on the
> survival of the human race.
>
You are confusing what they should be thinking with what they would be
thinking. I agree with you there, really I do, but it's idealism and not
realism as applied to human beings.
We spent several decades under the threat of imminent nuclear destruction -
yet, not even in the USSR and the USA did we see the kind of commitment to
ending that possibility that you postulate we should have.
What you said is something I agree with, and in many ways. But it's not
realistic and likely never will be.
Another example: Our civilization could end, anytime, from an asteroid
impact, or many other things. We *should* be concentrating on spreading
ourselves out into space, in order to ensure the survival of the human
species. But we aren't. We aren't pushing for the capability and we hardly
even fund the research needed to get a start on something that could take
centuries.
It's become a more or less global realization that the end of our
civilization and possibly humans entirely is possible. But the richest
country in the world - the US - spends several times annually on cosmetics
than we spend on efforts to get our eggs out of the One Basket.
Sigh.
--
A
There is no Chip, it's a figment of your lack of imagination.
Andy
>
> I can't remember if I got this from you or not, but this is (so I was
> told) the single most decorated Marine in history and his take on the
> issue in 1933:
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
>
> E. Brent Price
Wise man. He has the right of it, I suspect. I wonder what he'd have to say
about the shenanigans that have gone on in the 3/4 century since? :)
(Thanks for the link)
Andy
>>"People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
>>
>>"With good reason Maim."
>>
>>ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been dead!
>
> Without the military to fight for them, yes. Does that mean they'd be
> happy with the military running the government? People are grateful to
> firefighters who put their lives on the line to rescue them, but that
> doesn't mean they'd support an attempt by said firefighters to
> overthrow the government
Or that they'd agree with the firefighters taking their supplies at
gunpoint
> - and unlike firefighters, a government under
> military control has a lot of firepower at its disposal that would make
> it difficult to challenge once the immediate threat is over. You need
> look no further than Myanmar to see the consequences of unaccountable
> military rule - the fact that soldiers may be good at being soldiers
> and protecting people from their enemies doesn't qualify them for a
> leadership role in government, and martial law doesn't do anything to
> improve the level of protection people have - it's a mechanism for
> enforcing social order within the society, not to protect that society
> from its foes.
But isn't enforcing social order just that - improving the level of
protection of the people (from themselves)? The chaos in New Orleans sort
of illustrates that - we have met the enemy, and they are us :)
> I'll grant you that holding elections is somewhat
> frivolous in the circumstances (though you will remember Roslin was
> effectively forced into honouring this commitment by Tom Zarek), but
> civilian government is hardly incompatible with military protection.
Actually it was Lee Adama giving his word to Zarek, and making it stick
with his father, that forced Roslin into honoring the commitment. Don't
find that odd, considering that Roslin has demonstrated she couldn't keep
her own word to Helo about Sharon.
>
> Philip Bowles
Louis
> You are confusing what they should be thinking with what they would be
> thinking. I agree with you there, really I do, but it's idealism and not
> realism as applied to human beings.
>
> We spent several decades under the threat of imminent nuclear destruction -
> yet, not even in the USSR and the USA did we see the kind of commitment to
> ending that possibility that you postulate we should have.
>
> What you said is something I agree with, and in many ways. But it's not
> realistic and likely never will be.
>
> Another example: Our civilization could end, anytime, from an asteroid
> impact, or many other things. We *should* be concentrating on spreading
> ourselves out into space, in order to ensure the survival of the human
> species. But we aren't. We aren't pushing for the capability and we hardly
> even fund the research needed to get a start on something that could take
> centuries.
>
> It's become a more or less global realization that the end of our
> civilization and possibly humans entirely is possible. But the richest
> country in the world - the US - spends several times annually on cosmetics
> than we spend on efforts to get our eggs out of the One Basket.
>
> Sigh.
I understand what you are saying, but the main difference is, in none of
the examples that you mentioned, are we ripped from our homes, and force
to flee into space with our tail between our legs. In all of your
examples, there is just a threat. The Colonials were attacked and had to
leave everything they new to be normal behind, and run for their lives.
In all of your examples, life is going on as normal, with just a threat
hanging over our head. The situation the Colonials are in is much more
life altering than a mere threat.
Case in point, in the Terminator series, do you see John Connor raising
news reporters? Are there elections? No, everyone, EVERYONE is taught to
fight against the machines for the desperate fight for survival. Yet, in
BSG, we see a young man working a camera. Why is he not being trained to
fight as a soldier? And we apparently have people fearing and
distrusting the military, whom without, they would be slaughtered like
pigs on a farm.
IMHO, completely unrealistic.
Bozo the Evil Klown
Idolatry?? It's been a few months since I last sacrificed a small
furry animal to Cthulhu.
> What good is the military without
> the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
> interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
I never said the military could exist without a society to support it;
I said a society could not exist without a military to protect it.
> Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
> protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
> internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
I meant to include police, firefighters etc. when I mentioned the
people in uniform who protect us and our rights.
>
> Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
> So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
> of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
> its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
>
That could actually go both ways. <G>
Ken from Chicago
"Skinky" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:VttUe.181$Ao1...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
That's why Xena was able to do super leaps and stuff. She was a sleeper
Cylon.
-- Ken from Chicago
TMB
Chicago" wrote:
>
> That's why Xena was able to do super leaps and stuff. She was a sleeper
> Cylon.
A Xylon perhaps?
--
Andy
Agreed, they aren't similar situations.
My point is that people are people - they tend to keep continuing on in
their own little worlds, regardless of what's going on around them.
It's still idealistic. You, I, and lots of others could wish that it would
be true, that people would really wake up to the situation they are in.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I just don't see it happening.
>
> Case in point, in the Terminator series, do you see John Connor raising
> news reporters? Are there elections? No, everyone, EVERYONE is taught to
> fight against the machines for the desperate fight for survival. Yet, in
> BSG, we see a young man working a camera. Why is he not being trained to
> fight as a soldier? And we apparently have people fearing and
> distrusting the military, whom without, they would be slaughtered like
> pigs on a farm.
But what we have seen wrt to human beings after the holocaust doesn't show
everyone - we have lots of civlian refugees that are being protected, and
military members protecting them, but in the future-flashes that we see, we
don't see everything. We don't see anything that resembles what we see here
in BSG.
Having some connection problems tonite, so if I don't respond for a couple
days.. well, damn :) Looks like my router is dying dangnabit :(
Andy
Heretic!
>
>> What good is the military without
>> the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
>> interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
>
>
>
> I never said the military could exist without a society to support it;
> I said a society could not exist without a military to protect it.
>
>> Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
>> protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
>> internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
>
>
> I meant to include police, firefighters etc. when I mentioned the
> people in uniform who protect us and our rights.
>
>>
>> Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
>> So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
>> of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
>> its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
>>
>
>
> That could actually go both ways. <G>
It does.
>
> *****
> The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
>
> OZ: So... do you guys steal weapons from the Army a lot?
>
> WILLOW: Well, we don't get cable, so we have to make our own fun.
--
Andy
Don't you ever, EVER think that there aren't civvies who understand WHAT
DUTY MEANS.
It's an insult to the very people you have sworn to defend, and a very
arrogant viewpoint. Or do you honestly think that those of us who volunteer
to serve in other ways aren't as honest in their oaths and belief as you
are?
I hope not. We respect you, but we ask the same, because we are the ones
who keep things going while you are away, you do your job, we'll do ours.
(Sorry if offended, but it pissed me off because it's just as damned centric
as the attitude you were talking about.)
I do understand, all too well, where you are coming from. I am just trying
to point out to you that you are making the same error as that which you
imply (rightly) that others do.
Skinky
ultimately the responsibility of each & every American, acting individually
& collectively. We shouldn't cede our responsibility to any one person or
institution.
--
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
Bozo the Evil Klown
Louis wrote:
> > So where does the idolatry line end? What good is the military without
> > the society that feeds and clothes it? It's function must be as
> > interlaced as the construction, medical, police and firefighters.
> > Without the later, what rights would you really have? Military does not
> > protect rights. Its a prevention of outside malevolence. You need
> > internal protectors also else you actually lose rights.
> >
> > Don't feed your dog for three days, and it becomes a dangerous animal.
> > So long as it's immediate needs are met, you have a loyal friend. Think
> > of it that Society protects the Military. Military is pretty useless on
> > its own in the current set-up (good reason for that too).
> >
> > Nuke
> >
> It ends when every life of what is left of the human race is not on the
> verge of being utter eradicated 24/7! Every able bodied man and woman
> should be helping the military at this point, concentrating on the
> survival of the human race. Not being a News Reporter! The notion that
> under these circumstances, The Colonials still have reporters,
> television shows, sports, elections, and what have you, is PURE FANTASY,
> and quite frankly, completely unrealistic. Which is the point of this
> thread. Were this realistic, the camera guy would be training to fight,
> as would the Ms Lawless' character, as well as every able bodied man and
> woman. EVERYONE at this point from the ages of 18-35 should be in some
> sort of boot camp, being trained to fight. Once boot camp was complete,
> they would be sorted according to their abilities.
>
Who will be training these 45K civilians? The Big G crew are fraying
at the ends already just running their own ship. Where will they
train?
Again, IMO it would be unrealistic to show a human society acting all
rationally and logically. <G>
Adam Russell
Actually in the Terminator series we saw very little of john connor training
survivalists. The reason why is not because hollywood is full of moonbeams,
but because too much of that wont sell movies.
The Nuclear Marine
news:cgGUe.1022$b37.766@trnddc04:
>
> "The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96CD6CE3DB...@68.6.19.6...
>> In the US, the military is not keeping the US alive. It's been a
>> couple centuries sense that was the case. Although WWII could have
>> placed true danger onto the land. No, the military unfortunately has
>> had the unenviable task of upkeeping forward deployed points in areas
>> around the world. Now, attack the US with a large Army and you will
>> see true sacrifice put into place. That I don't doubt. But for now,
>> the military is doing it's job for corporations bottom line (not a
>> bad thing, but not the touted reason either).
>>
>> Nuke
>
> I can't remember if I got this from you or not, but this is (so I was
> told) the single most decorated Marine in history and his take on the
> issue in 1933:
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
>
> E. Brent Price
>
>
Great article. However, I believe Lt. General "Chesty" Puller would be
viewed as the most decorated US Marine in history. Butler is one of the
VERY few to have been awarded 2 Medals of Honor for two seperate
incidences (along with another Marine, Daniel Daly). I believe there were
only 18 total out of ~2500 awarded that went to the same person twice.
Anyway, good thing Butler didn't write such a thing today. No telling
what the "spin" cycle would have done to him. Apparently Jonh Kerry, John
McCain, General Wesley Clark, and Max Cleland were all cowards who didn't
deserve the recognition they received. While truly brave men like George
W. Bush (ref. Ann Coulter) are attacked by the Far Left Liberal Media.
As for the original point of this thread, yes, with 50k people left no
one should be left enough free time for eccentricities like reporting
full time. Granted, you can only have so many fighters so that leaves
being a productive member of upkeeping the food and fuel stocks. Granted,
the series touched on this when we found out other ships are now being
outfitted with missiles.
The Nuclear Marine
4ax.com:
High pay, no, but a military member definately has a leg up when it comes
to salary. A 18 year-old, married E-2 in San Diego in his first 12 months
will clear 32k (not including other benefits). So, the pay is there and is
there because it was demanded. Don't recall demanding it? Actually it was
the citizenry not enlisting or re-enlisting that encouraged this pay raise.
Medals or awards, no, but it's usually once a year in the Navy Times you
get an article talking about the awards of today outnumber those from a
decade or more ago. Navy Achievement Medal? Just serve two years without
killing someone.
Respect? Now, should you be respected solely for joining the easiest job
you'll ever hate? I've known complete wastes of human flesh to put on the
uniform. Types that enjoy pre-teens in Thailand, bit off body parts of a
lady that didn't want to have sex with him, killed spouses on return from
deployments. Being in the military rates you no respect from me. Now, doing
a difficult job well can rate my respect. That's why I lump Doctors,
Policemen, Firefighters, Teachers with those that serve in the military.
Hell, every successful small business owner helps promotes society. You
ever risk everything by working for yourself? That deserves respect.
So no, don't expect my respect solely because you're in the military. We're
trained to do our job. Even the mediocre amoung us are promoted. Only when
challenges occur can the truly great be recognized. Even then, the current
political climate shows that can be "spun" down. Thus is the society we
chose to make.
Tim McGaughy
Rumors are that she was a lesbylon.
Ken from Chicago
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:dg0kc...@enews3.newsguy.com...
She was ... binary?
-- Ken from Chicago
Marc L.
news:eYsUe.13522$OT1....@fe09.lga:
> I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in the Colonials position
> would be doing anything but kissing the feet of the military, who
> have thus far been their salvation.
That's because you fail to put yourself in their shoes. People
suck. Their memory suck. One day your their hero, the next you're the
bully trying to keep them from whatever it is you want.
--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
Marc L.
news:Xns96CD6CE3DB...@68.6.19.6:
> Complete Bullshit. No man or woman in the military protect the
> rights of the standard citizen. Those men and women do their jobs
> just as others do theirs.
>
>
Another lost cause.
Marc L.
news:RrednYOYGI6...@midco.net:
> Don't you ever, EVER think that there aren't civvies who
> understand WHAT
> DUTY MEANS.
>
>
Strawman, he never made that claim. Your offense alarm needs
resetting.
Marc L.
news:sOGdnWFoLfx...@comcast.com:
>>> A Xylon perhaps?
>>
>> Rumors are that she was a lesbylon.
>>
>
> She was ... binary?
>
A Bylon?
Brandons of mass destruction
"Adam Russell" <adamr...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote:
> You know that 'somewhere' is
> documented evidence Saddam executed puppies whose only crime was peeing on
> the carpet.
Why is this considered bad? Rugs can be expensive.
Brandons of mass destruction
NobodyMan <no...@none.net> wrote:
> hat we
> would like is just the smallest inkling of respect. Now THAT would be
> nice.
SPeaking as someone who never served, you certainly have it. Except for
those few troops who think I owe them something or demand free shit
'cause "I served in the war" to which I respond, "That means you got a
paycheck".
The group of soliders who were just eating and not flaunting their
superiority? THEY got the free meal.
Brandons of mass destruction
wrote:
> Yet, in
> BSG, we see a young man working a camera. Why is he not being trained to
> fight as a soldier?
Rosalyn and even Adama seem to agree that they're also fighting to
preserve a way of life. So no, not every is being pressed into service.
Potsey
the writers have done an admirable job at getting people thinking and
talking about human nature... not politics.
I also find it funny that you (we) are taking this show as such a
criticism of the war in Iraq considering that shows were taped months
ago and scripts written way before that.
Lastly, please don't get too wound up defending one side or the other
other over your political views. IT'S AN F-ING TV SHOW!!!!!
Cheers
Potsey
>> > Louis wrote:
>> >> "People are angry. They are distrustful of the military."
>> >>
>> >> "With good reason Maim."
>> >>
>> >> ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Without the military, they would have all been
>> >> dead! I have said it before, and I will say it again, the
>> >> storyline of the new BSG is simply unbelievable. It is plagued
>> >> with 'progressive thinking' that is obviously originating from
>> >> writers who...
Andy
> It's funny, the passionate debate that this show has stirred. I think
> the writers have done an admirable job at getting people thinking and
> talking about human nature... not politics.
Agreed!
>
> I also find it funny that you (we) are taking this show as such a
> criticism of the war in Iraq considering that shows were taped months
> ago and scripts written way before that.
The war in Iraq has been going on for years now...
>
> Lastly, please don't get too wound up defending one side or the other
> other over your political views. IT'S AN F-ING TV SHOW!!!!!
Heh. Check out a couple of the threads going on in the alt.tv.firefly
newsgroup if you want to see some real political back&forth ;) Most of the
threads here are more along the "He's a Cylon, She's a Cylon, would you
like to be a Cylon too?" variety :)
NobodyMan
<Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>> We who are in the military don't need high pay, medals or awards. We
>> join knowing full well we may get killed, and do it because we believe
>> it is our duty to protect/defend the US against all enemies. What we
>> would like is just the smallest inkling of respect. Now THAT would be
>> nice.
>>
>
>High pay, no, but a military member definately has a leg up when it comes
>to salary. A 18 year-old, married E-2 in San Diego in his first 12 months
>will clear 32k (not including other benefits). So, the pay is there and is
>there because it was demanded. Don't recall demanding it? Actually it was
>the citizenry not enlisting or re-enlisting that encouraged this pay raise.
Well, now here you are wrong. An E-2 in the military makes a base pay
of 1384.50 per month, meaning less than $17,000/year. Now if you are
adding BAs to that, so be it and that's another roughly 3600
dollars/year, still well below what you quoted.
OK, so if you allow this person to move off-base and start paying them
BAQ at with dependent rate, yes, it goes up substantially - but that
is simple money given to them to offset the fact that they aren't
living on-base. Move that same family on base and he/she clears MAYBE
$20,000/year.
kdar...@basit.com
> > verge of being utter eradicated 24/7! Every able bodied man and woman
> > should be helping the military at this point, concentrating on the
>
> Who will be training these 45K civilians? The Big G crew are fraying
> at the ends already just running their own ship. Where will they
> train?
In the USA, about one of twelve adults are military veterans. In BSG,
just a few decades after a major human-Cylon war, I'd guess there'd be
a much higher percentage. So you'd have plenty of veterans (and
reservists) that would be called back to duty. Some of those would be
training non-veterans.
The OP is absolutely correct: if you're down to 50,000 TOTAL humans in
your whole known universe, then yes, everyone would be training at
fighting and/or support. In fact, they'd probably be clamoring to be
told how to defend themselves instead of sitting as easy Cylon prey if
Galactica's not around.
Kev
Louis
> It's funny, the passionate debate that this show has stirred. I think
> the writers have done an admirable job at getting people thinking and
> talking about human nature... not politics.
>
> I also find it funny that you (we) are taking this show as such a
> criticism of the war in Iraq considering that shows were taped months
> ago and scripts written way before that.
>
> Lastly, please don't get too wound up defending one side or the other
> other over your political views. IT'S AN F-ING TV SHOW!!!!!
>
> Cheers
> Potsey
>
HEHEHE... I am actually just complaining about the writing. I am not
trying to make this political. Ok, I mentioned "progressive thinking",
but I was merely trying to explain what I thought might be the culprit
behind the writing style. If I wanted to debate the war in Iraq, I would
do so on my own web site (see my signature -SHAMELESS PLUG, I KNOW!) 8)
But in any event, thanks for your well thought out comments. 8)
Ken from Chicago
"Potsey" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CEC6C14ECD3...@216.196.97.142...
> It's funny, the passionate debate that this show has stirred. I think
> the writers have done an admirable job at getting people thinking and
> talking about human nature... not politics.
>
> I also find it funny that you (we) are taking this show as such a
> criticism of the war in Iraq considering that shows were taped months
> ago and scripts written way before that.
>
> Lastly, please don't get too wound up defending one side or the other
> other over your political views. IT'S AN F-ING TV SHOW!!!!!
>
> Cheers
> Potsey
But how do they eat and breathe and other science facts?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<kdar...@basit.com> wrote in message
news:1126487381....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Except the timeline only a few WEEKS after massacre. It takes time for them
to recoup mentally. Plus there are a lack of military resources to outfit
and train everyone. You really DON'T want everyone armed due to potential
for chaos since not everyone is trustworthy or has military discipline.
Lastly, 45 K against a military force that's wiped out BILLIONS of people on
TWELVE worlds is sheer suicide. The only option, the only viable strategy
for them is retreat. Arm too many and they start getting delusions of
grandeur, of striking back.
Plus they are infiltrated with cylons.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "We're NOT the only ones on this island and we all know it."--Terry
Quinn, LOST.
Dillon Pyron
We paid more for Ruby than we did for our rug (not carpet, they're
different).
--
dillon
Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid"
Ken from Chicago
"OrionCA" <Ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d8jai1tvd7nsjk772...@4ax.com...
>
> "La-la-la!"
> --
> Curmudgeon: Someone so down on the world that he won't
> donate old clothes because one day he might be mugged
> by someone wearing one of his old shirts.
The Mystery Cylon Theater 6000!
-- Ken from Chicago
Andy
LOL
That is, seriously, one scene I hope we never see again :)
gorf
> The Mystery Cylon Theater 6000!
Because he used those special parts...
Tim McGaughy
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:17:13 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
No, they're not, you fucking cheese-eater.
Wait, did somebody just say it's only a show?
The Nuclear Marine
news:l2j9i1dbslkim00jh...@4ax.com:
Nope, gotta count it. Even in base housing, your housing pay appears on
your LES (leave and earning statement). I was very particular to point
out the E-2 was married. Even single, you still have to account for
living expenses that the military provides.
Only a moron won't count the housing, medical, tax incentives and
insurance that comes with a job. I had issues when a columnist named Ted
Rall claimed that someone working at McDonalds cleared more in pay than a
person enlisting in the military. Even at base housing you have to
compensate for the rent that goes straight to the government. To do
otherwise is disingenuine if not deceitful.
I'm an E-5 with 12 years in. I clear 50k a year tax free. In fact, the
government pays me extra at tax time. Granted, that's 50k in San Diego,
but I'm still living ok.
So yes, an E-2 will clear over 30k his first year.
Ken from Chicago
"Andy" <an...@NOFRAKKINSPAM.spe.midco.net> wrote in message
news:PridnfJRE9L...@midco.net...
MCK6K explains G1980.
-- Ken from Chicago
Andy
I'm not sure ANYTHING can explain or excuse BS:1980 :)
gorf
TO MAKE HIS ROBOT FRIENDS!!!
/hates finishing own jokes, but it had to be done
--
gorf
Ken from Chicago
Sure it can. It's a dream a delirious Starbuck had on a deserted planet
after seeing the transmissions from Earth and the first graduating class of
new Colonial warriors or "children" as Starbuck sees them--long after Cy was
terminated and the departure of Angela.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"gorf" <go...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:1BLVe.8909$S26....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Robot roll-call:
Leobon
Doral
Boomer
Siiiiiiiiiiiiix!
-- Ken from Chicago
Andy
Poor Starbuck :)