Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dsteingass wrote:IMHO, the 1950s in the US has to be the worst time ever. We were messing with nuclear weapons before we understood the consequences. When innocent people reported radiation sickness symptoms from fallout (un-reacted isotopes of Uranium and dead-killy stuff) came during the testing process, anyone who questioned if the sicknesses were related to the tests were branded as "Communists". The US seems to me from history to be a very opressive place to live during those times. I don't want to live in an opressive, Orwellian society. To me, that is the definition of hell. The GOP to me, gives me that same, opressive feeling. And yes, I can't help but associate the GOP with the 700 Club, the seperation is not visible to the public if it is there.

I don't want the government, or a church, or anyone to tell me what is moral. That is my business.

At the time we knew that radiation was a biproduct of nuclear bombs (as seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). As well, it wasnt like they were testing these right next to your house. Its usually in the middle of nowhere, on an uninhabited island, etc.

no dood, the Bikini Atoll test was twice as big as expected, the fallout was worldwide. I know they were learning about it all at the time, but we are all VERY lucky to even be here today. Of course I don't remember McCarthyism, I'm 34, this is what my generation sees.

AustonT wrote:I can't help but disagree, he says the same thing over and over again and expects everyone else to compromise. We can agree to disagree on this one.

To an extent, he's often come to the table with a middle of the road position, and then tried to get everyone to see that's what it is. Which is admirably honest, but probably not the best way to negotiate. By and large though, he is dealing with an opposition dedicated entirely to opposition at any cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rogue Wolves wrote:sorry i didnt see the rules, so basicly im pissed that he turned the greatness of us into the laughing stock of the world

How does that work? The US is more highly regarded now than it was at the end of the Bush admin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Really, they haven't.

Are you honestly, truly saying that in the wake of the Civil Rights Bill that a large number of people in the southern states didn't stop voting Democrat. Are you honestly, truly saying that the Republican party didn't respond to that with the Southern Strategy, aimed at winning those voters to the Republicans?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't remember McCarthyism of the 1950s.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you've read some highly imaginative, conservative approved revision of McCarthy's life that pretends there was a genuine communist threat to the US, and that McCarthy was at all useful in preventing it, instead of just using the power of government to torment people that didn't do anything wrong.

AustonT wrote:

I don't want to live in an opressive, Orwellian society.

speaking in a general sense, both parties are guilty of moving us in this direction but on different issues.

I have to agree with this. As someone who leans right, I find it strange that OP thinks the Republicans are Orwellian. I guess because you view them as trying to legislate morality.

People from the right see the leftists as supporters of "Big Brother" with their paternalistic views about "protecting the common man" and attempts to regulate everything.

So I guess both sides are pointing at each other saying they will take away your freedoms! Sad really. It would be much better if both parties really tried to be more moderate. And I really don't think President Obama is as moderate as his supporters seem to want to say, some true moderates would be nice for a change.

Jollydevil wrote:At the time we knew that radiation was a biproduct of nuclear bombs (as seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). As well, it wasnt like they were testing these right next to your house. Its usually in the middle of nowhere, on an uninhabited island, etc.

The spread of that radiation around the world was what mattered. It had been assumed atmospheric radiation would be localised, and any spread would be no greater than normal background levels. Studies were conducted, and it was found that ionised radiation spread everywhere, in amounts that have affected us in ways we're still learning about (a recent study showed that the ratio of male to female births increased as a result of above ground testing).

Once this was realised, above ground testing was shut down about as fast as two massive empires that really hate each other can arrange to agree on something.

Well, I used to lean right, before I started thinking for myself, I was a bandwagoner, I admit I voted for Bush twice. Then in his last term, his policies seemed to directly affect me adversely. The reversal of the marriage penalty, small headline news at the time, and named "marriage penalty", just sounded bad so no one noticed. However, I am divorced, and what most people don't realize is where the greatest tax burden lied after that. If you look at the tax brackets for 2007, As A single taxpayer earning 40k/yr, I was in the 25% bracket where a married couple making the same amount was only in the 15% bracket. 10% disparity? ridiculous!

I was also putting MYSELF through college at the time, so I had to rely on my own earnings and Student Loans. Then in 2007 the Sallie Mae tap dried up for about a year. That pisses you off in your sophomore year. SO I felt personally slighted by those policies since I was busting my ass, working two jobs, and in college and still didn't have enough money to pay bills. Where the hell is my piece of the American Dream I was raised to believe in? I know this timeframe was the real beginning of the recession, but throughout the whole thing I got the feeling that the rich in this country were not having to feel the pain like the rest of us were. I can remember deciding to risk paying my heat bill late in the middle of the Indiana winter and risk disconnection just to have gas money. and I feel that the consequences of their greed was being paid for by us. Whenever an us vs. them environment is created, people align with one side of the issue or another. This isn't about party lines, this is about self-interest, the unseen hand, the first rule of economics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and on my belief that the GOP is opressive and potentially Orwellian, yes that view is based on their alliance with the 700 Club-type people, who want to legislate morality. Government has no business legislating anyone's morality! That is completely the right and privelege of every single American to decide for themselves.

I'm sure this thread will go well.

Remember girls, its all Bush's, tsunami's, Cheney's, earthquake's, Europe's, Congress's fault!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dsteingass wrote:IMHO, the 1950s in the US has to be the worst time ever. We were messing with nuclear weapons before we understood the consequences. When innocent people reported radiation sickness symptoms from fallout (un-reacted isotopes of Uranium and dead-killy stuff) came during the testing process, anyone who questioned if the sicknesses were related to the tests were branded as "Communists". The US seems to me from history to be a very opressive place to live during those times. I don't want to live in an opressive, Orwellian society. To me, that is the definition of hell. The GOP to me, gives me that same, opressive feeling. And yes, I can't help but associate the GOP with the 700 Club, the seperation is not visible to the public if it is there.

I don't want the government, or a church, or anyone to tell me what is moral. That is my business.

You do know Truman was President during the early 50s right? Truman was a Democrat....

Frazzled wrote:I'm sure this thread will go well.

Remember girls, its all Bush's, tsunami's, Cheney's, earthquake's, Europe's, Congress's fault!

You do know Truman was President during the early 50s right? Truman was a Democrat....

I don't understand what you mean with the fault comment, please elaborate.
I really don't care about the parties. I care about what happens overall. I think we have illustrated the point thoroughly that the party lines on issues are not definitive or consistent throughout history.

We shouldn't associate loyalties to political parties like we do with Sports teams. I was born and raised a fan of Ohio State football. I will be a fan until I die. That is more like a religion to me personally than actual religion is. So I don't really care what party a candidate is from. I think FDR's New Deal was necessary at the time and in the situation the Nation was in. I also think Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system was extremely important to build. If the issue makes sense to me, I will support it, party affiliation means nothing to me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't remember McCarthyism of the 1950s. I'm also going to assume everything you know about Joseph McCarthy is based on some middle-school textbook.

Biccat, I want to hear your views on this, but I have a Bachelor of Science, I am an educated man, please don't attack my intelligence. Please explain your views, I will listen and respect them.

He's pro abortion ergo evil so vote for the other guy

/politics

You know, once you read a lot about the political ebb and flow leading up to the current divisive political climate, you feel a lot better about it.

Something about seeing it as a larger cycle and understanding the deeper roots of it is calming. It reminds you that it's not the end of the world and none of it is unprecedented.

What's also really interesting is how both parties have such strong roots in racism. The democrats spent a full century being pro-segregation. The south was a solid blue bastion for decades until the southern strategy retconned us to a somewhat pre-civil war electoral layout. Once the south went red again, the democrats no longer had a reason to court that vote and basically reversed their position on race.

Another thing I love reading about is how the failure of reconstruction has these little fault lines that crisscross the political landscape for people to accidentally step on. The nerves are actually still quite raw about that, people just don't realize that it's the root of their positions since it's so multi-generational.

The current republican party in the south is ACTUALLY more reminiscent of the dixiecrats than any historical republican party.

Anyway, once you start looking at it as a longer narrative, you'll see that 90% of political divisiveness stems from unresolved civil war baggage, but very few of the players realize it.

Somehow this is comforting to me. It's important to remind yourself that the other guy isn't some evil "they". That's a trap we spend a lot of time falling in.

Phototoxin wrote:He's pro abortion ergo evil so vote for the other guy

/politics

Not everyone who believes that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body is evil.

But you knew that.

mattyrm wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:He's pro abortion ergo evil so vote for the other guy

/politics

Not everyone who believes that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body is evil.

But you knew that.

That's not what the local conservatives say.

Hell, the anti-choice people have a history of becoming terrorists for their cause.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:He's pro abortion ergo evil so vote for the other guy

/politics

Not everyone who believes that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body is evil.

But you knew that.

That's not what the local conservatives say.

Hell, the anti-choice people have a history of becoming terrorists for their cause.

No thats what you think they say. But on the other hand, who cares.

Frazzled wrote:No thats what you think they say

It has nothing to do with what I think.

Their logic:

• Abortion is murder.
• Murder is evil.
• Therefor anyone who has an abortion, and those who support it, are evil.

This is their argument. It has nothing to do with what I think.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No thats what you think they say

It has nothing to do with what I think.

Their logic:

• Abortion is murder.
• Murder is evil.
• Therefor anyone who has an abortion, and those who support it, are evil.

This is their argument. It has nothing to do with what I think.

Thats what you assume their logic is. After "they" are a monolithic group according to you.

In reality polls note that the majority of citizens consider themselves conservative. A majority of citizens also believe in legal but rare. So A + B = you're opinion is misplaced. I'm not saying some people aren't like that, just like some people aren't everything. But the majority aren't Your blanket statements on the subject get annoying, especially as I are one, and absent trying to get me to pay for it I could give a rat's ass.

Frazzled wrote:Thats what you assume their logic is.

No it's not. This is the propaganda that's shoveled down my throat any time the issue comes up.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats what you assume their logic is.

No it's not. This is the propaganda that's shoveled down my throat any time the issue comes up.

Propaganda by a few, not the majority. Like all propaganda its from a few, else I'd believe the entire Democratic Party is just one big Occupied crew. Thats not realistic either.

On the flip side this topic never comes up in my life. Maybe you need to rethink why the issue seems to come up for you, well at all.

Frazzled wrote:Propaganda by a few, not the majority.

Duh, the majority aren't anti-choice (nor are the majority necessarily conservative for that matter).

The church IS a monolithic organization, it has been since the 3rd Century AD by it's very design. That is just a historical fact. Personally, I am not a man of faith in things I cannot see, I don't agree with Christians who can somehow simultaneously believe that abortion is murder but state-sponsored war is not murder. But I have learned to at least respect their views.

dsteingass wrote:The church IS a monolithic organization, it has been since the 3rd Century AD by it's very design. That is just a historical fact. Personally, I am not a man of faith in things I cannot see, I don't agree with Christians who can somehow simultaneously believe that abortion is murder but state-sponsored war is not murder. But I have learned to at least respect their views.

Sure it is, but where does state-sponsored war come into effect?...I don't recall The Church endorsing any major war recently, and Christians and Catholics are in different boats, especially with beliefs on war, death penalty, etc.

dsteingass wrote:The church IS a monolithic organization, it has been since the 3rd Century AD by it's very design. That is just a historical fact. Personally, I am not a man of faith in things I cannot see, I don't agree with Christians who can somehow simultaneously believe that abortion is murder but state-sponsored war is not murder. But I have learned to at least respect their views.

Uhhhhh

Which church?

I seem to remember there being a couple of big splits in history, oh let's call them schisms for simplicity.

Rented Tritium wrote:

dsteingass wrote:The church IS a monolithic organization, it has been since the 3rd Century AD by it's very design. That is just a historical fact. Personally, I am not a man of faith in things I cannot see, I don't agree with Christians who can somehow simultaneously believe that abortion is murder but state-sponsored war is not murder. But I have learned to at least respect their views.

Uhhhhh

Which church?

I would assume he meant the Catholic Church, since when people say THE church that what it usually implies.. but

Huffy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

dsteingass wrote:The church IS a monolithic organization, it has been since the 3rd Century AD by it's very design. That is just a historical fact. Personally, I am not a man of faith in things I cannot see, I don't agree with Christians who can somehow simultaneously believe that abortion is murder but state-sponsored war is not murder. But I have learned to at least respect their views.

Uhhhhh

Which church?

I would assume he meant the Catholic Church, since when people say THE church that what it usually implies.. but

Roman or Eastern Orthodox?

Rented Tritium wrote:
Roman or Eastern Orthodox?

I'd guess Roman, as it's more monolithic/known than the orthodox

Huffy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Roman or Eastern Orthodox?

I'd guess Roman, as it's more monolithic/known than the orthodox

Standard diocese structure, latin rite or primitive?

I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops over this, just making a point. There's no monolithic church in any denomination. Major categories of church all have at least 2 flavors, most have more.

standard diocese would be the most familiar to most viewers on here....IMHO

Huffy wrote:standard diocese would be the most familiar to most viewers on here....IMHO

What's familiar to people doesn't matter. You can't call something monolithic just because you personally perceive it as monolithic. Not knowing about the divisions doesn't excuse pretending they aren't there.

I'm an atheist and I'm pretty serious about it, but I'm not going to claim there's one church just to further my arguments against them.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Huffy wrote:standard diocese would be the most familiar to most viewers on here....IMHO

What's familiar to people doesn't matter. You can't call something monolithic just because you personally perceive it as monolithic. Not knowing about the divisions doesn't excuse pretending they aren't there.

actually it is..it forms their view on said church, but I feel we're getting OT here, I still want to know about the church sponsored war

Further, the original statement is wrong. The Catholic church generally follows the "just war" view. Only just wars are even slightly ok, and there are very, very few just wars. The Catholic Church is remarkably coherent in its policy in this regard. No Kill I.

My bad sorry. Let me clarify. I am referring to "the Church" incorrectly and out of context. I understand there are a million flavors of Christianity in the US, all with their different beliefs. My problem is not with any one "church" organization, it is with Christian individuals (regardless of church affiliation) who can whole-heartedly believe that Abortion is murder and therefore evil on one hand, but simultaneously agree that we should fight/kill/invade/nuke people from predominantly Muslim nations and we are somehow justified in the eyes of God when doing so. The two things are inconsistent and anathema to each other. I don't understand how the thought process works.