War of the Worlds - Ozzy's Review

[Seeker]

"MOO3 shows us..."

I rest my case...attacking a solar system in Galactic Civ is much more realistic than in M003...yet another thing Gal Civ does better....

Why bother with all the nukes, fusion bombs, etc when you can just sling asteroids at your enemy? (somewhat like the bugs in Starship Troopers. They had a WAYYY more intelligent and efficient strategy than the 'mobile infantry' crap).

Or if you don't want to cause a global 'winter', just bring big round 'bowling balls' of high density material, like lead or something, slap a cheap fin guidance system on (with cameras for onboard control) and you can precisely take out major industrial and population centres with no danger to yourself.

Nostromo has already pointed out why the Martians are bothering to go through all the trouble of conquest vs extermination. The Martians need to replenish their livestock, and so they need to keep most of us alive to use, thus terror tactics and a ground based invasion to break the will to resist.

What's all this political crap everyone else is on about?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Smiley
There is one key difference with the youth rights movement, that being that one is not always a member of the under 21 age group. To gain momentum the movement would need to convince the target audience that big improvements can be made in just a handful of years.

It's not outside the realm of feasibility, though. The Internet has brought huge gains in equality for youth, and in many cases even an advantage.

Very true.

[Wiglaf]

That is a faulty assumption.

?

Slavery was still an issue by 1900? No.

Black civil rights were..

The culture and "ideals" of our nation now are more hostile to youth speaking their mind than "puritan ideals" were to women.

How so?? If any society worships youth, it's us.

So you are saying the less religious people are the more likely they are to vote? .

If the religion is limiting to women then yes. In the modern era there isn't a correlation.

You'd think that after being on the wrong side of every civil rights movement for the last 100 years, and taking their lumps because of it, Republicans would wise up and try to champion the next big movement in its infancy. But if you are any sign it seems conservatives will venomously fight youth rights just like they do/did gay rights, women's rights, and black civil rights. Its a shame, and a tactical error I might add.

This is some sort of talking point I guess. I don't know what to tell you, except that you can use the same argument to achieve chimpanzee civil rights as well.

[OzzyKP]

Yes, clearly a society that compares youth to chimpanzees is a society that worships its youth.

[Nostromo]

What's all this political crap everyone else is on about?

Ozzy reviewed the movie and made a Youths right related remark. Ozzy is a Youth rights activist. (Btw, Ozzy, you're doing a great job, you're a very good communicator.) And then Wiglaf told him that its stupid...

I don't understand why this thread still exists. There was already a thread on War of the Worlds.

http://67.15.24.46/~apolyton/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135620

[JohnT]

A much better thread, btw, hosted by one of Apolyton's endlessly fascinating personalities.

[OzzyKP]

Maybe its the off-topic political discussion started by Wiglaf that saved the thread. Now its a nudge sepperate from the other WotW thread. *shrug*

Thanks for the kind words nostromo. I hadn't mentioned this before, but one of our Board members, and one of our most active members for the last 4 years also uses the name nostromo. I keep thinking he wandered in here when I see your name.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Starchild


Who needs punch when you've got patience? The easiest way, by far, is to let nature do the work for you. If you're a spacefaring emire, then orbital mechanics are a breeze. Just nudge a few comets into orbits that will hit the planet and wait for the dust to settle. The whole plan might take a few decades or centuries but that's nothing.

I want my instant gratification now!

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Maybe its the off-topic political discussion started by Wiglaf that saved the thread. Now its a nudge sepperate from the other WotW thread. *shrug*

Thanks for the kind words nostromo. I hadn't mentioned this before, but one of our Board members, and one of our most active members for the last 4 years also uses the name nostromo. I keep thinking he wandered in here when I see your name.

Its not me. Is he (assuming he's a he) a Conrad aficionado? Nostromo is the title of one of Conrad's novels.

[OzzyKP]

I just did a search for where he explained his name, he says:

"nostromo is the name of the ship on the movie Alien, one of the best sci-fi movies of all time."

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
You'd think that after being on the wrong side of every civil rights movement for the last 100 years, and taking their lumps because of it, Republicans would wise up and try to champion the next big movement in its infancy. But if you are any sign it seems conservatives will venomously fight youth rights just like they do/did gay rights, women's rights, and black civil rights. Its a shame, and a tactical error I might add.

Ozzy, you know I love you, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one. Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Filibustered by Democrats until finally passed by Republicans and signed by Eisenhower. Same year, Gov. Faubus (D) of Arkansas tried to defy integration orders, and he sent Federal troops into Little Rock to force the doors of the high schools open.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed through the Senate by Sen. Dirksen (R), and opposed almost entirely by Democrats again, including the famous seventeen hour filibuster by Sen. Byrd (D). 22 of the 28 votes in the Senate against it were from Democrats.

Even when you move to 1968, the Republicans are still voting monolithically on the right side. 29 for the housing Civil Rights Act, 3 against.

Even if you're talking about Conservative vs Liberal, as opposed to Republican vs Democrat, you're still wrong. There is no way that Eisenhower can be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, anything but conservative.

The truth is that the problem was always Conservative Democrats, and I think it's largely a myth that they ever even switched to the GOP. Helms was always a Republican, and Thurmond became a Republican in '68, but those the only notable exceptions to the rule. Conservatives like Nixon only began picking up real ground in the South after '72, and by that time, the civil rights movement was already more or less victorious.

Basically, you're completely wrong.

[JohnT]

Cue MrFun for more unfunness!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Ozzy, you know I love you, but I'm gonna have to call you on this one. Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Filibustered by Democrats until finally passed by Republicans and signed by Eisenhower. Same year, Gov. Faubus (D) of Arkansas tried to defy integration orders, and he sent Federal troops into Little Rock to force the doors of the high schools open.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed through the Senate by Sen. Dirksen (R), and opposed almost entirely by Democrats again, including the famous seventeen hour filibuster by Sen. Byrd (D). 22 of the 28 votes in the Senate against it were from Democrats.

Actually, it was pushed throught by President Johnson (D), a bill introduced by another Democratic President. Given that democrats had a vast mayority in the senate at the time and that most Southern senators were democrats, well, your statement is a huge "stating the obvious" moment.

Even if you're talking about Conservative vs Liberal, as opposed to Republican vs Democrat, you're still wrong. There is no way that Eisenhower can be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, anything but conservative.

Actually, Eisenhower was a moderate, a kind of Republican that is exceedingly rare.

The truth is that the problem was always Conservative Democrats, and I think it's largely a myth that they ever even switched to the GOP. Helms was always a Republican, and Thurmond became a Republican in '68, but those the only notable exceptions to the rule. Conservatives like Nixon only began picking up real ground in the South after '72, and by that time, the civil rights movement was already more or less victorious.

And thus the republicans used the fracturing of the much more diverse Democratic party (which had also splintered in 1948 over this issue) to gain seats in ths South by absorbing those conservative Dems into their fold.

How come you never mention that almost all significant civil rights actions in the 20th century were undertaken under Democratic administrations?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, it was pushed throught by President Johnson (D), a bill introduced by another Democratic President. Given that democrats had a vast mayority in the senate at the time and that most Southern senators were democrats, well, your statement is a huge "stating the obvious" moment.

22 of 67 (IIRC) Democrats - 1/3 of them.
6 of 33 Republicans - 1/6 of them. Democrats were about TWICE as likely as Republicans to be voting against.

Actually, Eisenhower was a moderate, a kind of Republican that is exceedingly rare.

Eisenhower
I still call him a conservative. Although it's rather telling that both parties wanted him as their candidate.

And thus the republicans used the fracturing of the much more diverse Democratic party (which had also splintered in 1948 over this issue) to gain seats in ths South by absorbing those conservative Dems into their fold.

Indeed, they took the conservative Southern demographic away from the Democrats starting in '72.

How come you never mention that almost all significant civil rights actions in the 20th century were undertaken under Democratic administrations?

Because it's not true? The CRA-57 paved the way for the CRA-64. Brown v. Board was certainly a significant Civil Rights action as well. 50's were a Republican decade, 60's were a Democratic decade, and there were extremely significant advances in civil rights in both. I'd say 1954-1968 were the big civil rights years, which encompass the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

Originally posted by JohnT
Cue MrFun for more unfunness

Hey, I'm keeping this threadjacked so it won't encroach on your thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

22 of 67 (IIRC) Democrats - 1/3 of them.
6 of 33 Republicans - 1/6 of them. Democrats were about TWICE as likely as Republicans to be voting against.

Cause most Southeners still voted Democrat? Again, state the obvious.

Because it's not true? The CRA-57 paved the way for the CRA-64. Brown v. Board was certainly a significant Civil Rights action as well. 50's were a Republican decade, 60's were a Democratic decade, and there were extremely significant advances in civil rights in both. I'd say 1954-1968 were the big civil rights years, which encompass the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

1. A Supreme Court Decision is outside of the hands of administrations. You might as well say that republicans must love abortion given that Roe v Wade and the decision that last upheld it happened under Republicans presidents (Nixon and Bush) but that would make no sense.

2. The 57 act was far less extensive than the '64 act- you can;t really compare the two in importance.