CommanderJohnson

I myself have considered joining the Air Force when getting out of high school, but there's an important factor to consider... At the point that the Congress (not going to say military since they are part of the government), is going to put the military on the backburner, you have no reason to join, and it's downright risky. When you join the military, your basically signing over your life to the military. If there's a war, your expected to fight in it. Doesn't matter if it's against Russians, British, Afgans, Iraqis, you gotta fight. Your personal beliefs seem like they would quite likely get in the way of doing that, and at the point that you aren't able to do your job, or your personal beliefs conflict, or your CO just doesn't like you, you can be court-martialled, locked up, and not see your family for a long time. Until the military becomes more respected and supported by the legislature, there's a danger of the military being undersupplied, underequipped, and overdeployed, putting your life at risk. If I were you, i'd take the sheriff job, relax, serve your country in local law enforcement, support your family, and if you really want to become some government employee later, try to get into into the CIA or FBI. It's too risky, it's too much against your beliefs, and it'll hurt your family in the long run. Just my 2 cents.... (P.S. Also, you can't really change the government from in the military because your freedom in politics is drasically reduced. All you can really do is vote.) (P.S.S. Don't hate the government. They may screw up sometimes, but in the end, our government is superior to any alternative currently in the world)

I have winpoet and mindspring? What can i get that's better than winpoet? And what's really wrong with winpoet? Please help, i wanna better connect speed....

Ok, I thought there was another topic with this subject, but I just ran a search over the BCM discussions, and couldn't find one, so, the question that everyone is dying to know. How far along are you till being RANDOM launch capable?

Time for me to be the target... I think that One World Government would be a good idea. It would cause us to think of ourselves as HUMANS instead of black, white, American, Chinese, etc, and we would be able to work for the advancement of our society as a whole, instead of working against fellow humans in other countries. Why do you think in most sci-fi/space movies, you don't hear about COUNTRIES on planets, you hear about planets. I do however, admit the following, before everyone decides to bash the one world government idea.... 1. There's no way that it would work at present time without disasterous consequences. 2. In order for it to work, at least 80-90% of the world's population would have to support the idea, and be able to put aside the majority of their own personal traditions/culture in order for the greater good of the human civilization. 3. In addition, since #2 is highly unlikely, the only way I can possible see it done is if we are invaded by aliens from another planet Independence Day Movie...remember, or the human race is faced with extinction for some other reason (global warming, etc) And i'm dead serious. There's no way that a one world government would ever work unless the human race faced extinction, then one would work really fast. If we hear the Earth is going to explode in 5 years, every country in the world is going to work together to get tech. to get the hell out of here and to a different planet and/or space. So, all of you people wanting to find aliens.....tell them in invade us. That'd make us get a One World Gov.

I see your idea, but why exactly would anyone work without power/land/ownership to aspire to? I see the merits of your system, but it assumes that every human being is somehow intrinsicly good, and will work for a greater good/for society. If I work all day as a janitor, i'd expect to get something significant from it while someone else is working in some cushy managerial job, and i'd want something to show for it, as would almost everyone in the world. After all, if i'm going to be doing hard manual labor all day every day for a month, i expect to have a little bit more money than a Tech Support rep answering phones.

17, but I can still rub it in on the people who are 170-250 lb range, by eating tons of junk food right in front of their faces....

quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, um, you keep saying what socialism ISNT, but how exactly would a world socialist community, or worker's revolution or WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE YOUR ADVOCATING, actually be done, and when done, how would it stop terrorism, and has it ever been done before which is the point of this thread. It doesn't seem feasible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought I already explained this. No, you actually haven't. Your spouting off pro-socialism rhetoric, saying how past experiences haven't proven it wont work, but you aren't actually saying the process of a socialist revolution, it's implementation in the world (specifically the United States), who would do it, why people would do it, how it would stop terrorism, and how it would EVER work when historically either it 1. Hasn't been done before. or 2. Has been done before and failed (I dont know which, I really don't care, and it really doesn't matter which but I know it's one of the two) It'd be nice if you could answer my questions/points without going off on to some vague "socialism good" tangent, and saying how Mao and Stalin did it wrong, cause the point of this thread is how it would/could ever be done RIGHT.

Guess I gotta finally download ICQ.

Ok, um, you keep saying what socialism ISNT, but how exactly would a world socialist community, or worker's revolution or WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE YOUR ADVOCATING, actually be done, and when done, how would it stop terrorism, and has it ever been done before which is the point of this thread. It doesn't seem feasible.

Ok, "Workers revolution." Ok, please clarify what this "world socialist system would entail" Last I checked, socialism bred atrocities, was empirically proven to not work, squelshes individuality, destroys advancement of society, and would be impossible to implement, due to there not being enough nutcases who believe in it. As I said, give me a FEASIBLE alternative that wouldnt end in all hell breaking loose. Oh, and by the way, how exactly is that going to solve the Taliban who hate America because we arent Islam.

Don't do it SC! Please don't close down our lifeblood. (starts breaking apart) Ok, listen, we all love these forums, we don't care what rules you make, kick everyone, just dont close em down. (begs and grovels) Give em to the moderators! Let them handle em while you take a break. Or better yet, kill the moderators and do it all yourself! Total autonomy....or, or....put some sort of virus in all the BCM files that you can activate if anyone gets you mad via their registration #! Then instead of just closing down their forum account, you can destroy their computer! Yeah! Give SC the power! POWER TO THE SC! LONG LIVE THE FORUMS!!!!!

Just because the computer is destroyed, why should that preclude you from moving yourself? I'm pretty sure it does, but I may be wrong (i've only been heavily damaged once, and comp still worked)

What about the issue of not being able to order yourself somewhere? I understand the whole concept of being unable to repair your own ship, but what about telling your AE to go to a shuttle?

Menchise, I thank you for REPEATING YOUR POSITION YET AGAIN IGNORING WHAT I SAID, so I shall repeat myself, and then relate it again to your "story" 1. How would you carry out this "fundamental change." 2. Your argument is counter-intuitive. You say that the whole system of geopolitics needs to be abolished, but how exactly would you do that? 3. Ok, so your saying right now, the system is evil/wrong. How do you know that any other system, which is untried, would work? 4. Your naming problems with no solutions. Go to Congress, and get them to write a bill stating "the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished". They would laugh you out of their sight so fast it's not even funny. Not because of the geopolitical mindset, because it's a mandate with NO POSSIBLE WAY OF BEING CARRIED OUT. 5. Example of the lunacy: We need world peace in order to advance as a society, otherwise we wont. Ok, great, we need world peace....that's nice.....HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? Sure, the concept may be nice, but it's impossible to achieve, just like the idea of "Abolishing the geopolitical/statist systems of the world" Fine, I believe the argument. The idea of nations and governments is based on the idea of protection of property owners and people with wealth and domination/power of some over others. I can even see how the WTC attacks are directly caused by it. I see how at some point, the greatness of the problem never existed (I'm sure there were still fights over food, women, etc, at the time you mentioned). I also see that it's HUMAN NATURE. Until one side totally wins in a struggle for global dominance, it will never work. However, you still have not presented me with an ALTERNATIVE with means of implementation. You keep saying that capitalism, etc, is bad/root of evil, but you never say how it can be done away with in the status quo. Also, does your author take into account that it may be human nature to try to achieve protection and fight for better food, money, jobs, property, etc? (As I said, i'm sure that in your scenario of peace, there was still fighting over women, it just evolved into fighting over nations and beliefs)

quote:This is supposed to be fun. And I for one am NOT having fun and I'm tired of babysitting this forum and getting responses such as the above because some don't either (a) don't want to abide by the rules or ( think they are too Draconian. And I've said before, I have no problems banning any and everyone who steps out of line - no exceptions. So, rather than having to go through that periodically, I'll just disable postings and be done with it. C'mon SC, please don't close the forums, that's only a minority opinion. Look on the Fun Stuff forums or the Tricks and Techniques forums, almost everyone enjoys the forums and greatly appreciates that your giving BC players a place to discuss and learn from each other. A large number of people, the ones that really enjoy these forums, want the rules and abide by them as well as possible (myself included). Some people consider the rules, like any rules, "draconian". Many consider them establishing order. These forums shouldn't become constant "flame wars" or have lots of postings that annoy the devloper (aka, you), since after all, you ARE the one providing the forum, the game, important input/interaction, so after reading the thread that you provided the link to and thinking about it, you should ban whoever you want. If your having a bad day, do random bans! Ban everyone with a name you don't like. Your the one giving us the game/forums, so feel free, but please don't close the forums. Most people agree with your rationale behind banning people, and at least 99% of those that don't would rather have the bans with the forums open, than have them closed altogether. You have no problems with banning anyone who steps out of line, so please be consistent. Everyone on the forums hasn't stepped out of line (I hope), and I hope that you may reconsider closing the forums. On a personal note, these forums are one of two things I almost always do online. I check Terminuspoint multiplayer forums for about 5 minutes(hey, there's no BCM multiplayer yet, gotta have someone to shoot), and I read these forums for up to and sometimes over and hour. Please don't get rid of the excitement in my otherwise boring life.

I'm sorry about my ignorance concerning wish lists, and I greatly appreciate all the time you put into the game, so i'm wondering how you would like thoughts/ideas on features and additions to the Battlecruiser Universe conveyed to you, and if you don't want them conveyed to you, why not? Again, I apologize for my ignorance, but it just seems odd.

I can eat all day, never exercise, and I don't gain an ounce. Sucks for all you fatties out there....

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: What do you mean by feasible? A solution that doesn't require fundamental change? A solution that doesn't require that the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished? In my opinion, any peace solution that doesn't do those things would be a quick fix, and quick fixes don't solve long term problems. Therefore, any proposal that claims to be a long term peace solution without overturning the status quo is not feasible. 1. How would you carry out this "fundamental change." 2. Your argument is counter-intuitive. You say that the whole system of geopolitics needs to be abolished, but how exactly would you do that? 3. Ok, so your saying right now, the system is evil/wrong. How do you know that any other system, which is untried, would work? 4. Your naming problems with no solutions. Go to Congress, and get them to write a bill stating "the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished". They would laugh you out of their sight so fast it's not even funny. Not because of the geopolitical mindset, because it's a mandate with NO POSSIBLE WAY OF BEING CARRIED OUT. 5. Example of the lunacy: We need world peace in order to advance as a society, otherwise we wont. Ok, great, we need world peace....that's nice.....HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? Sure, the concept may be nice, but it's impossible to achieve, just like the idea of "Abolishing the geopolitical/statist systems of the world"

Ok, how about this, you spell it out. HOW would you overturn the status quo? Don't answer with "by change", or "rethinking the system", what SPECIFICALLY would you do, or have the government do, that wouldn't get them overthrown/killed/voted out of office, to solve the problem.

A few things. 1. You know that slavery was a main/major part of the problem for one simple reason. If slavery did not exist, the civil war would not have happened. 2. It would not have happened because the South would not have had a reason to feel threatened by the North's abolitionist movement (and the insurrection into Kansas? by a group of them), and the Dread-Scott decision would not have happened, thus the ties would not have been strained or broken. The states did not have a right to secede: 1. The constitution refers to the PEOPLE joining the Union, not the STATES. So, the states can't secede as they did.

C'mon, where's the feasible means?

I think that it is PARTIALLY our fault it happened, but only because we didnt actually SOLVE the terrorist problem earlier, during the embassy bombings, cole bombing, etc, or try to prevent it from happening in the first place. I in no way think that we are DIRECTLY responsible for the attacks, just that we were way too naive to think it'd never happen.

Some people don't understand the idea of FREE patches for the game that sometimes have new features in them for FREE. Well, that's what we're getting RIGHT NOW. I'm reasonably new on the forums and *I* was *NEVER* that stupid... I guess that's what happens when you let 7 year olds get complex games, play them, then use computers to post on message boards....

Nova's not important. Sean Connery for Karl Reiynes (the SC from the actual game). Not to mention Tom Cruise for Captain Dread, the protagonist(who is promoted to Commander of a BC after a Gammulan attack on Earth)

Ok, why don't we think about the root cause of this controversy. No, it's not morality. It's not the mother. It's not the father. It's not the "murder". It's not the baby. I strongly believe that abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in the case of RAPE. Here's why: By having sex, the woman chose to have the child to begin with.(and the man, but the "right to choose is based on women's right to choose") Both parties had a CHOICE and an AGREEMENT to have SEX. No, contrary to popular belief, although it is a good thing, sex is not needed to live like food and water, and thus unless the situation is rape, the woman has a choice on whether or not to have sex. The entire abortion controversy boils around the idea of the woman's right to choose. Fine, if the woman definitely doesn't want to have a kid, she shouldn't have sex. If she wants to have sex, but doesn't want to have kids, get on some sort of birth control method, and realize that getting pregnant is still occasionally possible, and be ready to LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. Human life or not, you are killing a being at the point of having an abortion, and there's enough of a human life in a fetus to give presumption that just because the mother was STUPID ENOUGH to have sex when she DIDNT WANT A BABY, she should have to live with her actions. (The only reason I focused on women in this is because men have no right to stop a woman's abortion, even if he wants the kid. So the man doesnt factor into the choice to begin with)