The Counter-Factual History Thread

[taks]

note, btw, that in paraphrasing o'reilly i implied a bias towards "conservatism." this couldn't be further from the truth. the implication was meant to be that conservatives tend to support capitalist ideas, which is what i support. i'm not quite happy with the slide into socialism hidden as a compromise between the two ideals. current republicans and conservatives tend to be hiding in sheeps clothing, IMO.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

I started out quite liberal a few years back.

 

A few conservative views have crept in over the years. I'm somewhat mixed now.

[taks]

that's generally how people become more conservative... as they age. i think the biggy for me is the hypocrisy (that i see) in the social programs. those that are getting a free ride, in my experience, don't deserve it. they're perfectly capable workers. perfectly qualified for better than minimum wage. but perfectly lazy. (i do realize not all are like this...)

 

i voted for clinton *ducks* believe it or not. i was pseudo-liberal based partly on the lack of religion in my life and a general 'idealist' view of the world. as i grew, and became more educated, and paid more taxes, and saw more of the world, that view shifted. shifted to the point that both the extreme right and the left looked stupid in my eyes.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

I think what we need is major reform, and that's not going to happen with a corrupt Congress.

 

I think we need welfare reform, prison reform, tax reform, etc.

[taks]

that's a start for sure... certainly any radical over the top sudden adjustment will wreak havoc. the only reason it all worked in our early years was because havoc was already underway!

 

i read a cool listing the other day that defined the various stages of successful societies. we're in the "complacent" bracket but darned if i can remember the others. if i find it, i'll post it. there were 13 or 14 IIRC, and we're near the end. the author of the list, however, was more doom and gloom than i'd prefer, as he seemed to think the end of the list (civil war, revolution, etc.) was inevitable. i do agree, however, that given the size of our society, the division of ideals may be too tough to overcome.

 

taks

[Oerwinde]

Assuming my high school textbooks had any accurary, countries like Sweeden have far higher taxes.

[taks]

1st: The wealthy go to the US to have their surgeries and such because the US has the best doctors, because Doctors get paid more in the US than anywhere else, attracting more doctors, not because the system is better.

 

2nd: Singapore might be more capitalist. The entire country is run like a corporation.

1st: why exactly do you think our doctors make more and are better? because a free market system can afford to pay them more than a socialist market. this is the supply and demand curve of capitalism at work.

 

also, even the lowly worker does not have to wait but a few days for a doctor's appointment and he can certainly be seen in most places the day he calls...

 

 

 

2nd: if an entire country is run like a corporation, that's a system more akin to fascism.

 

taks

Edited June 22, 2004 by taks

[taks]

capitalism (from capitalism.org):

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

I put together a speculation script for a movie a few years back, well before the days of 9/11.

 

The plot was this. In Atlanta, in the CNN headquarters, terrorists move in and take over the station by force. They take over broadcasting, and showcase a large bomb (be it a suitcase nuke, or a emp, I waffled back and forth). They claimed to have similiar bombs in 12 other major cities across the country. Any attempt to move in on the tv station would result in the group setting off each one of the bombs. If anyone of the 12 other cells were disturbed, everyone would set off their bombs.

 

Effectively, terrorists take control of the whole country in the blink of an eye. During the course of the movie, the news anchor (I'm picturing Dustin Hoffman) and the main terrorist (Gary Oldman?) square off with a war of words while a FBI agent (Al Pacino) sets out to save the day.

 

The terrorists, upon removing their masks, are all Americans. Their demands are simple. They drafted up a new Constitution, and a new Bill of Rights. It includes extreme reform, and puts it clauses that make it illegal for pubic officials to take money. They demand that an emergency session of Congress pass the new legislature, or they blow up half the country. They consider themselves patriots.

 

The anchor argues that their tactics are inexcusable. Eventually, the President and Speaker assure the lead terrorist that they will give in to the demands while at the same time ordering the FBI and CIA to strike the terrorists. They think they've found all 13 cells, and order a synchronzied strike around the country.

 

Just as the lead FBI agent storms into the CNN studio, we see the terrorist press down on the detonation device as the FBI agent fires a shot at him. The screen goes blank, and credits roll.

 

I think that film today would be EXTREMELY contraversial and dangerous.

[taks]

yeah... a bit. i don't like duston hoffman as the lead, however. oldman is spot on though. pacino, too, but maybe even harrison ford in his younger days. i just don't like hoffman. hmmm... not sure who.

 

this would certainly qualify as radical change. the result the terrorists are shooting for, however, is undermined by their methods. i think any time a political, economical or social agenda (often one in the same) are forced on people, they will be unwilling to accept it, regardless of the potential benefit (or detriment).

 

bottom line: we don't like being TOLD what to do

 

taks

[Cantousent]

Well, it's the socialist vs. capitalist debate. Other than the fact that socialists are misguided or downright crazy, what does this have to do with counter-factual history? You guys want to argue about capitalism and socialism, create your own f***ing thread. Take it private messages. Call each other at home. Do something else, because this was an interesting thread until the empire debate reared up and led everyone to the path of socialist frenzy.

 

...And Caesar just wasn't the fellow who was going to kill off thousands of Romans in some sort of slaughter. Hell, he spared a sizeable number of the people he fought on the field of battle and put them in vaunted positions such as consul. His leniency is the very reason he ended up bleeding away his life at the theater. That's the reason Augustus was so willing to off opponents, he saw what happened to a light touch.

[EnderAndrew]

yeah... a bit.  i don't like duston hoffman as the lead, however.  oldman is spot on though.  pacino, too, but maybe even harrison ford in his younger days.  i just don't like hoffman.  hmmm... not sure who.

 

this would certainly qualify as radical change.  the result the terrorists are shooting for, however, is undermined by their methods.  i think any time a political, economical or social agenda (often one in the same) are forced on people, they will be unwilling to accept it, regardless of the potential benefit (or detriment).

 

bottom line: we don't like being TOLD what to do

 

taks

If I wrote the script, I would strive to have three different strong perspectives without making clear antagonists and protagonists. Each of the three main characters could be seen as the lead.

 

Radical change often comes from radical events. America became a country through revolution. I think you are correct in that Americans just don't like being told what to do.

 

The movie is intended as a debate piece. The difficult part would be striking a balance, and not editorializing in favor of one side while writing the film. Perhaps if I had the right author to co-write it with me...

[taks]

sorry eldar, this was counter-factual... what IF some crazed socialist really implemented a plan anyhow?

 

perhaps ender, perhaps.

 

...And Caesar just wasn't the fellow who was going to kill off thousands of Romans in some sort of slaughter. Hell, he spared a sizeable number of the people he fought on the field of battle and put them in vaunted positions such as consul. His leniency is the very reason he ended up bleeding away his life at the theater. That's the reason Augustus was so willing to off opponents, he saw what happened to a light touch.

yeah. what he said.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

To answer the original question on Caesar skipping his appointed date with death on March 15th, he still would have been assassinated on another day. The "ides of March" thing is merely a dramatic ploy of Shakespeare's.

 

If you want to ask what would have happened if Caesar was never assassinated in the first place, that's another thing.

[Monte Carlo]

Yes, back to counter-factual history puh-leez. I blame Sawyer, anyhoo.

[taks]

oooh, blame the development geek. i like that.

 

i really do agree with you, eldar. caesar was doomed because he was a wimp politically. well, he was forgiving and trustful. a good heart with an inability to properly lead i suppose. perhaps that's why he's been so immortalized (that and the whole 'world's most infamous betrayal' story).

 

taks

[Raven]

If the world were an alternate universe....

 

Alabama would be the big business area of the world

 

The Swiss Army would be the most powerful force on the planet

 

Star Wars would involve Stars in a War for oxygen

 

This would be hot:

 

 

 

 

omg, i just love that pic. i gotta find the site where i got it

[Cantousent]

Well, Caesar was a great general and propagandist, that's for sure. Politically, he was savvy. He had the public eating out of his hands. He just didn't have what it took to go all the way: a heart of complete stone. If he only felt the same way about the Romans as he did the Gauls, it would have been quite different. It's just that he owed a lot of his success to the light touch of his earlier political career. The Republic was far better at fighting wars. The empire was far better at being, well, an empire. It

[Child of Flame]

If the world were an alternate universe....

 

Alabama would be the big business area of the world

 

The Swiss Army would be the most powerful force on the planet

 

Star Wars would involve Stars in a War for oxygen

 

This would be hot:

 

 

 

 

omg, i just love that pic. i gotta find the site where i got it

Why you dissin' my sister man?

 

 

I am so dead if she sees that, thank Gott even she isn't that ugly even with the giant scar going down her cheek. :-X

[Raven]

If the world were an alternate universe....

 

Alabama would be the big business area of the world

 

The Swiss Army would be the most powerful force on the planet

 

Star Wars would involve Stars in a War for oxygen

 

This would be hot:

 

 

 

 

omg, i just love that pic. i gotta find the site where i got it 

Why you dissin' my sister man?

 

 

I am so dead if she sees that, thank Gott even she isn't that ugly even with the giant scar going down her cheek. :-X

i bet your twins

[Drakron]

... The Germans were left with, er, Angola

I just want to point out that is completly and utterly wrong, even if the two faced British wanted to given that portuguese colony to the germans that did not happened, as a matter of fact part of the reason Portugal entered the WW I was because they were afraid to lose their african colonies.

 

The germans had Namibia,Togo, Cameroon and a part of Tanzania.