City people vs Country people

[XH29N0G]

Wow, this god exciting, and quick.  So 2 things....  

Chad, you remind me of someone I knew whose class at Moscow State raised money by making munitions for the Russian police and military.  

Climate change is not as much of a debate as we are presenting it.  The issue is that scientists talk differently than politicians, lawyers and businessmen.  Evaluating degrees of certainty and uncertainty are part of the scientific process and nothing is ever 100% certain, but there is a high level of certainty that we are witnessing change and that this change is produced by our own actions.  

[Tilar]

If only the rural folk have adequate food supplies then the super-rich will just take it by force.  Get mercenaries to kill the rural people, or just enslave them on their own land.  Some rural folk would put up a fight with kevlar vests & AR-15s but it won't hold the bad guys off for long.  The bad guys could waste 2/3rds of the population in the process of taking control and still have plenty of slave labor left over.

IMO That's pretty far fetched simply because there are a hell of a lot more of us than there are mercenaries. Maybe a SHTF scenario is different between your world and mine.

Evaluating degrees of certainty and uncertainty are part of the scientific process and nothing is ever 100% certain, but there is a high level of certainty that we are witnessing change and that this change is produced by our own actions. 

We are absolutely witnessing change, but that change has been going on a hell of a lot longer than we have been capable of producing on our own.

[XH29N0G]

I completely agree that the world changes by natural causes.  I study those types of deep time changes in the atmosphere and oceans and they are linked to changes in climate through time.  I also see a responsibility in making the point that there are changes happening today that are concerning, some of those reflect human activity.

[cooldude]

I am. Reason I say this is in a long term SHTF situation, money will be useless because nobody will have anything for sale. People can do without anything with the exception of food and maybe medical, and the country folk are way better prepared in the food area. For instance, What percentage of city folk know how to keep meat and vegetables long term and not have to worry about freezing it, Let alone have an almost never ending supply of it?

We currently get our food from big machinery & processing & trucking & packaging.  Do the people who know how to operate that machinery have the most food supply today?  No.  The 00.01% does, while having no practical skills at all.

Money & trade isn't going away no matter what happens.  If fiat paper US dollars go up in smoke then people will trade other stuff for a while until some new currency emerges.  

If only the rural folk have adequate food supplies then the super-rich will just take it by force.  Get mercenaries to kill the rural people, or just enslave them on their own land.  Some rural folk would put up a fight with kevlar vests & AR-15s but it won't hold the bad guys off for long.  The bad guys could waste 2/3rds of the population in the process of taking control and still have plenty of slave labor left over.

Your probably right. History is a repeating play, which is rather like a washing machine in its function. Wash, rinse, repeat.

1400 years ago, a lot of the "country People" of todays ancestors were Vikings, who took whatever they could. They settled down and became country farmers in England and Western Europe. They toppled the ruling classes and just took what they wanted.

Then they settled down, and some of them became the new ruling class, the Normans. But wars and marriages and political strife and the levelers movement, and primogeniture (eldest son takes all) and corrupt government,  meant that a great many of them came to America as Western Europe became socially unsettled.

(Some couldnt adapt, and just became pirates)


In America, the process of taking what they wanted began all over again, much like the Viking and Norman ancestors did before them. They settled down, and the old families eventually became the country people and old rural families that we think of today.


But now strife, unjust laws, corrupt government, and social engineering and NAFTA and all of that, is unsettling the ancient families once again.

And so, if there is an imbalance today, it simply means that a new rinse cycle is coming.

Wash, rinse, repeat. The ruling classes always think that they are immune to the cycle of history. The lower classes always seem to be oblivious to it. All are simply enslaved by it. Some things never change, and the poor we will have with us always.

As for me, Im just an observer, neutral and somewhat disinterested. No matter what happens, nothing will change the pattern of history until the end of time, whenever that is.

[Mike DC]

    

IMO That's pretty far fetched simply because there are a hell of a lot more of us than there are mercenaries. Maybe a SHTF scenario is different between your world and mine.

I'm just going by what happens all over the world.  When TSHTF there is a standard pattern.  The most self-sufficient don't win.  The most rich + cutthroat do.   Armies/govts that act civilized are a luxury of a functioning civilization.  

I'm glad we still have the right to own rifles & pistols.  But these small arms pose no real threat to the power structure today (which is why we still have them).  We would need a fleet of stealth bombers & bunker-busters to make much progress.  

Wash, rinse, repeat. The ruling classes always think that they are immune to the cycle of history. The lower classes always seem to be oblivious to it. All are simply enslaved by it. Some things never change, and the poor we will have with us always.

As for me, Im just an observer, neutral and somewhat disinterested. No matter what happens, nothing will change the pattern of history until the end of time, whenever that is.

Yep.  That's about it.  

[Chad L. Magee]

Chad, you remind me of someone I knew whose class at Moscow State raised money by making munitions for the Russian police and military.  

Well, I am basing what would likely happen in WWIII on previous wars.  In WWI, scientists on both sides were used to develop chemical weapons.  In WWII, scientists on both sides were used to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.  What do you guess scientists would be doing in WWIII (for those that survive)?

Something to consider:  In the mid to late 1930s, Germany was far ahead of the rest of the world in nuclear research.  However, due to racial/religious persecution by the government, many of their top scientists left the country to work elsewhere (and rightfully so I might add).  The Allies directly benefited due to their mistakes.

[69DAYTONASE]

My late father was a WW2 USAAF veteran and I can tell you for a fact that Germany came very close to having the nuke, it is also a fact that Japan DID have the bomb and tested it. They were literally just a few weeks away from using it which is why we got the jump on using the nuke on them.
Also had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with Gen. Chuck Sweeney in 1995. He is the only person that was on both A-bomb missions. He was on a "mission" tour to set the record straight because the revisionist historians at the Smithsonian set up a display about the A-bombing of Japan and painted us as the bad guys. Gen. Sweeney, along with a group of WW2 vets directly involved, were successful in forcing the Smithsonian to change the display to reflect true history.
Pretty hard to argue with the men that were there!
BTW: Gen. Sweeney....was one of the nicest, most humble, friendly guys you could ever meet.
He wrote a book and made a video using his own money to set the record straight about the A-bomb missions. If you can find the video now, it's called: "Wars End" and was distributed by Kinsale Enterprises Inc. The book "Wars End" is on Amazon.

[Mike DC]

My late father was a WW2 USAAF veteran and I can tell you for a fact that Germany came very close to having the nuke, it is also a fact that Japan DID have the bomb and tested it.

I don't recall evidence that Germany was especially close.  They wanted it but they couldn't get it done in time.  But yes, has come to light that Japan was closer than we ever thought (and their enriched Uranium probably came from Germany).  

The firebombing attacks being done late in the war were arguably just as cruel & destructive as getting nuked, if not worse.  But "firebomb" is not the kind of buzzword that "nuclear" is.  

[JR]

There are so many strange statements in this thread. I was going to refute them one by one, but it's hopeless. Conservatives/country people don't want a discussion on various topics, they want an echo chamber with other conservatives regurgitating the same nonsense back.

The conservative/country boy motto ought to be "Screw you, I got mine".

Also, it's peculiar to me that the most anti tax, anti government states in the country have the lowest standards of living, highest rates of teen pregnancy and poverty, and also take the most amount of government handouts/federal aid back. The left leaning states pay more in taxes but take much less federal aid.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

The country boy motto of "screw the government" is pure fantasy.

In reality, life as we know it today is complex and interwoven with cultures, countries, and ideas from all around the world. You can claim you'd live off the land just fine without help, but what happens the first time you come down with pneumonia, or need serious medical care? You'll be right back in the city, seeking help from the best doctors and scientist around.

The country boy motto wouldn't bother me so bad if it didn't celebrate willful ignorance so proudly and bold.

[XH29N0G]

Don't actually know how close either were, but  I remember being taught that Germany was pursuing it with a few bad turns that slowed them.  My parents made it clear to me as a kid that when you were attacked you did what you had to.  Unleashing the bomb had an ethical dilemma with it, but I am of the mind that it had to be done.  I am also not against apologies, but faced with the same situation would make the same decision.

Chad:  During WWII both of my grandfathers were assigned stateside after signing up and preparing to ship out.  One went to the grave with what he did.  The other ended up in intelligence.  Neither were scientists so it happened to others too.  The scientists though, were something else.  

And yes, there are fundamental differences between the mindsets of people in the cities and country, but if we put us all in the same area, after a while we would find that we actually aren't that different.  The situations are what make the priorities different.  I realized that about 15 years ago driving out to family in the Midwest, seeing farmhouses in the distance, and thinking how the lives were different from my city existence and then how I might think if I lived there instead.

[RECHRGD]

Wow! This thread has certainly taken several different paths since I started it.  The original post simply stated my belief that country folks were better equipped to sustain themselves longer than their city brethren in the event of a prolonged power outage.  Without getting into particular posts, it seems that many here cling to negative stereotypes of both country and city folks.  It's really not an us against them thing.  At this day and age we all have or have had the ability to go either direction.  I've lived the country life for over 25 years and love it.  Most of my lifelong friends are city dwellers.  I was born and raised in So Cal in a fairly affluent area with great schools.  I ran a very successful business in Hawaii for years and still enjoy visiting there.  Putting country people and city people in narrow little boxes is the same as the liberal vs conservative comparisons going on today.  So just because I have a few guns, grow some veggies, have some fruit trees, freezers, generators and such does not make me some stupid hillbilly.  Stupid resides everywhere.......

[stripedelete]

Don't actually know how close either were, but  I remember being taught that Germany was pursuing it with a few bad turns that slowed them.  My parents made it clear to me as a kid that when you were attacked you did what you had to.  Unleashing the bomb had an ethical dilemma with it, but I am of the mind that it had to be done.  I am also not against apologies, but faced with the same situation would make the same decision.

Chad:  During WWII both of my grandfathers were assigned stateside after signing up and preparing to ship out.  One went to the grave with what he did.  The other ended up in intelligence.  Neither were scientists so it happened to others too.  The scientists though, were something else.  

And yes, there are fundamental differences between the mindsets of people in the cities and country, but if we put us all in the same area, after a while we would find that we actually aren't that different.  The situations are what make the priorities different.  I realized that about 15 years ago driving out to family in the Midwest, seeing farmhouses in the distance, and thinking how the lives were different from my city existence and then how I might think if I lived there instead.

I think Germany was hot on it.  But I think us or the Brits blowing up the heavy water facility severely hampered Germany's efforts.  Then the clock ran out.  I think Mike's correct, Germany shipped the enriched uranium to Japan.

As a side note: My dad (WWII - South Pacific) used to say, "we beat the Soviets to the moon because our Nazi Scientist were smarter than thier Nazi Scientists."

This has been an interesting thread BECAUSE of the turns.

[69DAYTONASE]

It is a fact that Japan did test a nuke, there is evidence that they actually did 2 tests, the first being a low power bomb. One of the things that I received from Gen. Sweeney was a very limited magazine he was involved in contributing to that shows our Navy personnel dumping centrifuges and other nuclear related manufacturing apparatus into the Pacific Ocean. There is a very detailed account of what was found when our troops went into Japan after the surrender.
We would have been the ones nuked if we didn't nuke them first. This was part of the Axis plan near the end of the war to win it.
How different our world would be had we lost the war!
It is shameful that there are so many people ignorant of the truth in the founding principles of this country that are so willing to get on their knees for the communists/socialists that want to destroy our freedom.
The very philosophy that we fought WW2 over to keep our freedom, people are now accepting being spoon fed by a socialist public school system that has given them a fully propagandized higher lateral ego which is why they cannot accept how wrong they are in their objective reasoning. Narcissism is after all phychological disorder.

[JR]

^That last paragraph reads like propaganda. Or a conspiracy theory.

[Mike DC]

 
It doesn't matter very much in the big scheme of things.  Japan, Germany, USA, Russia . . . I don't think anyone besides the USA was ever going to produce more than a couple of nukes before that war ended.  Who else had the spare industrial capacity to produce the materials?  That was the holdup.  Nukes were only going to be a symbolic thing for that war.  



As for the decision to drop the nukes, IMO there is nothing to debate.  That wasn't modern Japan.  At the time they were so willing to nuke us it's not even funny.  Nukes weren't the cruelest thing done in that war anyway.  

[Kern Dog]

This thread really shit the bed.
What was the original topic?  How well a city person would fare in a disaster as opposed to a country person?

[XH29N0G]

Sorry, I can't walk away from the attack on public schools.  They are a core element of our democracy and are one of the reasons the US has been great.  I teach at a university and see the products of the public schools and of other schools.  The public schools are doing an excellent job with our kids.

[69DAYTONASE]

Your protectionist attitude given your vocation is admirable albeit misplaced. If public schools are so great then why did they need to adopt a socialist method of financing? Why aren't they tuition based? Pretty simple answer, they would never survive on their own merit. It is a documented fact that home and Christian schooled kids way outperform the products of public schools both academically and morally.
I think you need to look at the parents role in how great a kid turns out rather than an institutional perspective. You are in education so you know as well as I that the brain is "wired" for learning and understanding before the kid reaches 3 years old.
The top 5 students at my kids 2 year PUBLIC college were all home/Christian schooled. The Valedictorian was 100% home schooled. This out of a student body of some 3,800+kids.
In anticipation of your citing economic reasons for the difference in academic achievement, the majority of home/Christian school families that I know of are living at or below the poverty index.

[69DAYTONASE]

It is shameful that there are so many people ignorant of the truth in the founding principles of this country that are so willing to get on their knees for the communists/socialists that want to destroy our freedom.
The very philosophy that we fought WW2 over to keep our freedom, people are now accepting being spoon fed by a socialist public school system that has given them a fully propagandized higher lateral ego which is why they cannot accept how wrong they are in their objective reasoning. Narcissism is after all phychological disorder.
[/quote]

^That last paragraph reads like propaganda. Or a conspiracy theory.

...case in point.

[Laowho]

Sorry, I can't walk away from the attack on public schools.  They are a core element of our democracy and are one of the reasons the US has been great.  I teach at a university and see the products of the public schools and of other schools.  The public schools are doing an excellent job with our kids.

Guess I lied. Sue me. I've taught too, in high school and 2 universities. Even developed a new curriculum, Law and Lit, the only req'd reading being Dickens' Bleak House. Our public schools are abysmal--just check into the average IQ of high school teachers. Or go to Worldmapper.org and punch in whatever education numbers you like.
http://www.worldmapper.org/
Or John Taylor Gatto's site.
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html
Sources are legion, and as close as any newspaper. This kind of blanket statement won't hold water. And with 1 in 40 boys now on the Autism spectrum acc. to the CDC's own statistics, it's not getting better. But here's sumthin that just happened to satisfy the sadist in all of us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oAYOlyoHA

Yeah, good luck flying that kite. Ironically/conveniently, since as early as 2000 a circuit court (NY) upheld the right of police departments to limit the IQ of their candidates

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Think of it as a win/win for public schools and police departments.  

[JR]

Concerning for the Christian school vs everyone else, this is bordering on discussing religion and I'd prefer to not get this thread locked.  The reality is each schools is different, some public schools out perform some private schools, and vice versa. The common factor seems to be which school receives the best finding. Be it public or private. I could post charts reviewing the performance of various schools, but I don't think you're interested in that.

I think you priority is "which school produces more sheltered, close minded, prejudiced people that preach the exact same religion I do and don't offend me with that damn dirty liberal talk".

And if that's your number one priority, then hey, you got me there. Congrats.

[69DAYTONASE]

I don't care if you want to criticize my viewpoint, that is your privilege. But when you make up a fake quote to put YOUR words in my mouth to justify your point that is just shear and utter ignorance.
Christians are far from close minded, quite the opposite is true. We are critical of behaviors and philosophy's that are both personally and socially destructive. We strive to change those behaviors for the betterment of all by pointing out truth and reality.
For instance, the worldwide Church I belong to has opened a clinic next to the local planned parenthood (PP)office. They offer sonograms free of charge to expectant mothers that are about to enter PP for an abortion. To date 85+% of those mothers elect to keep the baby once they see that there is a real human being inside of them and not a blob of protoplasm as PP has led them to believe.
Planned Parenthood was started by Margerate Sanger (an avid believer in eugenics) as a way to control the black population. The great majority of the women entering the local PP are in fact black.
I am sure most here have seen the discusting videos of PP administrators selling body parts, only possible for them to do that using a human being NOT a blob of protoplasm! Hypocrites and mass murderers plain and simple. Do I have to point out that most if not all PP offices are located in inner cities where there is the highest concentration of black population?
So....how's that for close minded!?
While I typed this, my contribution to my Church supporting the free clinic has saved the lives of 1-3 babies.  
Yup....we country people that are religious are soooo close minded and dumb!  

[Mike DC]

       
I think I'd better quit reading this thread. 

[Troy]

Well that not only ran off the tracks it fell right off the side of the cliff...

Troy