Not bad for left-wing propaganda
-
franzkabuki — 11 years ago(January 18, 2015 09:56 AM)
"Government must steal from some people and give to others".
The government 'collects' from the rich and redistributes the wealth, so the streets aren't as riddled with the empoverished and the homeless as they tend to be in America right now. That's socialism as opposed to sociopathy. The more equal and stable the society is the less vulnerable it is to cataclysms. So you won't ultimately be beheaded or anything of the sort.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
ContinentalOp — 11 years ago(February 06, 2015 05:28 PM)
The government 'collects' from the rich and redistributes the wealth, so the streets aren't as riddled with the empoverished and the homeless as they tend to be in America right now.
There is certainly nothing wrong with this. Society should be judged by how it treats its worse off citizens after all, the only shame is that Democrats think this is what the Democrat party does when it does nothing of the sort. They keep the capitalist system propped up just as much as the Republicans do.
People who think that wealth redistribution is bad are just selfish. Only people with sociopathic tendencies, whether left or right, would be against giving more money and help to those who suffer from poverty.
Formerly KingAngantyr -
ContinentalOp — 10 years ago(May 20, 2015 03:58 PM)
As blanket statements go, that has to be one of the most poorly-reasoned I've seen.
Poor Sergeant. The truth hurts.
The problem is that when government forcibly takes from one party and gives to another party that has done nothing to earn it, that isn't charity. It's theft.
The thing is that the poor more often deserve it more than those who have it. beep who buy and sell shares do not deserve more money than those who break their backs in factories or in fields, sorry.
Government sets itself up as the arbiter of who should possess what, or how much, and it isn't based on merit.
But if they gave more to those that deserved it then miners, factory workers, field hands and all the labourers would be wealthier than lazy beep CEOs. We shouldn't even have CEOs and things like that. A fairer system would be where people are all in their work together and all take out what they deserve without greedy business many a killing off of exploited workers.
Formerly KingAngantyr -
fillshertease — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 04:11 AM)
After the quote you have provided, he then went on to say some other things, including:
Fuel costs jumped through the atmosphere, more than doubling. Then people waited in gas lines as well as unemployment lines. Facts are stupid things.
So nice try, but Ronald Regan most certainly DID say "Facts are stupid things"
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you. -
Gerdevil — 10 years ago(August 03, 2015 08:23 PM)
"Liberal" means welfare today. To get welfare, a government must steal from some people and give to others. Theft is anti-liberty. Liberal used to mean liberty, but was co-opted to mean Democrat. Now you have to specify "classical liberal" to indicate traditional liberal or liberty.
I think you should broaden your horizons a bit, go to Scandinavia or Germany and then come back and tell me that a social democracy doesn't work. -
nammage — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 01:17 PM)
I am a Democrat and far left liberal. I have never taken money from the gov't, and I have been homeless twice. And, I hate to break it to you but statistically speaking: Conservatives and Republicans take as much from the gov't as anyone else. And the biggest Social program that the United States has, Conservatives and Republicans are in favor of. It's called the US Military.
Oh, and just as an aside: taxes have been lowered more under Democratic liberal control than under Conservative Republican control. Another aside: Conservative Republicans do want gov't in their business as long as it's the "business" in which they favor.
The Republican brand died a long time ago.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled -
Royalcourtier — 11 years ago(November 23, 2014 08:33 PM)
Liberal has nothing to do with liberty. The words are similar, but the meanings different. Actually this film has more to do with socialism - rob from the rich to give to the poor (who will then destroy the looted property)
-
Royalcourtier — 10 years ago(June 09, 2015 06:08 PM)
Liberal does not mean having "an affinity for liberty". Apart from the bad English (I suggest that you find a dictionary, and look up affinity), the film is not about liberty. It is about class warfare. It promotes the idea that the rich are evil and selfish, and that the rest of us are downtrodden and persecuted.
This films socialist rather than liberal ideas are so dominant, and so transparent, that the plot suffers appallingly.
The idea that the rich would seek refuge in space is absurd. The absence of medical equipment on earth, and the miracle machines found in every house on Elysium, is ridiculous. The film suggests that a mob of ruthless refugees raiding Elysium is somehow a good thing. The destruction of that fragile habitat is more likely, and how can that be good for anyone?
If Elysium was so concerned with security, why does it have no defences? A shoulder fired missile might down a aircraft within a few miles. The idea that it could down a craft in high earth orbit is insane.
And how could a junk-yard crew build and operate a spacecraft capable of reaching orbit?
The logical inadequacies in this film are breath-taking.