Not bad for left-wing propaganda
-
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. -
DoctorFell — 11 years ago(August 10, 2014 12:14 PM)
speaking as a conservative, i found it was the complete opposite, people are jealous of the rich & want what the rich have paid for, but without paying for it themselves.
trashing books is like the Special Olympics even if you burn them all you are still a retard. -
All_Seeing_Fly — 11 years ago(August 20, 2014 11:37 AM)
Well, while I don't care for the "left-wing vs. right-wing" polemical type of discussions, I will say the message(s) in this film where rather heavy-handed.
This is true. But all of his films have ideas that are drunken and blundering. It's part of the charm!
The people on Elysium are the equivalent as the so called '1%' at the moment.
People that keep sneering at the 'liberals' must love bending over for the 1%. -
michaelexarkun — 11 years ago(August 21, 2014 11:53 AM)
But all of his films have ideas that are drunken and blundering. It's part of the charm!
A heavy-handed presentation makes it easier for others that are inclined to not agree to label the message as propaganda.
People that keep sneering at the 'liberals' must love bending over for the 1%.
There are those that will blame the working class and poor for needing government programs and handouts, yet ignore or are simply blind to the billions and more given to large corporations, industries and wealthy individuals in the form of subsidies, tax shelters and tax breaks.
It is a question of conditioning, conflate the interests of the 1% (or really 0.1%) with those of the middle- and upper-middle-class, so that the middle class feels that any threat to the privilege of the "1%" is a threat against them as well.
And, use the working-class and poor (especially minorities) as the scapegoats. -
Katz5 — 11 years ago(August 22, 2014 05:01 AM)
Mitt kept telling us that corporations are "human beings." Great. So can I receive those subsidies, tax shelters, and file for bankruptcy without ever paying off my debts in the future when the going gets tough?
Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From