This movie must really anger Democrats
Complete state Totalitarian control. A duped and clueless society. Then, some jerk has to go and ruin that Democratic Party utopia.
shareThis really puzzles me.
The regime was extremely conservative. The memories and emotions and giving them to the people is an extremely liberal action.
Study what the terms conservative and liberal mean.
In the US, Conservative for the most part means limited government while Liberal means larger government. As of now, the liberals on the US, calling themselves Progressives, are all for government intrusion into every aspect of personal life.
Bob
That is not a fully true statement, and you know it. It's not the "progressives" in office right now who are vehemently trying to insert themselves into the personal lives of individuals, thereby usurping the "states' rights" they tout as a cornerstone to their belief structure.
shareYes they are. Progressives are trying to insert themselves into every aspect of the lives of citizens. Tell me one aspect of life that you are involved that the Progressives do not want to insert themselves into. You can't even sit on a toilet that the federal government doesn't allow.
Bob
3 Words: "Trans. Vaginal. Probe."
Now tell me which wing of the spectrum is all gung-ho about "transvaginal probe"?
Talk about "intrusion"!!
~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.
No one is gung ho about the transvaginal probe. One is gung ho about an organization that butchers babies in the womb. One that carefully prevents harming a fetus (besides killing it) in order to provide said fetus to research facilities possibly for profit.
Abortion is about the only choice progressives approve of. Where to spend one's own money and how to do so isn't part of it.
Bob
Can't have it both ways: One can't both "[butcher] babies in the womb" while "[preventing harm to] a fetus (besides killing it)" in order to sell it for profit; the butchering would render the fetal tissue unsalable. I suspect the CMP videos of late may be just another sting operation against an organization that the right dislikes, alá the sting against ACORN back in the Uh-Ohs.
If you want to prevent abortions, you double (or triple) Planned Parenthood funding, so they can disseminate the sex ed and the contraceptives so there would be no "need" for abortions. In other words, make abortions safe, legal, but rare.
~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.
Is there a "thumbs up" button for these forums?
Also, thanks for utilizing my absolute most favorite line from Planet Terror, though I'm sure it's been used elsewhere. :P
Pff, that's not true at all. Just look at the republicans telling women what they can and can't do with their own parties. When someone complains about liberals telling them what to do, it's because they want to be free to be prejudiced *beep*
shareI thought it was the Republicans who wanted to control personal lives, like by making laws about abortion and family planning and wanting to prevent people from marrying who they want to etc. I'm from the UK though, so I might have been misinformed.
shareDifferent ways to control lives. Progressives are in both parties, but the ones who are the most active are in the Democrat Party in the US. Abortion is the fight between the mother's rights and the right to life of the fetus. Family planning is too nebulous to even argue about. Most people were against gay marriage just four years ago, including our president.
However, controlling the economy is what the liberal Progressives want. They right now control everything about health care, many feel or at least speak like the government owns all money (such as saying that a tax decrease takes away money from the government). However, Libertarians, who want less government in every part of their lives find a much closer home in the Republican party than the Democrat party.
Bob
Thanks for clearing up the distinction for me. It seems as though the Republicans then are the ones who want to interfere the most with the private lives of citizens. Abortion is a private issue, as is who you want to have sex with or spend the rest of your life with. Even if Democrats were initially against gay marriage (although I suspect a lot of that was for PR purposes), the fact that Republicans would want to ban it kind of makes them hypocrites if they say they don't believe in the state interfering in people's lives.
Controlling the economy doesn't seem to be as much of a personal interference on people's way of life. I mean, if the state isn't regulating the economy, then it's going to end up being dictated by banks and big business owners, isn't it? The deregulation of banks is one of the major causes, if not THE cause, of the 2008 financial crisis. That has a huge impact on individual lives, because the people making the decisions are not accountable to the public, all they are interested in is literally making more money. If people die, lose their jobs, become homeless and starve on the streets, nothing happens to them. If the government is making the rules and that happens, they won't be re-elected. They have much greater accountability. For example what you see now with the TTIP deal, where businesses are trying to engineer it so that they can sue governments for any policies or laws that might harm their profits, even if those laws are for the good of the people, such as banning harmful pesticides or preventing work being carried out at a certain site because it will contaminate the water supply for nearby towns.
It's like with the media- everyone wants freedom of the press, right? And it's so important because we don't want governments taking control of it and making up lies and using propaganda to keep citizens under control etc. But then if you end up with a few private citizens owning a large proportion of the media, then those citizens have the opportunity to spread misinformation/propaganda in order to support their own private interests. We've seen that happen here in the UK where Rupert Murdoch used his newspapers to start essentially a hate campaign against the party leader he didn't want to win the election. And in a way, that's worse, because he's one guy who leads a life so vastly different from your average Joe, he hasn't ever been elected, and yet he ends up with the power to steer public opinion and influence politicians in order to benefit himself. And it's the people who suffer.
So I just don't get the stance that government should not step in to regulate these things. No matter what, you are going to have some *beep* pulling the strings at the top, and I for one would much rather have a democratically elected government doing that than a few entirely self-interested private citizens.
You believe too much in progressivism and socialism. The abortion issue is about the right of the woman vs the right of the unborn child. Those most adamant about the life of the child consider abortion to be murder. However, in the US, the issue is not whether it should be legal, but under what circumstances the life of the child should take precedence.
Most people, including Democrats, felt that gay marriage was not right. Marriage is a religious institution that the state decided to take over for tax purposes. In the US until a few months ago, each sate had the right to regulate it as they saw fit. Most states chose not to legalize it.
"if the state isn't regulating the economy, then it's going to end up being dictated by banks and big business owners, isn't it?"
That is socialism at work. The government is incapable of regulating the economy. When they do, the banks and big business owners have far more of a say than if the people ran the economy.
The housing bubble that ruined the economy in the US was the result of many factors, including the government forcing banks to make housing loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to buy. The banks, needing to make money on what they knew was worthless loans, sold the loans in bundles to other banks. These loans were also financed by the quasi-governmental organizations Fannie MAc and Freddie Mae.
"But then if you end up with a few private citizens owning a large proportion of the media, then those citizens have the opportunity to spread misinformation/propaganda in order to support their own private interests."
Better an individual spreading propaganda than the government. Freedom of the Press is vital because of this. If the people don't have the right, the government has it. You are blaming one person for the gullibility of the populace. If it truly is false information, people wil lstop reading and buying the papers and the person will suffer economically.
"No matter what, you are going to have some *beep* pulling the strings at the top, and I for one would much rather have a democratically elected government doing that than a few entirely self-interested private citizens."
I would rather it be people who are accountable to the public rather than the government, which is so large, it can't be fully accountable. People who have control of the military and police should never be the ones who control your lives or the economy.
Bob
Thanks for clearing up the distinction for me. It seems as though the Republicans then are the ones who want to interfere the most with the private lives of citizens. Abortion is a private issue, as is who you want to have sex with or spend the rest of your life with.
No matter how you spin it, abortion is MURDER and murder isn't a private issue. It ends a life that in the vast preponderance of cases, if left alone, would be a viable human being. If you say that preventing murder is interfering with people's private lives, you'd fit in perfectly in this movie.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!! share
No matter how you spin it, abortion isn't murder at all. It doesn't end a life because an embryo is not alive.
shareWow!! Just Google "is an embryo alive?" You were alive when you were an embryo and just as I said, you were left unmolested and are a viable human(?) being because no one murdered you. Say no to murder.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
Actually no... they did seem more like social conservatives to some extent but they were much more liberal as far as their government.
The whole thing was set up to promote absolute equality and stop war. It was the government protecting the people rather than people being responsible for their own actions and being able to make whatever good or bad decisions they chose. This doesn't sound like a liberal ideal in america today? Even the whole thing of euthanasia is more liberal than conservative. If democrats could figure a way to numb people emotions and such for the greater good as to avoid any offensive behavior, violence, wars etc, trust me they would. You go to any overtly liberal state and the restrictions on everything is quite ridiculous. I know, live in California.
The government was far too involved and controlling of the people for this to be a conservative government. You think a conservative government would be concerned about stopping wars? Or offending people? Guns were obviously only carried by the police people...
Liberal does have multiple meanings that aren't political and the act of returning memories would be a liberal one. But the political government set up was much closer in line with american liberals than conservatives.
Conservative ideology lean towards less government control of the people and every man for himself and a liberal ideology usually want greater government involvement and that it should watch over and protect everyone.
"The memories and emotions and giving them to the people is an extremely liberal action."
Oh, that's right. It's been on every Democratic presidential agenda since 1960. How could I have missed it?
Celebrating out differences and being accepting of them is very much a more left wing ideal, at least in America. Hell, if you're not a white Christian man, the right starts looking a lot less appealing.
What exactly are you talking about? Being forced to serve gay people in a store?
Celebrating out differences and being accepting of them is very much a more left wing ideal, at least in America. Hell, if you're not a white Christian man, the right starts looking a lot less appealing.Exactly, except that's total shyte!! Celebrating differences is great for the left as long as they are "approved" differences. If you're a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to gays (one example), that's not an approved difference and they will go after you with a vengeance.
What exactly are you talking about? Being forced to serve gay people in a store?Look it up. There's also people pushing to FORCE doctors to perform abortions and punishment for not agreeing with the man made, global warming platform.
Accepting, only if you lock step with them.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!! share
The society was communistic. Everyone shared equally, no one was above the rest (except the Elders/Communist Party elite, naturally). Work was assigned from above, and no one had any incentive to create anything new or work hard to try to achieve or contribute more. They practiced eugenics and had actual death panels for old people. The people were unarmed and no one could own an SUV, just the same model of bicycle for all.
Fortunately Democrats aren't that bad yet, although some don't understand where their egalitarian policies would lead.
There was nothing conservative about this vision at all. A conservative dystopia would force people to go to church, marry a spouse of the opposite sex (even if they didn't want to), have kids, serve in the military, etc.