Not bad for left-wing propaganda
Whosoever will may come...and get your services for free.
shareThanks for your enlightenment.
(sorry, for stooping to your level)
lol rednecks
share
MovieChat Forums > Elysium (2013) Discussion > Not bad for left-wing propaganda
I felt the same way. It was entertaining, but the liberal agenda was annoying.
The long thread about this liberal-driven film blowing up its own argument here in the Elysium message board is brilliant and spot on.
Just a question: What's bad about "liberal"? I thought that "liberal" means to have an affinity for liberty which in my view is a positive thing and I thought this love for liberty to be a thoroughly american trait. If the expression "liberal" has a negative connotation for you, maybe you want to look up its root meaning and its origin. And then maybe not.
share"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.
shareLet me guess, you're a Rush Limbaugh fan?
Most liberals/Dems have never been on welfare, have not accepted unemployment, and gladly pay our taxes every year, even though we don't agree with much of our tax money going to places that engage in genocide (Israel). I've never stolen in my life.
So those trailer park residents living in the sticks in KY, WV, MO and AL are Democrats? Really? Those unemployed, welfare receiving trailer park residents? And most of the tax evaders out there are Republicans.
Shut off Fox Noise and wake up.
Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From
You should never presume to lecture anyone about Democrats after spewing your ignorant nonsense. The person you replied to wasn't correct but you are as completely wrong as they were.
Shut off PSMBC and wake your empty head up.
He's completely wrong? So then... racist, trailer dwelling Christian rednecks in Kentucky are big time gay-lovin' Democrats? Interesting.
Are you not entertained?!
[deleted]
You might want to consult a dictionary.
Watta ya lookn here for?
"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
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
share
[deleted]
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
share
[deleted]
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.share
"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. share
[deleted]
If liberal means welfare, than 'right' means healthcare for rich and light-skinned only. Just like like Jesus wanted it.
shareI 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...
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)
shareYes it does, Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.
shareLiberal 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.
[deleted]
It depends on who you ask. The term "liberal" has many definitions. Liberals in Europe typically stand up for the working man, as do classic Liberals here in America. But the problem is, the Democratic party was hijacked in recent decades by socialists, who hide behind the label "liberal" to keep people in the party and get votes.
The problem with liberals is vast here in the US. Many think the government should solve all our problems, and that the states and the people have no business making those decisions. They also think taxing the living daylights out of everyone, particularly the working middle class, is going to solve all our problems. They also believe over-regulating everything will keep businesses here in America, and that they can spend their way out of any recession. Democratic Senators' favorite thing to do (particularly in California), instead of doing their jobs, is to create all sorts of useless laws that supposedly combat pollution and poverty, when in fact it does nothing to help the situation, and makes things worse. They completely ignore the real issues, and trick people into thinking they're actually doing something for the good of the country or state, when in fact, everything they do is for their own self-interests, including staying in office.
Now I'm not gonna say that all Republicans are better. We have plenty of RINOs here (Republican In Name Only), but at least real Republicans let the power go back to the states when they're in office. And they don't laugh at, step on, or ignore people who try to stand up for a good cause.
Left-wing or Progressive. Liberal is too kind a word for these Commies. Classic Liberals were basically what the Conservatives are today: tolerant, patient, inclusive.
shareConservatives are what? I mean, if you're talking about outside the US, maybe, but inside the US? They are none of those things except to their own kind.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
Shush.. Adults speaking
'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'
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.
What the rich pay for on the backs of the poor.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
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.
shareWell, 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%.
share
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.
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
What Michael said.... Still, it's an awful movie--if talking about the movie is permitted. I watched it because of Damon and Foster. Foster is dreadful, and both prove once again that any star will turn into a *hore for money. Profanity, obscenities, gushing blood, and special effects don't make for edifying entertainment. If people keep buying this tripe from Hollywood, more and more of us will develop a taste for profanity, obscenities, etc. And they'll deserve it. Disgusting display, whatever the political agenda.
share"Force" those other countries to get their *beep* together."
Really? That sounds like a great idea! Maybe we can send some troops over, yeah?
The amazing thing about this country is that is was STOLEN from the indigenous population that was pretty much killed off and its economy was chiefly built on agriculture that was produced by the worst form of slavery that history has ever recorded, but now all of a sudden it's the moral compass for the world. Sounds legit.
Even today we get our cheap goods through slave labor, some of it being produced right next door in Mexico in deplorable factories, yet we as a country condemn the people that produce things for us. Bleeding heart? How about human? How about people that see other humans as equals and not servants and animals here to do what we want... whose only purpose in life is to make sure that we can have produce and clothes at affordable prices.
"Local born natives." Give me a fricking break. Those "immigrants" once owned this land. Do you think they want to live in ghettos? The arrogance of some folks is mind blowing. Don't you think we are in some part responsible for the way things are in the countries that we exploit? We have the world's largest military and that is the ONLY reason the rest of the world puts up with our bull****. That's it. So because we can "force" other countries to do our dirty work for us at gun point, we're better? FOH. share
Funny how so many euros give america *beep* over this when it was europe who did the initial taking from the natives.
shareI think you nailed it. Political views are always just an excuse not to act for the benefit of everyone, I repeat: EVERYONE. Yes, revolutions are overrated and only bring more pain like wars, civil and international, but tell me... don't global corporations bring pain? Oh yes , they always did since the times of colonization of Africa and Asia they surely have caused misery and suffering. And now those "great" nations of the rich west lift noses about immigrants from the third world? No go. You robbed them (directly or in gloves) for centuries and still do so, and I think it's time to cringe and accept them as humans.... Not just sell them iphones.
shareThere should be Elysium 2 - the near Earth Elysium is destroyed by unchecked immigration, and rich people move to Mars, so they can have their normal life back again.
Seriously, though - if the people on Earth couldn't get their act together - that is, contain the overpopulation, build their own medical devices, reduce policy, etc - why did they want to get it from the those who had it by force? That sounds a bit unfair. Why even try to collect wealth and build yourself a decent life, if all your posessions are going to be taken by those who don't even try hard enough to fix their own problems?
"Seriously, though - if the people on Earth couldn't get their act together - that is, contain the overpopulation, build their own medical devices, reduce policy, etc - why did they want to get it from the those who had it by force?"
That is a good point. Were the people on earth somehow just too stupid to build on earth what the people built on Elysium? I daresay, it would be easier and cheaper to build good hospitals on earth than in orbit around the planet. Was anybody forcing the people on earth to trash everything, engage in rampant crime, etc.? There does seem to be a ducking of responsibility on the part of some who call themselves liberals. share
There should be Elysium 2 - the near Earth Elysium is destroyed by unchecked immigration, and rich people move to Mars, so they can have their normal life back again.
I didn't see any serious argument during the movie in favor of unchecked immigration. The only reason they made everyone a citizen is that that people on earth could get emergency medical care.
Of course you could argue that poor children should die of easily treatable medical diseases that cost little to treat. All because it's not "fair" to force the super rich to part with 0.0001% of their yearly income. But if you're going to make that argument, then make it. share