Smallc Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The problem is, those people have extremely large microphones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The problem is, those people have extremely large microphones. The term "blowhard" must have come from somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just watched it. Probably the best movie I have EVER seen. I am in AWE. If Conservatives want to identify themselves with the corporation and its tactics in this movie, they are even sicker than I imagined they were. Liberal twaddle? If respect for life, family, and nature are Liberal ideals then sign me up for a LIberal membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just watched it. Probably the best movie I have EVER seen. I am in AWE. If Conservatives want to identify themselves with the corporation and its tactics in this movie, they are even sicker than I imagined they were. Liberal twaddle? If respect for life, family, and nature are Liberal ideals then sign me up for a LIberal membership. Even better than "Up in Smoke"? Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just watched it. Probably the best movie I have EVER seen. I am in AWE. If Conservatives want to identify themselves with the corporation and its tactics in this movie, they are even sicker than I imagined they were. Liberal twaddle? If respect for life, family, and nature are Liberal ideals then sign me up for a LIberal membership.How much did you pay for your ticket?How much of that money went to the shareholders of Twentieth-Century Fox? How much to the personal bank account of James Cameron? ==== I bought a ticket for $13 and I reckon that James Cameron personally received $1 of that and Twentieth Century Fox about $1 too. DrGreenThumb, whaddya think about such inequality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Corporations are bad! Corporations are evil! Oh if only we could live one with nature (swoon) among the lovely birds and butterflies, without all that horrible, polluting technology and all that greed our culture currently is rife with (sigh). It's liberal twaddle. Here I thought the Liberal Order was about fencing off nature and selling legal titles to it, so people could have the liberty to buy and sell anything and everything. Freedom to accumulate wealth and freedom from wealth all in the same breath.I think you're conflating liberalism with socialism or, an even worse confusion, communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 How much did you pay for your ticket? How much of that money went to the shareholders of Twentieth-Century Fox? How much to the personal bank account of James Cameron? ==== I bought a ticket for $13 and I reckon that James Cameron personally received $1 of that and Twentieth Century Fox about $1 too. DrGreenThumb, whaddya think about such inequality? I really don't care how much money Fox, or Cameron made, or even how much the theatre made off its overpriced popcorn and drinks. They charged what the free market would bear, and are entitled to their profits. I support the free market, and ethical corporations. I said if the Conservatives feel that the particular unethical, profit at any cost, corporation in this movie is representative of them then they must be real sickos. If they feel, like the company in the movie did, that murdering, and displacing an entire race for the sake of money is acceptable, I feel sorry for them. This was a beautiful movie, with a strong moral message, and my whole family loved it, from my 7 year old daughter to my mother in law. Its very telling that Conservatives see this movie as some kind of attack on their "values"(or lack of them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Here I thought the Liberal Order was about fencing off nature and selling legal titles to it, so people could have the liberty to buy and sell anything and everything. Indeed what you describe is classical liberalism. I think you're conflating liberalism with socialism or, an even worse confusion, communism. Liberalism today is about progressivism which is about socialism. Communism is dead but some haven't realized it. You saw some of those people in the streets at Copenhagen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Liberalism today is about progressivism Ye......wait..... which is about socialism. No......Those are two different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I really don't care how much money Fox, or Cameron made, or even how much the theatre made off its overpriced popcorn and drinks. They charged what the free market would bear, and are entitled to their profits. I support the free market, and ethical corporations. I said if the Conservatives feel that the particular unethical, profit at any cost, corporation in this movie is representative of them then they must be real sickos. If they feel, like the company in the movie did, that murdering, and displacing an entire race for the sake of money is acceptable, I feel sorry for them. This was a beautiful movie, with a strong moral message, and my whole family loved it, from my 7 year old daughter to my mother in law. Its very telling that Conservatives see this movie as some kind of attack on their "values"(or lack of them). I thought the movie itself was very entertaining but the storyline quite hackneyed. Good guys vs. Bad guys with some correlation to current stereotypes. There was a message, I think. and it was that the environment is important to us all. Destroy it and we all die. Kind of a message liberals like to feel they own and other people have to realize this is true because they have no clue and if you can't get them to realize it on their own then you have to make them realize it. Hint - they are probably conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Ye......wait..... No......Those are two different things. No explanation? No links? If I said Environmentalism were socialism would you believe that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, I wouldn't. The two ideas are very different. Progressives don't necessarily want community control or ownership of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No explanation? No links? If I said Environmentalism were socialism would you believe that? Personally, as wild as it is, I don't think your logical progression ("liberalism is progressivism is socialism") is extremist enough. I've got a better one for you: Environmentalism is liberalism is progressivism is socialism is communism is fascism is hate-the-troops-ism is treason is evil is Satanism. What I like about this progession (if I can use such a dirty word) is not only that I typed it with my left (ie sinister) hand...but that it's barely a caricature of the perverse left-hatred we keep seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, I wouldn't. The two ideas are very different. Progressives don't necessarily want community control or ownership of anything. They have to have the ability to redistribute wealth though. That must include the ability to decide from whom they shall take and to whom they shall give. This implies the ultimate ownership of property is the State and not the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, I wouldn't. The two ideas are very different. Progressives don't necessarily want community control or ownership of anything. I think what Pliny is trying to say is that if you're not in favor of complete anarchy, then you're a godless commie. Even better than "Up in Smoke"? Wow! ok,, that one made me laugh -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 They have to have the ability to redistribute wealth though. And to some extent, that exists in all societies, but it doesn't make them socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Personally, as wild as it is, I don't think your logical progression ("liberalism is progressivism is socialism") is extremist enough. I've got a better one for you: Environmentalism is liberalism is progressivism is socialism is communism is fascism is hate-the-troops-ism is treason is evil is Satanism. What I like about this progession (if I can use such a dirty word) is not only that I typed it with my left (ie sinister) hand...but that it's barely a caricature of the perverse left-hatred we keep seeing. Stagnant and static states of existence such as fascism and communism are ideals. They are a form of totalitarianism and thus void of political change. Liberalism (today's liberalism), progressivism and socialism are about the increasing centralization of authority of the State until the ideal is achieved. The ideal exists in the minds of those in authority and they resist loss of authority and power. I get that you are being facetious here but if we can understand how to avoid totalitarianism, essentially not centralizing power in all aspects of society, we can avoid a Stalin or Hitler ever becoming the destructive force they were able to become. Sincere communists may have had idyllic thoughts and Lenin and Trotsky may have had the purest intentions to create a worker's paradise but they sure made it easy for Stalin to just step in and takeover, and it is that opportunity that must not be made available to would be tyrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And to some extent, that exists in all societies, but it doesn't make them socialist. Today it more or less does exist in all societies. Socialism is a progression not a state. It is a matter of degrees. The degree is getting pretty high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The degree is a matter of opinion. I'd say it's got a great distance to go before it's anything close to socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I think what Pliny is trying to say is that if you're not in favor of complete anarchy, then you're a godless commie. Communism is supposed to be the road to anarchy isn't it? I am only suggesting government be our slave and not our master. ok,, that one made me laugh -k I guess you have been on a few threads with Dr. Greenthumb? Happy New Year, kimmy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The degree is a matter of opinion. I'd say it's got a great distance to go before it's anything close to socialism. You mean anything close to totalitarianism. Socialism is an evolutionary process towards totalitarianism. We can call Barack Obama a socialist but we can't say he is a totalitarian dictator until he becomes one. I agree but we should realize the danger of the progression before government becomes our master and not our servant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Our Constitution does not allow for that. The people serve the Crown, and in turn, the Crown serves the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Ummm...didn't this topic begin as Avatar? I look forward to seeing Avatar eventually.Give me a good plot,CGI or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Ummm...didn't this topic begin as Avatar? I look forward to seeing Avatar eventually.Give me a good plot,CGI or not. You'll be disappointed with Avatar if you are looking for a good plot. For pure entertainment it is well worth the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Our Constitution does not allow for that. The people serve the Crown, and in turn, the Crown serves the people. No, neither did the Russian Tsar allow for it. The Crown? Is this a monarchy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.