Jump to content

Avatar


August1991

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol:

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol:

-k

I guess you have been on a few threads with Dr. Greenthumb?

Happy New Year, kimmy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...