Puritanical bs. Reminds me of the Kevin Sorbo mentality. Everything is great, fine and terrific. We are all good lil boys and girls. We don't do anything bad.
Right wingers have been acting that way for 100 years.
Obama you mean
shareObama wants to make you comply to his will. He wants you to all fall in line and not question his motives. Wake up please
shareYou have a poor understanding of conservatives. This society violates nearly, if not all, tenets of conservative philosophy.
shareHe's a liberal. They don't know a thing about what they even support. I never really supported either side but the stupidity of liberals is making up my mind for me.
sharelol, it violates 'what'....of your own dialect of conservative society. Obama, lol weak retort neocon
sorry costumrs. you represent the problem of modern neocons. your a idiot and this is INDEED what the Far Right wants: a society clean from filth.
I am a liberal, nope,nope and more nope. Guess again little man. kanyon, your making me decide what I support and it isn't your dialect of globalism.
Lets see, no weapons. Not a conservative position. Most conservatives support the second amendment.
Complete control of speech. Again, not a conservative position. Many deplore the tendency to swear and use obscenities, but conservatives don't support laws to repress it.
Complete control of your diet. Not a conservative position. Conservatives promote making your own decisions on what you eat.
No smoking or drinking. Conservatives vary on this one, but most support the right to do so, though many would restrict where you can smoke.
Only one corporation controls all restaurants. Most conservatives support healthy competition between corporations.
Apparently no sex. Many conservatives do believe that sex should be restricted to marriage, but I don't know any from the last decade or two who support passing laws to restrict it, let alone the passionless version in this film.
Yes, I am a conservative and I come from a conservative family. Everyone in my family, and my conservative friends, are horrified by this society.
And before you say it, yes I have liberal friends. Most of them are horrified as well. Please note I did not make any comments that implied liberals would support this society. I was merely replying to the post that suggested that this would be an ideal conservative society.
The no weapons is a definitely a conservative position. You need to go back further than 30 years. "Conservatives" used to be the biggest whiners about "weapons" falling into the wrong hands. This is a dialectical ploy. "ownership" is a right, not a privie. It was the "liberals" who wanted to degrade privies into normal, everyday rights. Libertines and Propertarians are the ones that don't believe in any gun laws and want egalitarian market power. Not Conservatives and the far right.
Conservatives don't support private ownership if private companies buy up who they want. They mumble it. But they don't support it because it requires government interference. Look at the 19th century, Your a mess man. Why even bother responding if you aren't serious and instead, make dialectical mumble about "liberals". Poppycock. For Conservatives, the more monopoly the better.
Your closer to a "liberal" than myself. By far.
I would love to reply to you, but your post is completely incoherent. Please rephrase and I will attempt to reply.
shareYour *beep* is just as bad. You can't reply because you got your ass owned. Listen, you have forgotten the long political past. Who was it that cussed, swore, had non-martial sex, drank to much, lived off the land, did drugs....it was the New Left......based by the Right Wingers at the time as a bunch of lawless, government hating hooligans. The old left were a bunch of "traditional" conservatives themselves. What your thinking of is the old northern Republican progressives....who were pushing stuff like Affirmative Action in 1948............
You compound your lack of history with stupidity with todays "Ted Nugent" dialect where he tries to act like some great white guy with a "libertine" flare.....why doing all the authoritarian things right-hegelians do under a Judeo-Christian banner. That is why I laugh at Nugents(the draft dodger, pedo and coward) of the modern world. They whine about rights, yet are selective, even on a constitutional base. They have not done a damn thing for the white race. Not one thing. The biggest transfer of wealth to the white peoples of America came in FDR's New Deal programs. Yet, nobody including the modern right-hegelians and their globalist financiers, will admit that. Because it would destroy their final goal: A international plutocracy privately controlling all the worlds assets via crony property rights. Sounds like to me the whole Right/Left thing is a scam. Boy, you fell for it lil fellow.
You seem to be very angry. And you have yet to clarify your post. You are also conflating Republican/Democrat with Conservative/Liberal. The positions of all those change with time.
However, since the revolution, those who identify themselves as conservative support the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which include such things as limited government. The very term refers to conservation of the principles and ideals of the revolution. (Referencing here American conservatives. European conservatives have different philosophies. )
The society of Demolition Man is the antithesis of limited government. All aspects of life are controlled. Citizens have no choices to make. Government has made them all and enforces them.
The world portrayed in Demolition Man is very liberal. No violence, no guns, no sex, no smoking, no drinking, no bad language and so on. The people in the world are like robots. They have no feelings or emotions. Let's not forget how the system deals with criminals. They freeze them, not execute them. When they are finally thawed out, their given a program to better themselves and in return make them believe everything that this liberal world believes in. The user who says this is the type of world the far right wants, has his facts wrong. This is the world of the left. This is the world Obama and Hilary Clinton wants the U.S. to be.
shareIn that kind of world no point of the Star Spangled Banner. That's a son that stands for freedom not fascism. I have nothing against American songs. Many of us are against smoke as there are allot of complaints of passive smoking.
shareYou sound like a really angry bitter a$$hole. I'm guessing you come on here to treat people like $hit because you hate your life and you hate living, so you take it out on others. If I was you I'd also feel the same way too. I can tell you aren't happy. But I think it might be too late for you to feel happy and contempt though. Oh well.
shareWhat is a privie? Isn't it a kind of toilet?
share".. let alone the passionless version in this film. "
Where do you get 'passionless'?
They didn't even show what it IS in the world of this movie (it doesn't exist in the 'film', it exists in the 'world' the movie depicts - also, it's wrong to call it a 'film', when it can be viewed digitally, where there's absolutely no film involved).
How can you know so much about it, enough to declare it 'passionless'? For all we know, it could be -extremely- passionate and heated. Haven't you ever felt passion towards some inanimate object or maybe animated fictional character or something like that? If THAT is possbile, then surely two people ACTUALLY connecting (even if only via technology), interacting, talking, hearing each other, and possibly having a MORE intimate connection via technology-induced TELEPATHY can be EXTREMELY passionate!
Think how passionate and heated just 'normal cybersex' (text-based communication that have to do with 'one-handed typing') can be. Now if you multiply the dimensions from one-dimensional text to two-dimensional webcam séx, it's already possibly very very heated - now you add another dimension, so it's basically three-, or even four-dimensional experience, and you just categorically label it 'passionless'??
What??
why?
What is your reasoning for using this word? Just because STALLONE's character couldn't figure it out or get into it, or whatnot, doesn't mean it's passionless! Don't buy what his character saw as the whole experience that it usually is for everyone else, for crying out loud!
You can be very passionate about low-resolution, low-quality single picture, maybe torn from an 'adult magazine' or just downloded from ther internet, so why not this multi-dimensional, TANTRIC experience?
Please retract your thoughtless statement, or at least explain it fully and satisfactorily in a way that would convince me against everything I have just said in this post, if you want to be honest.
Not anymore. Trump went full-moron with his gun grab and "take the guns first" insanity. Very few MAGA's will stop supporting him over this. Which means they are not really pro-gun.
Almost every pro-Trump person I've talked to about this uses anti-Democrat talking points to support Trump's anti-gun agenda. They're all like "Who needs a machine gun?", or "No one needs that kind of gun anyway".
The especially stupid Trump supporters claim bump stocks are not guns even though trump, the ATF and the CFR says they are. But these same idiots are unable to explain why it is okay to seize gun accessories from law abiding Americans also.
Here is a link to how Trump accomplished his gun grab. Up to 520,000 bump stocks required to be surrendered or destroyed by law abiding Americans and costing the economy $312 million.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf
The Department of Justice isshare
amending the regulations of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bumpstock-type devices—meaning ‘‘bump
fire’’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and
devices with certain similar
characteristics—are ‘‘machineguns’’ as
defined by the National Firearms Act of
1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968
Hahahahahaha.
I love how people fight over which master to serve.
This is not about right vs left, conservative vs liberal, Republican vs Democrat.
This is about the state vs the individual. The ruling elite vs you.
All political classes want to control you and your life. The only difference is what aspect of your life they want to control. In the end it's all the same.
Rise above the petty right vs left debate and free your minds.
Individual liberty for all.
Aavfreak..dont forget...taxation is theft. But you must at least concede we are well on the road to this version of the future.
Sorry Brother.
Tax is not synonym to theft. Government needs funds to operate, and it's only reasonable that those that benefit from government, should give a small portion of their profits to the maintaining and functioning of said government.
Tax, implemented correctly and morally, is actually a logical and wonderful system, based on CONSENT, so it can't be theft.
However, income tax is another matter, but it's still not theft, because it's based on consent of the governed. That's why there doesn't need to be a specific law about it. (Meet Your Strawman, Legal vs. Lawful, Freeman-on-the-Land - research these to understand)
If we think of a good world, and its government, it's supposed to work like this:
Everyone consents to being governed by GG (Good Government). This means that people and corporations that gain a lot of wealth, consent to giving a small portion of that wealth to GG, so the GG can take care of all people.
GG's duties include the justice system, police, the money system, firestations, libraries, hospitals, ambulances, and so on and so forth. Basically GG exists to take care of the people, and the people willingly give a small portion of their earnings so all this becomes possible.
This can be called 'taxation' or it can be called something else, but this is the basic principle that it's all (supposedly) based on.
The problem is TWISTING of this system, so that it's no longer a GG, it's just a "G", and that means 'gg for the people'.
When it's just a G, it separates law and legal system, and starts using legal system to oppress people and use taxation AS a tool of oppression (though still not theft, because people can withdraw their consent at any time, but they almost never do. Until they do, they are under obligation to pay taxes).
The powerhungry people always find ways to get 'to the top', and normal people always suffer from this. So it's not as simple as 'taxation being theft'.
A fun fact; "to confiscate" means "to take unlawfully".
[deleted]
No, this is the society the Far Left wants. The society the Far Right wants is the one from Starship Troopers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvTiDnWJLE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FStBkFIxu1U
share100. I think Starship Troopers is probably the best realistic vision of a future we could possibly hope for. I probably didn't take the right messaging from the movie but this is the only way the world could exist and not be a total dystopian hellhole.
shareThe type of society the far right wants? FALSE. Changing the way people speak falls more in line with the neo liberal ideology. In fact, left wingers are usually the individuals who get butt-hurt when people use the word fa99ot, fat *beep* retard, etc. As a result of being easily offended, neo libs are more likely to support restricting free speech.
shareYou need to take your head OUT of your ass
sharedemoltion man society have more in common with woketards:
banning words - same as cancel cultures that woketard support
banning meats - vegan wusses want this and all vegan are woketard
banning weapons - woketard idiotology
banning individualitys - woketard want everyone to be woketard and anyone who not woketard is enemy