'The Giver' Slams Leftwing Totalitarianism via Metaphor (and a great movie too)

[JoeB131]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

The Giver was published in 1993, Hunger Games was published in 2008.

I don't doubt that the movie sucked, though.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

A "ripoff" published more than a decade before?
Another brilliant comment by JoeNobody.

 

[jasonnfree]

the left believes in concentrating more and more,power in the hands of a central government...for the good of society...

Communism, and fascism are simply two sides of the socialist coin...and examples,of left wing governance...

the American Right (conservatives, libertarians, tea party) believes in limiting the power of the central government as much as possible so that individuals can make decisions for their own good, and as a side benefit, all of society prospers...

Wherever the lefts,beliefs about centralizing power gain control, horrors follow...see Germany 1930s, Russia 1917...and any modern American city where democrats have been in total control for decades...

this,recent column explains this quite well...

Who Lost the Cities? | National Review Online

The right wing seems to celebrate one or two corporations controlling an entire industry, like communications. A monopoly is good word for it and it guarantees higher prices and less dissemination of information other than the info that particular media wants us to hear. The right wing is in favor of privatized prisons where the prisons are guaranteed a certain occupation rate of inmates or the taxpayers pony up the difference. This is a guarantee that more young men will be rounded up and sent to prison. Look at our rate of concentration of prisoners compared to the rest of the world. I myself think that both sides of the political aisle ultimately lead to a more powerful state with less rights for the individual.

ROFLMNAO! That is HYSTERICAL. (In every sense of the word)

ROFLMNAO! is code for INCOR. (I'm not capable of rebutting.)

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

The Giver was published in 1993, Hunger Games was published in 2008.

I don't doubt that the movie sucked, though.

I was referring to the movie, which I am sure was only greenlit because the Hunger Games did so well. "What can we turn into a movie?" I'm sure Ender's Game only got turned into a movie because Harry Potter did so well.

But point taken.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

A "ripoff" published more than a decade before?
Another brilliant comment by JoeNobody.

I was referring to the movies, not the books. There are shitloads of books out there, probably aimed at your teenaged reading level.

 

[hipeter924]

It isn't the role of government to decide what a woman can't do with her body

Sure it is. You want it to be.

How? Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind, just these days they are a lot safer if carried out by modern medicine.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It isn't the role of government to decide what a woman can't do with her body

Sure it is. You want it to be.

How? Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind, just these days they are a lot safer if carried out by modern medicine.

LOL!

The issue here is very simple. Does a woman have any responsibility for conceiving a human life she conceives, due to her decisions to allow a man to enter her reproductive organs with his reproductive organs?

All human rights are sustained by responsibilities; and absent the responsibilities, there is no potential for the right. The first of these responsibilities is that one cannot exercise their rights to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

Using NOTHING more than the tortured nature of your premise:

Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Your use of the word 'choice', attempts to justify the taking of a human life, to satisfy the convenience of the individual who willfully engaged in the behavior designed for mo other purpose except the conception of human life, who conceived human life due to her have MADE THE CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR.

Demonstrating that you are a liar. Meaning that you knowingly adjusted your speech, so as to deceitfully advance a fraudulent premise, toward the goal of influencing those who are ignorant of your treachery.

You have abused the trust of honest people... . Proving that you are manifestly evil.

 

[dblack]

I think Lois Lowry would be very surprised to hear that you think her dystopian society was "left wing".

Utopian and dystopian are kissin' cousins.

 

[hipeter924]

Sure it is. You want it to be.

How? Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind, just these days they are a lot safer if carried out by modern medicine.

LOL!

The issue here is very simple. Does a woman have any responsibility for conceiving a human life she conceives, due to her decisions to allow a man to enter her reproductive organs with his reproductive organs?

All human rights are sustained by responsibilities; and absent the responsibilities, there is no potential for the right. The first of these responsibilities is that one cannot exercise their rights to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

Using NOTHING more than the tortured nature of your premise:

Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Your use of the word 'choice', attempts to justify the taking of a human life, to satisfy the convenience of the individual who willfully engaged in the behavior designed for mo other purpose except the conception of human life, who conceived human life due to her have MADE THE CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR.

Demonstrating that you are a liar. Meaning that you knowingly adjusted your speech, so as to deceitfully advance a fraudulent premise, toward the goal of influencing those who are ignorant of your treachery.

You have abused the trust of honest people... . Proving that you are manifestly evil.

The fetus (at the stage of development allowed in America for an abortion) is not a fully grown human being, and does not count as a 'human life'. Women have the right to their own body, and if they want to have an abortion in guidance of their doctor, they have that right, as the right of the already existing human transcends the 'right' of a fetus in development to existence. But your argument relies on this absurd straw-man/woman argument that women that have an abortion are the moral equivalent of serial killers, that cry 'bring me another lover' so they can 'kill more babies'.

Calling someone a 'liar' requires that someone be purposely deceiving (in knowledge that their evidence is fallacious), and presenting mistruth as factual reality to be a correct use of the term. As I am presenting what I know to be true, as opposed to emotional outburst decrying my opponent as 'evil', that is not the case. I am not a 'liar'.

I would have liked to be at this McCarthyist trial of pro-choice supporters by straw-man/woman - if just to point out how ridiculous paranoia over abortion really is these days.

 

[dblack]

I think Lois Lowry would be very surprised to hear that you think her dystopian society was "left wing".

"When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How? Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind, just these days they are a lot safer if carried out by modern medicine.

LOL!

The issue here is very simple. Does a woman have any responsibility for conceiving a human life she conceives, due to her decisions to allow a man to enter her reproductive organs with his reproductive organs?

All human rights are sustained by responsibilities; and absent the responsibilities, there is no potential for the right. The first of these responsibilities is that one cannot exercise their rights to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

Using NOTHING more than the tortured nature of your premise:

Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Your use of the word 'choice', attempts to justify the taking of a human life, to satisfy the convenience of the individual who willfully engaged in the behavior designed for mo other purpose except the conception of human life, who conceived human life due to her have MADE THE CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR.

Demonstrating that you are a liar. Meaning that you knowingly adjusted your speech, so as to deceitfully advance a fraudulent premise, toward the goal of influencing those who are ignorant of your treachery.

You have abused the trust of honest people... . Proving that you are manifestly evil.

The fetus (at the stage of development allowed in America for an abortion) is not a fully grown human being, and does not count as a 'human life'. Women have the right to their own body, and if they want to have an abortion in guidance of their doctor, they have that right, as the right of the already existing human transcends the 'right' of a fetus in development to existence. But your argument relies on this absurd straw-man/woman argument that women that have an abortion are the moral equivalent of serial killers, that cry 'bring me another lover' so they can 'kill more babies'.

Calling someone a 'liar' requires that someone be purposely deceiving (in knowledge that their evidence is fallacious), and presenting mistruth as factual reality to be a correct use of the term. As I am presenting what I know to be true, as opposed to emotional outburst decrying my opponent as 'evil', that is not the case. I am not a 'liar'.

I would have liked to be at this McCarthyist trial of pro-choice supporters by straw-man/woman - if just to point out how ridiculous paranoia over abortion really is these days.

The "fetus" remains human life... with the same rights to it's life as you and the mother who willfully acted to conceive it.

Your argument is merely a rationalization which seeks to set aside the responsibility of the woman to not engage in coitus until she is ready to bear the responsibilities for which the behavior is designed. And you're prepared to go to the absurd length wherein THOROUGHLY INNOCENT human life can be killed, on the justification that THAT LIFE is an inconvenience to the woman who is FULLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONCEIVING THAT LIFE. It is INSANITY... specifically presenting symptoms of severe sociopathy.

And FTR, this discussion is not about LAW... it's about soundly reasoned, sustainable morality, wherein the right to SCREW rests on the RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THE HUMANS THAT ARE CONCEIVED AS A RESULT OF EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

You're a liar... and animated by nothing short of pure, unadulterated evil. PERIOD! (You're also ignorant of the concept: Fallacious...)

 

[hipeter924]

Calling me a liar repeatedly doesn't make me one, nor does caps to make out like you are yelling bother me at all. Will reply sometime after I have got shut eye. But not sure whether it is worth the bother. I am not a member of either lobby group, and haven't donated or lobbied for either, getting the virtual popcorn ready so I can find out how I can be 'evil' by not aborting things and not advocating aborting things.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, The Giver is just another tiresome Hunger Games ripoff.

Because no one in Hollywood has an original idea.

Oh, 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

It sucked.

A "ripoff" published more than a decade before?
Another brilliant comment by JoeNobody.

Joe B is a repeatedly demonstrated liar, which he demonstrated yet again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How? Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind, just these days they are a lot safer if carried out by modern medicine.

LOL!

The issue here is very simple. Does a woman have any responsibility for conceiving a human life she conceives, due to her decisions to allow a man to enter her reproductive organs with his reproductive organs?

All human rights are sustained by responsibilities; and absent the responsibilities, there is no potential for the right. The first of these responsibilities is that one cannot exercise their rights to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).

Using NOTHING more than the tortured nature of your premise:

Conservatives are the ones demanding that all abortion clinics be shut down by the government, so that women can't make a choice - besides drowning babies in back alleys like in the 'good old' medieval church times.

Your use of the word 'choice', attempts to justify the taking of a human life, to satisfy the convenience of the individual who willfully engaged in the behavior designed for mo other purpose except the conception of human life, who conceived human life due to her have MADE THE CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR.

Demonstrating that you are a liar. Meaning that you knowingly adjusted your speech, so as to deceitfully advance a fraudulent premise, toward the goal of influencing those who are ignorant of your treachery.

You have abused the trust of honest people... . Proving that you are manifestly evil.

The fetus (at the stage of development allowed in America for an abortion) is not a fully grown human being, and does not count as a 'human life'.

Only murderous leftist slime like you think that they have the right to designate if a living human being qualifies as a 'human life'. On that definitions abuse has come every mass slaughtering leftwing totalitarian regime of the past 100 years, from the Boer detention camps to Pop Pots killing fields. Hundreds of millions of people murdered and abortion is only once facet of this anti human ideology.

Humanity will find its outlook rise so much when the last leftwing ideologue that claims that this Earth is over populated decides finally to lead by example.

 

[Sallow]

I think Lois Lowry would be very surprised to hear that you think her dystopian society was "left wing".

I have a very vague recollection of the plot, so excuse me if I'm missing something but isn't the central governing principle here that of a ruling elite making the best decisions for the masses because the masses can't be trusted to make the best decisions in their own lives?
This is exactly what drives modern liberalism - take a smart liberal, put him in a position of power, give him legal and governmental tools to use and he'll make the best decisions for society.

A top aide to Liberal Leader Paul Martin apologized on Sunday shortly after suggesting on national television that Canadians might spend child-care money on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, Martin's director of communications, was attacking a Conservative plan to give families of young children $1,200 a year for child care.

"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn," Reid said during a panel discussion on CBC News: Sunday. "Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper's plan has nothing to do with child care."

The Conservative on the panel called the comment "an insult," and said it proves that the Liberals don't trust families to make their own choices about what's best for their children.​

That's a very conservative concept.

 

[JoeB131]

The Giver only made 12 million in its opening weekend.

And it cost 30 million to make.

BOMB!!!!!

 

[Unkotare]

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind...

People have been taking human lives in all sorts of ways "since the beginning of mankind." When someone else's 'choice' to end a life is directed toward you, well you sure as hell want the government to control that person's use of their own body for such a purpose.

 

[JoeB131]

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind...

People have been taking human lives in all sorts of ways "since the beginning of mankind." When someone else's 'choice' to end a life is directed toward you, well you sure as hell want the government to control that person's use of their own body for such a purpose.

Good point.

As soon as a fetus objects to abortion, we'll get right on that.

 

[Unkotare]

Abortions have being going on since the beginning of mankind...

People have been taking human lives in all sorts of ways "since the beginning of mankind." When someone else's 'choice' to end a life is directed toward you, well you sure as hell want the government to control that person's use of their own body for such a purpose.

Good point.

As soon as a fetus objects to abortion, we'll get right on that.

So, as long as the victim is - for example - mute, sleeping, paralyzed, or just looking the other way at the moment murder is OK with you? Including if you were the target?

Makes about as much sense as any other ******* thing you've ever posted, idiot.