This is what I love about this movie, its true that violance never solves anything is false, but its also true those who live by the sword die by the sword. In the end, its what solution you want and are you willing to deal with the impact
Rasczak is right: the opinion that violence never solves anything and there can only be peace through peaceful means is wishful thinking.
America did not become a free independent country through peace and dialogue but by fighting the British. The colonists did try over and over through peaceful means to gain independence but to no avail. Had they kept negotiating in vain with King George III the colonies would have stayed under his dominion and instead of free men Americans would be subjects.
It's like they think their own thoughts are reality. They're delusional. If the system falls it will be replaced by something 180 degrees different than what they wish. Those who want to destroy the status quo anti regarding the U.S. will end up with something completely opposite from what they think they will achieve. This is why the U.S. must be saved at all cost! I don't want a G-damn right wing global military dictatorship; even if it adheres to moral and constitutional ideals.
Oh joy, to be able to kiss THOSE pillowy lips.... Who cares if she's dumb as a post? Charley S didn't know when he had it good. I've always enjoyed this movie, which is a cross between scifi horror and a tooth paste commercial. The other blonde babe, later to be horribly impaled by a giant space bug, is also a delish dish.
The System that everyone is angry about, was enacted at the fall of modern consumerism at the turn of the last century, the beginning of the industrial revolution and the attempt on the complete eradication of aboriginal tribal life not just Australians.This led to a war and instability from the beginning of the American civil war to the end of the second world war, which in turn led to the modern form of class-ism based on based on representative consumerism and the NEW DEAL. On or of the cart.
@ubermisogynist Do you know what the problem is? That it is not limited to the United States, but to all the world. The democracy is an illusion, the only difference between a dictatorship and Democracy is in Democracy you choose your dictator. And you are bound to mediocre people's vote who don't even understand what they are doing when choosing a representant. They vote by instinct. A person who earns the right to vote, knows what it means. I perfectly agree with this idea.
Its a very interesting concept. If you look at American citizens today on average. Most either dont give a dam about the government or what it stands for. Or they simply bitch about it all day. If you gained rites by contributing something. putting your LIFE on the line. i bet that would change how most people would think about there government or more importantly: its ideals
First, you're suggesting the abolition of American democracy and replacing it with a military dictatorship by way of military coup. Second, you're saying that this is what George Washington would have done. Not only is this just incorrect on more than one level, but it's also contradictory to the very moral, American democratic values you implicitly are espousing as being something you cherish.
Not a military dictatorship. I never mentioned George Washington.
Declaration of Independence
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
At any rate, to be clear, we remain a constitutional democracy. The Legislature is still beholden to the Judicial, the Executive to these, and vice versa. Our representatives are elected in free and fair open elections. Every citizen is given the right and ample opportunity to vote. Every citizen is given certain civil rights, as well. More so than in many other countries. And what's more, these rights are enforced. Our government works.
The point is a differentiation between those who are allowed to vote, and those who are simply just alive; A citizen has earned their vote through social and moral responsibility and a sense of societal awareness. Something lacking in the USA or the West in general. Our society is given a vote it does not use and our citizens are not rewarded for their awareness. That is the message here, in my opinion.
@dirtyraffles I can see this to an extent. There should be basic human rights, but anything beyond that should not be handed to you just because you exist. They should have to be earned, like in this setting.
Of course, in SST, the only way to earn the right to vote was through military service, which is really fucked up. And at any rate, regardless of how the right to vote is earned in such a society, it still boils down to the same thing practice: the minority gets to impose its will in rule over the majority, while the general populace is kept out of decisions which affects it welfare and future. This poses is a major problem for the protection of human rights and civil liberties.
@QuartuvLarry in the Starship Trooper world Murha Would have been run off or voted out after his comment about Soldiers/Marines
Fact is a Vet is less Likely to be corrupt. then anyone else.
I'm joining the USMC, but I think ppl should earn the right to vote today you just have random ppl voting on skin color or random views or handouts. and most ppl that vote don't even know how the Government runs/works!
@Dogmeat1950 Yea and the Starship Fascist world George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin all would have been removed. Good gods, do you kids read any history or know what liberty is? The Founders of the US hated the idea of standing army, for fear it would do just that, take over. Yea buddy the NAZI and Soviet soldiers were a real asset to the freedom of their countries.
@Dogmeat1950 Looks like you need to do some reading. You do know the Continental Army was a militia and not a regular army i.e. farmers and pioneers who knew how to shoot. Let me know when you've read a little US history.
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
@9mmparadox FAIL OMG don't ever talk about History again!
There was a Standing Army! and there was Militias! dude your are so dumb! U.S Army 1775 FOUNDED. the guys wearing Blue Uniforms during the war where Trained Soldiers! farmers etc where Militia!
Just wow.....wow....wow... you get the retard award.
@Dogmeat1950 You get the brainwashed fascist award. Dumb idiot where to you think Army came from moron? People who where in a militia. 2 year enlistment during a DECLARATION of WAR. Then you could just leave, NO draft, NO permanent standing army. I'm sorry you learned history from a leftist public education system.
@Camel76 sorry dude, but Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will. They oppose liberalism and Marxism for being exclusive economic class-based movements.
Fascist hate every thing about the left. thus there is no such thing as a Fascist-left lol. that's like calling someone a Commie-Nazi lol
Yes the USA is a Republic but it has many Democatic Values Communism doesn't lead to Fascism lol. that is the far right wing in politics
in fact a Republic can lead to a Empire and or a Fascist state. like many have in the past. or did Cooper forget to talk about that. every Major Republic in history has become a Empire at one time or a Fascist state.
have you even tried reading the book Star Ship Troopers?
@Camel76 WTF!?!?!?! get the fuck off! see the movie!?!?!?!?
you Disgrace the book and it's readers! the Movie was pure Crap every one that has read the book will tell you that. only like 2 pages of the book was used in the movie that's it! wasn't even Female Soldiers in the book! they didn't even get the names right in the movie either! let alone the people.
@Camel76 watched the movie.....dear god. you have no idea what Star Ship troopers is do you lol. hell there is even other alien races in the book hell Chapter when there fighting Skinny's. the military training is the hardest ever known to man. ga.. hell the TV show Rough Necks was closer to the book then the movie ever was!
@Dogmeat1950 yeah it;'s funny listening to people who have never read the book and their only exposure to SST is this movie who was directed by a man who flat out admitted he never finished the book.
Having a world government, assuming that globalization progressed to its logical endpoint with a global mono-culture, would be highly preferable to having several dozen tribal states with nuclear weapons and their own agendas all jockeying for dominance like we do now.
That's very idealistic. The political reality of your life is that you are born unto a state. Under previous systems, you were born unto a feudal lord, king, and or Papal master, but now it's the secular state. Alas, in the modern age we do need a better global governance structure, because now when one state takes local action, it has global consequences, and in the long-term, this kind of state-sovereignty poses a huge threat to international security and individual well-being.
No, I am not born unto the state. We are born unto ourselves and if people would understand that simple fact we could change everything to our betterment.
What you are espousing is a political and philosophical ideal, nothing more. But what's that really mean, at the end of the day? In practice, from the day of your birth, there has been a paper trail attached to your name. Regulation, laws, fees, and both public and private administrators have been involved in the formation of your status and identity in society from the day of your birth. This sets very real constraints on the things you are able to do and places you are able to go.
What's that? An orderly society where a robust, well-functioning government sets constraints on individual freedom so that individuals in turn have the freedom to do more than what they could in a pure state of nature? That's Government 101, mang. The controversy here is in deciding how that government governs and what powers and authority it should be allowed to exercise.
"well-functioning government " Should I laugh now?
Any constraints on individual freedom is not freedom.
The government already has restraints on what they can do and they are in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Not that they follow them all. This will just lead to another war in America if the federal government doesn't start acting within the confines of the Constitution.
Seriously, you can't just say the US Gov doesn't follow the constitution. You have to give specific instances where this is ongoing, or else you're not making an argument, just spouting ideological platitudes.
And yes, the Federal government, in comparative international politics, is an example of a government that works. It is not a failed state, like so many others.
Really, I don't sense independent thought from you. Just right wing dogmatic vitriol instilled by ideologues.
On the discussion of constraining individual freedom, well then following that line of reasoning, it's not freedom if the law says I can't blow up your house for jollies or murder your family and take all your earthly belongings as my own. You see, any constraint placed on my freedom to do things is not freedom at all.
This kind of Black and White thinking has no place in society. The truth is, constraints on freedom empower us to do more than if we were simply in a pure state of nature.
There's a far cry from public health regulations, i.e. regulating what corporate vendors are allowed to put in our food supply, and state fascism. Our lawmakers are constitutionally empowered to do so.
Your argument was that any constraint on individual freedom is, categorically, no freedom at all. My argument is that constraint on individual freedom, applied equally to all individuals, is the central premise of the contract theory upon which American society is historically based.
To be precise, it is supposed to be a Federalized democratic republic. The key word here is Democratic. It is a representative DEMOCRACY. Or it should be.
Still, in political theory, fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Both political systems, in practice, however, have involved various forms of dictatorship. Additionally, historically speaking, fascist regimes have opposed communist regimes, and vice versa. One does not lead naturally into becoming the other.
You say the word socialism like its a dirty word, but if socialism is to be defined as state redistribution of society's wealth to sectors that need it, then our advanced highway system is a result of socialism. Our robust and developed economy is the result of socialism. Our military is a result of socialism. And then, what's wrong with helping those who cannot help themselves? Jesus Christ: "The needs of the many outweigh the few."
Jesus was like the ultimate hippie: anti-authoritry, anti-status quo, anti-greed, anti-materialism. He was no capitalist, for sure.
That said, the development of American industry and industrial infrastructure at current is very much the direct result of Federal subsidization. That is socialism.
Also, as it is practiced in America, capitalism is not freedom. American capitalism is currently waging a war against your freedom. You can't call a corporate monopoly freedom.
Jesus walked around in sandals and robes with a big beard preaching against authority, renouncing materialism, and for us to love our fellow humans. How is that not like a hippy?
And what is Obama doing that is illegal? Tell me.
Also, Corporate monopolies are not illegal. Anti-trust laws are a thing of the past. This country is run by mega-corporations and the super wealthy.
But as for our Constitutional Republic, technically US Government is still based around these principles.
Jesus was not a hippie. They like sex with many people that is a sin, they like things handed to them when they are able to work, that is the sin of sloth. That is all you need to know.
Almost everything Obama does is illegal.
Corporate monopolies are illegal. Competition law.
Constitutional Republic, US Government is not based around these principles.
They can't be both. Most of the laws and treaties are illegal. Income tax is illegal.
There are a lot of hippies and ex-hippies in monogamous relationships who hold down day jobs. Then again, there are a lot of so called Christians who are adulterous and can't hold down a job. But minus the promiscuity and your stereotype that all hippies are lazy, Jesus fits my description of a hippy and you can't deny that.
But corporate monopolies are legally tolerated. And Obama is beholden to the legislative and judicial branches. Neither has ruled anything he's done illegal.
They are not true hippies and if someone calls themselves a Christians and is a fornicator or adulterer they are liars. Jesus was not a hippie.
I do not care what the legislative and judicial branches or any other liar in Washington says. They are despotic trators and you, like so many, believe their lies.
Income tax, illegal? Actually, there is this little thing called the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause. These give Congress the authority to raise taxes and regulate US commerce.
Your views aren't founded on any basis other than your political opinions, my friend.
Yes, it's voluntary to the extent that you file and submit on your own taxes to the IRS. That doesn't mean paying taxes is "optional" for citizens. There's never been a government in the world without some form of compulsory taxation, and the US, regardless of historical period, has been no exception to this rule.
For purposes of the US tax code, "voluntary" does not mean "optional." Of course, naturally, this parlance has led to some confusion among people. Just because it says "voluntary," does not mean it is legal for you to elect to forego your tax obligation. That's a misconception and a misunderstanding of the word, plain and simple.
As for the 16th Amendment, not only are you backing a controversial claim but also one that has been rejected in every court case to date. It has no case.
Just because William J Benson and yourself say the entire US court system at multiple levels and legions of lawyers are incorrect, does not make it so. You don't make facts with opinion. Unless, of course, you are Glenn Beck, then by all means, report your opinions as fact. It doesn't mean the rest of America is going to take your positions seriously.
What would you propose to replace democracy? A theocratic dictatorship? Sorry, we in the West tried that. It was called the Dark Ages. And they in the east have been trying it for decades, as well. Look where that got Afghanistan. Or perhaps a good old fashioned dictatorship? Yeah, look at North Korea. How bout a nice fascist regime? Can you say: NAZI Germany? Ultimately, liberal democracy is the least of all political evils, if it could be said to be evil at all.
Now you're just splitting hairs. Liberal Democracy and Constitutional Republic both mean the same thing. As for the word "Freedom," that is just some rhetorical abstraction. It really has no legal meaning, whatsoever, beyond what's already codified in a given legal document, which in our case means the US Constitution.
Alas, then the question is, is the current government constitutional? For the most part, perhaps with the exception of the Patriot Act, YES it is.
Also, just for fun, I'm going to throw in Gay Marriage. The fact that gays aren't allowed to marry and have that marriage honored by full faith and credit anywhere in the US is very clearly against the wording of the constitution.
It's impossible to speculate on WHY something was put into the constitution. You are neither a time traveler nor a mind reader. But the Equal Protection Clause and Fourteenth Amendment are very clear in their language. EVERY citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law and no state shall abridge this right.
In this case, there's no way for you to interpret that law to say anything other than what it says. You can't interpret it to say "everyone EXCEPT those guys."
@Dogmeat1950 seems straight from wikipedia Fascism is a very vague term as is national socialism. Depending how what you pick and choose from them. Any extreme left or right is never good.
@Crazyhorsemucci I always thought that society made in this movie is society THAT WE NEED IN REALITY... FUCK DEMOCRASY, IT'S IMMPOSIBBLE, AND IT WILL DOOM US ALL.
Military dictatorship? Fascism? Rule by force by a few elites? You really want to live in a police state? And you seem fairly certain that a fascist system like Heinlein portrays in Starship Troopers would necessarily produce such positive results. If you look at the historical track record of fascist states, the results are actually quite horrifying by comparison to this depiction.
@buzongtang listen friend, weak people are affraid of such society, that's true... Don't worry I understand all bad things from society like in this movie, but it's the only way, democrasy and liberalism will destroy us, it already is.
On the contrary, a sign of a weak society is one that has to rely on authoritarian government to keep itself together. It's not democracy and liberalism that are destroying us. What is destroying us is an ignorant, weak-minded populace who lack participation in that democracy and who have been brain-washed by mega corporate interests to be consumers first, citizens second. Liberal democracy has given us Youtube, the internet, and freedom of speech--think about that.
@buzongtang you are naive, democrasy is SCIENCE FICTION from STAR TREK, democrasy isn't possible as long as homo sapiens exist... one day when homo sapiens evolve into more inteligent being, than it will have a chance for democrasy.
I did read the book. In the book it's an authoritarian, centralized world government that was founded and is run by military veterans, which, at the end of the day, sounds very similar to a military dictatorship. And at any rate, whether in the book or the movie, SST's is a fascist society that emphasizes uniform and draconian values over inclusion and pluralism. It's definitely not a liberal democratic system, which is what America and every other Western democracy is currently.
@buzongtang Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't read the book. You don't get franchised until you leave the military. Career military men don't have the right to vote. And the fact that federal service is completely VOLUNTARY.
I didn't say anything to the contrary of that. I merely said that in the book, it is a world government that was founded and run by military VETERANS.
And so, I did read the book but apparently, you can't read what I wrote.
That's DEMOCRACY. Have you passed 8th Grade English yet?
How about a 10th Grade civics lesson. We exist in a democratic constitutional republic, RIGHT NOW. Present day. Yes, it's a reality. And we've been at it for well over 200 years now. Not only are you mistaken and flat out wrong, but you appear to have a complete disconnect from the political realities of your own society.
Sure, it isn't perfect and never will be. But then, what is perfect?
@buzongtang yes I've passed 8th grade, I'm now 4th year of college archeology and history. Isn it arrogant of such inperfect race as human, to mask themselfs into something that cannot be achived by their incompetence, like democrasy?
You may speak for yourself, my friend. But where I'm from, civic involvement and a strong civil society are the cornerstones of my culture's political experience, both historically and personally. Nothing works ideally, but that doesn't mean democracy fails utterly, nor that it isn't a worthwhile pursuit preferable to that of autocratic regimes. That's not how it works where I'm from.
I also hold degrees in English and Political Science. Well, one semester shy of completing.
Don't you think that's a really minor distinction when put into the wider historical context? The point is he served the British Crown as a regimental officer, and not only that but he wore the British uniform and drilled regularly. He was for all intents and purposes an officer in the Royal forces, not just some run of the mill militia man.
@buzongtang Don't get me wrong, I see you are a good person, and I also live in democratic country in Europe, but I'm just saying that you are little naive... you are living in capitalist world where everything is made of money, "your" democracy, liberalism etc..."they" are selling to you term democracy and liberalism same as someone would sell you a poison masked into candy so you can swallow it eaisly... but ok, you just live in your "star trek federation" :)
I don't entirely disagree with you but you can't view things in such absolutes. Yes, America is dominated by corporate influence which is fundamentally undemocratic, even though these corporations and their D.C. allies will try to tell you otherwise. On the other hand, America is filled with activists and concerned citizens who fight for what's right. Just because the country is currently intoxicated with consumerist frenzy doesn't mean democracy is dead or a pointless.
@buzongtang in what do you belive? in gay-liberalism bullshit? you think we will all hug, all races, religion and continents and sing KUMBAYA? LOL JESUS CHRIST
The left stands for pluralism, respect and tolerance for minorities, and protecting the least advantaged in society from the most powerful and privileged. These are cardinal liberal values. By contrast, the conservative spectrum tends to stand for imposing mainstream values on minorities and, at least in American politics, tends to promote Christian conservative values and corporate interests over any other.
Alas, in political theory, fascism is an extreme of rightwing conservatism.
@buzongtang "fascism is an extreme of rightwing conservatism."
That is incorrect. The true right wants less and smaller government intrusion into people's life.
A Constitutional Republic where all are free. That's why the Constitution says we are guaranteed a Republican form of Government.
The Declaration of Independence states that when the Government becomes despotic we have the right to abolish that government, even if that means armed insurrection, and make a new government.
You're referring to libertarianism. Whether you label that true conservatism or not, that's a whole different discussion from left/right politics in America today, which usually refers to Democrats/Republicans.
Of course, on a personal note, what you are saying here sounds more like libertarian dogma someone has given you, rather than your own individually formulated thoughts. Maybe you should think about that, given you probably consider yourself a libertarian.
Really? Because I was thinking you sound more like a big bag of ideological platitudes more than anything else.
A Republic, as Constitutionally understood, is a system of government conducted by democratically elected representatives. That's what we have now at the State and Federal levels. And so, I don't understand what your point is, then.
In this case, Dogmeat is right. There was the Continental Army, made up of men who would be trained a full-time soldiers for the duration of war, and then there was the miltia who were made up of part-time soldiers. The big diff is that soldiers of the Continental Army had to stay and continue to campaign. Militiamen could go back to their farms at any time when it was time for the harvest and the sowing of new crops.
So jn reality you had two standing forces. Two armies...
@suryavajra you fail to understand what a Standing Army is. A Standing Army is any army in operation with NO Deceleration of war. With out a deceleration of war an army could not be created. Those in the Continental Army could leave after a 2yr enlistment. NO conscription, No draft, No professional army. Only militia who knew how to use their firearms to defend themselves.
Actually, during the American War of Independence, they did use conscripts. The draft has been used all throughout American history. It only became anathema to American military policy after Vietnam, when being drafted was equated with what eventually became one of the single-most unpopular, publicly opposed wars in American history. You have your facts wrong, sir.
The American revolutionaries had two components to their armed forces: regular standing army and militia. The militia were a bunch of undisciplined, half-competent local yokels that ran away from more battles than they fought and the British had no respect for them. The regular standing army, which was a trained fighting force funded and supplied by the American government, formed the backbone of the American war effort. Also, some of these regulars were CONSCRIPTS! Dun dun dun.
Actually, George Washington was a high-ranking British officer. He served during the French and Indian Wars and some even argue he was chiefly responsible for starting the 7 year conflict.
At any rate, isolationism was an American policy which emerged in American politics between WWI and WWII. The politics of the founding fathers were a product of entirely different times, rendering your speculation meaningless.
And yet, despite their mistrust for standing armies, the first generation of American leaders, the so called "founding fathers," were also the first to establish a standing army to challenge the British. Standing armies, just like the intelligence service and taxation, are necessary to provide for the overall security and well-being of the Union. BUT the major difference between us and NAZIS or Soviets, is our army is controlled by democratically elected civilian authorities.
Dude, the Constitution empowers the legislature to raise armies as is necessary for our defense. Following WWII, the National Security Act of 1947 created our current defense structure and foreign policy, which is codified, legal and constitutional.
For years, the US had its oceans to protect it. But oceans aren't effective defense today. You think we don't need a dedicated intelligence and diplomatic corps? That we don't need a trained, disciplined, supplied army? You're deluded.
Under Article I, Section 8, the "2 years" clause has to do with appropriations. It doesn't mean we can't have a standing army for more than two years, it just means that Congress has to routinely decide whether or not it is going to fund that army. Again, nothing unconstitutional happening here in terms of the powers congress exercises with regards to our armed forces.
I might also mention that under the Constitution, congress is empowered to raise armed forces to suppress rebellion.
Article 1, section 8 of US Constitution: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Note, this doesn't say anything about standing armies not being allowed for more than two years. It simply says that APPROPRIATION cannot run indefinitely, meaning Congress must approve funding every two years.
And how convenient, now you've run out of ground to stand on so you're simply resorting to telling me to "shut up."
I say "so called" because the term is bandied about to the point of being trite, with little understanding for who they were or the historical context from which they arose.
But listen, even during the Founding Fathers' times, they had a standing army. Without the standing army, the fledgling United States would have perished, because the militia sucked compared to the regimented, professional British army. Today our foes are far more sophisticated, numerous, and the threats are more complex.
Come now. The militia may have been present throughout the revolution but the regulars provided the backbone of American war efforts. They were the only ones capable of meeting the British on the field of combat without breaking lines and running like the rabble the militia so often were.
What? Watch the History Channel or talk to a Revolutionary War historian some time. The American militia had a reputation for breaking lines and retreating. Sorry to shatter your rosy view of early American patriots but even patriots can be subject to a lack of organization and discipline, as well as succumbing to battlefield panic. Just being an American doesn't make you immune to these things. That is why you need a trained, regular army.
I also said you could consult other reputable sources. It's not a controversial statement. The militia were undisciplined. Ask any revolutionary historian. Personally, I don't like the History Channel but that doesn't mean it's full of lies. It's just crude, simplistic, and over-commercialized.
And I have stated facts. Facts rooted in the constitution. Facts rooted in history. Facts rooted in our legal system and institutions.
You know, that they were a militia doesn't diminish their patriotism or their importance to the War of Independence. I'm not criticizing them in any fashion. They just didn't stand up very well against the British in battles. But this comes as no surprise, we're talking about farmers vs. a seasoned professional army, many of whom had fought against Napoleon in previous campaigns.
And I don't understand your fixation now with the History Channel. This information is pretty well known.
Sure, they had some rather bruising encounters, as is typical of war. But for much of the war they remained unrivaled. So much so that George Washington, at one point, famously resorted to deliberately running from the British, so that it would exhaust their forces and thus, wear them down by simple attrition. But in instances such as these, had he the capability to face the British head on, he would have. The British had the colonials outgunned and outmatched in many cases.
Put it in a military-historical context. The British Empire was the equivalent of America today. They were the world's super power. Such was their military might and reach, that even while they were fighting the colonials in North America, they were simultaneously engaged in a worldwide conflict with multiple enemies. Indeed, British distraction with other conflicts is no doubt ultimately what allowed the American revolutionaries to have a fighting chance in their war for independence.
@buzongtang That's a nice ideologically driven argument there, but I think it might have a little to do with the fact that the Brits were fighting a war across the Atlantic Ocean.
@Dogmeat1950 yea, I read somewhere that Paul V. (director) was going to make a movie called "bug wars" and told some people about it and they told him to rewrite it and make it S.T. but after he bought the rights to the title he got the book and was "bored" and threw it out after 3 chapters and made his movie his way. which is why this scene is in the movie, seeing as it is at the beginning of the book.
@Dogmeat1950 someone told me that ST3 was closer to the book and I saw it in BigLots for $3 so I got it. It isn't... I made it about 40 minutes into it and it was just bugs attacking the station the whole time
@Metew2 The Pluto Campaign The Hydora Campaign The Tophet Campaign The Tesca Campaign The Zephyr Campaign The Klendathu Campaign Trackers The Homefront Campaign that's the entire show, hope that helps.
Hi I think you're all taking this a little too seriously, heinlein was a fierce war monger ( & a fabulous writer) and Verhoeven used the source to create a satire, that's all
And i agree with Nightshift10000. The Liberalism nowadays is taking the role of the government: huge corporations has more power than many congressman. And a corporation doesn't have any repersentant elected by people, only investidors, wich excludes almost anybody from creating and revoke laws that might be harmful for a group, a state or even a country.
Any kind of government which aims to concentrate a huge political-military-justice power in the hands of few people (military or civilian or clerical) tends to be tottalitary. Tends to be dictatorship. And so, ineficcient.
This is what I love about this movie, its true that violance never solves anything is false, but its also true those who live by the sword die by the sword. In the end, its what solution you want and are you willing to deal with the impact
snowwolf7777 4 weeks ago
Totally true! there is no arguing with the fact that violence is indeed the supreme authority from which all other authority derives!
katakisLives 1 month ago
Rasczak is right: the opinion that violence never solves anything and there can only be peace through peaceful means is wishful thinking.
America did not become a free independent country through peace and dialogue but by fighting the British. The colonists did try over and over through peaceful means to gain independence but to no avail. Had they kept negotiating in vain with King George III the colonies would have stayed under his dominion and instead of free men Americans would be subjects.
MrPitch100 1 month ago
There dosn't seem to be much difference between Israel and the Federation other than Scale and threat.
Arbbym9er 1 month ago
It's like they think their own thoughts are reality. They're delusional. If the system falls it will be replaced by something 180 degrees different than what they wish. Those who want to destroy the status quo anti regarding the U.S. will end up with something completely opposite from what they think they will achieve. This is why the U.S. must be saved at all cost! I don't want a G-damn right wing global military dictatorship; even if it adheres to moral and constitutional ideals.
7Highlander 1 month ago in playlist Ricos roughnecks
she was a little stumped.
anon1405 2 months ago
Oh joy, to be able to kiss THOSE pillowy lips.... Who cares if she's dumb as a post? Charley S didn't know when he had it good. I've always enjoyed this movie, which is a cross between scifi horror and a tooth paste commercial. The other blonde babe, later to be horribly impaled by a giant space bug, is also a delish dish.
mobydoug 2 months ago
And if you meet force with superior force, and kill whoever molests you...? What legitimate authority? No such thing!
tatcov 3 months ago
Denise Richards is so incredibly beautiful!
jbjb9402 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Something given has no value!!!!!
Dugg4040 3 months ago
She is such a tease
mengm223 3 months ago
The System that everyone is angry about, was enacted at the fall of modern consumerism at the turn of the last century, the beginning of the industrial revolution and the attempt on the complete eradication of aboriginal tribal life not just Australians.This led to a war and instability from the beginning of the American civil war to the end of the second world war, which in turn led to the modern form of class-ism based on based on representative consumerism and the NEW DEAL. On or of the cart.
JonesArmandoHoward 5 months ago
@JonesArmandoHoward
crappy movie awesome book...
JonesArmandoHoward 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this scene is full of truth, I love this movie so much
Runnerrmejor 6 months ago 2
The book is even more detailed about this.
ubermisogynist 7 months ago
@ubermisogynist Do you know what the problem is? That it is not limited to the United States, but to all the world. The democracy is an illusion, the only difference between a dictatorship and Democracy is in Democracy you choose your dictator. And you are bound to mediocre people's vote who don't even understand what they are doing when choosing a representant. They vote by instinct. A person who earns the right to vote, knows what it means. I perfectly agree with this idea.
Ext3rmin4tor 6 months ago 2
@Ext3rmin4tor i agree. i think it's called tyranny of the many
ubermisogynist 6 months ago
Its a very interesting concept. If you look at American citizens today on average. Most either dont give a dam about the government or what it stands for. Or they simply bitch about it all day. If you gained rites by contributing something. putting your LIFE on the line. i bet that would change how most people would think about there government or more importantly: its ideals
leebone98 8 months ago
Comment removed
ubermisogynist 7 months ago
*Shot Down*
MusicMan53100 1 year ago
@ErikNikolai
First, you're suggesting the abolition of American democracy and replacing it with a military dictatorship by way of military coup. Second, you're saying that this is what George Washington would have done. Not only is this just incorrect on more than one level, but it's also contradictory to the very moral, American democratic values you implicitly are espousing as being something you cherish.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Not a military dictatorship. I never mentioned George Washington.
Declaration of Independence
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
I was talking to ErikNikolai on that one.
At any rate, to be clear, we remain a constitutional democracy. The Legislature is still beholden to the Judicial, the Executive to these, and vice versa. Our representatives are elected in free and fair open elections. Every citizen is given the right and ample opportunity to vote. Every citizen is given certain civil rights, as well. More so than in many other countries. And what's more, these rights are enforced. Our government works.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
A Constitutional democracy is not Constitutional in America.
A Constitutional republic is what we need to retore.
William Cooper: Our Democracy? Look that up and listen.
Camel76 1 year ago
William Cooper - Constitutional Republic Government (Pt. 1 of 4)
On youtube.
Camel76 1 year ago
shower scene woooooo wooooo
quiznosizgood 1 year ago
We are not wards or servants of the almighty state and never should be.
Freedom and human rights should always be a top priority.
Most of the laws today need to be repealed.
Camel76 1 year ago
The point is a differentiation between those who are allowed to vote, and those who are simply just alive; A citizen has earned their vote through social and moral responsibility and a sense of societal awareness. Something lacking in the USA or the West in general. Our society is given a vote it does not use and our citizens are not rewarded for their awareness. That is the message here, in my opinion.
dirtyraffles 1 year ago
@dirtyraffles I can see this to an extent. There should be basic human rights, but anything beyond that should not be handed to you just because you exist. They should have to be earned, like in this setting.
LadyRuin2012 1 year ago
@dirtyraffles
Of course, in SST, the only way to earn the right to vote was through military service, which is really fucked up. And at any rate, regardless of how the right to vote is earned in such a society, it still boils down to the same thing practice: the minority gets to impose its will in rule over the majority, while the general populace is kept out of decisions which affects it welfare and future. This poses is a major problem for the protection of human rights and civil liberties.
buzongtang 1 year ago
brad kane at 0:34 XD
chxdst 1 year ago
what the fuck is this singapore/socialism trash? get that shit out of here.
good scene, and denise richards is hot
xridethelightningx 1 year ago
@QuartuvLarry in the Starship Trooper world Murha Would have been run off or voted out after his comment about Soldiers/Marines
Fact is a Vet is less Likely to be corrupt. then anyone else.
I'm joining the USMC, but I think ppl should earn the right to vote today you just have random ppl voting on skin color or random views or handouts. and most ppl that vote don't even know how the Government runs/works!
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 Yea and the Starship Fascist world George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin all would have been removed. Good gods, do you kids read any history or know what liberty is? The Founders of the US hated the idea of standing army, for fear it would do just that, take over. Yea buddy the NAZI and Soviet soldiers were a real asset to the freedom of their countries.
9mmparadox 1 year ago
@9mmparadox um no. cause Washington was a General also Note the Founding Fathers would have not helped the Allies in WW1 or WW2.
O ya and Washington really wanted to be a British Military officer but h kept getting turned down.
sorry but you need to read up :)
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 Looks like you need to do some reading. You do know the Continental Army was a militia and not a regular army i.e. farmers and pioneers who knew how to shoot. Let me know when you've read a little US history.
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
-James Madison
9mmparadox 1 year ago
@9mmparadox FAIL OMG don't ever talk about History again!
There was a Standing Army! and there was Militias! dude your are so dumb! U.S Army 1775 FOUNDED. the guys wearing Blue Uniforms during the war where Trained Soldiers! farmers etc where Militia!
Just wow.....wow....wow... you get the retard award.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 You get the brainwashed fascist award. Dumb idiot where to you think Army came from moron? People who where in a militia. 2 year enlistment during a DECLARATION of WAR. Then you could just leave, NO draft, NO permanent standing army. I'm sorry you learned history from a leftist public education system.
9mmparadox 1 year ago
@9mmparadox lol you call my a fascist but then say I was Educated by leftists rofl. talk about not making any since.
and yes during the war there was a standing Army I'm happy to repeat that. :)
to all who view this @9mmparadox is claiming the American Continental Army never existed lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
The left is fascist.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 that makes no sense lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
It makes perfect sense.
Just listen to William Cooper and many others who will say the same thing.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 the word fascist is right leaning not left lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Not even close.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 sorry dude, but Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will. They oppose liberalism and Marxism for being exclusive economic class-based movements.
Fascist hate every thing about the left. thus there is no such thing as a Fascist-left lol. that's like calling someone a Commie-Nazi lol
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
No, you are taking the establishments definition.
Listen to William Cooper he will explain it to you.
Democracy leads to Communism then leads to Fascism/totalitarianism.
America is supposed to be Republic, not a "Democracy."
To the Republic for which it stands!
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 Cooper is a nut job lol.
Yes the USA is a Republic but it has many Democatic Values Communism doesn't lead to Fascism lol. that is the far right wing in politics
in fact a Republic can lead to a Empire and or a Fascist state. like many have in the past. or did Cooper forget to talk about that. every Major Republic in history has become a Empire at one time or a Fascist state.
have you even tried reading the book Star Ship Troopers?
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
William Cooper was not a "nutjob."
Like it or not, he did a great job telling everyone the truth.
A Republic can be destroyed if the people start to look for a "daddy" instead of taking care of things for themselves.
I have seen the movie and that is what they want, a New World Order, One World Government.
Not everyone agrees, and the most people wouldn't agree if they would stop being easliy led farm animals.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 WTF!?!?!?! get the fuck off! see the movie!?!?!?!?
you Disgrace the book and it's readers! the Movie was pure Crap every one that has read the book will tell you that. only like 2 pages of the book was used in the movie that's it! wasn't even Female Soldiers in the book! they didn't even get the names right in the movie either! let alone the people.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Yes, the movie. You're posting on a clip of the movie now. :p
The original Starship Troopers is the best. The other movies were almost completely different.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76 watched the movie.....dear god. you have no idea what Star Ship troopers is do you lol. hell there is even other alien races in the book hell Chapter when there fighting Skinny's. the military training is the hardest ever known to man. ga.. hell the TV show Rough Necks was closer to the book then the movie ever was!
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 yeah it;'s funny listening to people who have never read the book and their only exposure to SST is this movie who was directed by a man who flat out admitted he never finished the book.
emp0rizzle 1 year ago
@Camel76 at least William Cooper served.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Camel76
Having a world government, assuming that globalization progressed to its logical endpoint with a global mono-culture, would be highly preferable to having several dozen tribal states with nuclear weapons and their own agendas all jockeying for dominance like we do now.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
No, you will not have freedom in such a world. It is not right and we are not born to a state or government, we are born unto ourselves.
Camel76 1 year ago 2
@Camel76
That's very idealistic. The political reality of your life is that you are born unto a state. Under previous systems, you were born unto a feudal lord, king, and or Papal master, but now it's the secular state. Alas, in the modern age we do need a better global governance structure, because now when one state takes local action, it has global consequences, and in the long-term, this kind of state-sovereignty poses a huge threat to international security and individual well-being.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
No, I am not born unto the state. We are born unto ourselves and if people would understand that simple fact we could change everything to our betterment.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
What you are espousing is a political and philosophical ideal, nothing more. But what's that really mean, at the end of the day? In practice, from the day of your birth, there has been a paper trail attached to your name. Regulation, laws, fees, and both public and private administrators have been involved in the formation of your status and identity in society from the day of your birth. This sets very real constraints on the things you are able to do and places you are able to go.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
What you are espousing is what America is supposed to be.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
What's that? An orderly society where a robust, well-functioning government sets constraints on individual freedom so that individuals in turn have the freedom to do more than what they could in a pure state of nature? That's Government 101, mang. The controversy here is in deciding how that government governs and what powers and authority it should be allowed to exercise.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
"well-functioning government " Should I laugh now?
Any constraints on individual freedom is not freedom.
The government already has restraints on what they can do and they are in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Not that they follow them all. This will just lead to another war in America if the federal government doesn't start acting within the confines of the Constitution.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Seriously, you can't just say the US Gov doesn't follow the constitution. You have to give specific instances where this is ongoing, or else you're not making an argument, just spouting ideological platitudes.
And yes, the Federal government, in comparative international politics, is an example of a government that works. It is not a failed state, like so many others.
Really, I don't sense independent thought from you. Just right wing dogmatic vitriol instilled by ideologues.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
I can, have, and will continue to say, the US federal Government doesn't follow the constitution.
I am an independent thinker and researcher. The "rigtwing" is not in effect in America. They do not say things like I say. They are puppets.
Camel76 1 year ago
On the discussion of constraining individual freedom, well then following that line of reasoning, it's not freedom if the law says I can't blow up your house for jollies or murder your family and take all your earthly belongings as my own. You see, any constraint placed on my freedom to do things is not freedom at all.
This kind of Black and White thinking has no place in society. The truth is, constraints on freedom empower us to do more than if we were simply in a pure state of nature.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Within reason. Any sane person knows not to murder unless it is self defense, or blow up a home, and so on.
But, to ban trans fats and other things is not lawful it is Fascism.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
There's a far cry from public health regulations, i.e. regulating what corporate vendors are allowed to put in our food supply, and state fascism. Our lawmakers are constitutionally empowered to do so.
Your argument was that any constraint on individual freedom is, categorically, no freedom at all. My argument is that constraint on individual freedom, applied equally to all individuals, is the central premise of the contract theory upon which American society is historically based.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@Camel76
To be precise, it is supposed to be a Federalized democratic republic. The key word here is Democratic. It is a representative DEMOCRACY. Or it should be.
Still, in political theory, fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Both political systems, in practice, however, have involved various forms of dictatorship. Additionally, historically speaking, fascist regimes have opposed communist regimes, and vice versa. One does not lead naturally into becoming the other.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
A Democracy is the worst type of government, it always falls to socialism.
Vladimir Lenin : Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
You say the word socialism like its a dirty word, but if socialism is to be defined as state redistribution of society's wealth to sectors that need it, then our advanced highway system is a result of socialism. Our robust and developed economy is the result of socialism. Our military is a result of socialism. And then, what's wrong with helping those who cannot help themselves? Jesus Christ: "The needs of the many outweigh the few."
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Socialism is a dirty word. America is Capitalism and freedom.
Jesus was not a socialist. He also said that we will always have poor. You took the other saying out of context.
America is not the result of socialism.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Jesus was like the ultimate hippie: anti-authoritry, anti-status quo, anti-greed, anti-materialism. He was no capitalist, for sure.
That said, the development of American industry and industrial infrastructure at current is very much the direct result of Federal subsidization. That is socialism.
Also, as it is practiced in America, capitalism is not freedom. American capitalism is currently waging a war against your freedom. You can't call a corporate monopoly freedom.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Jesus was not a hippie, do not talk about things you have no idea about.
You are looking at things that are done illegally and thinking they are supposed to be this way.
The things Obama is doing is socialism and they are illegal.
Corporate monopolies are illegal. Anyone would know that.
That's why I said we need to restore America's Constitutional Republic.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Jesus walked around in sandals and robes with a big beard preaching against authority, renouncing materialism, and for us to love our fellow humans. How is that not like a hippy?
And what is Obama doing that is illegal? Tell me.
Also, Corporate monopolies are not illegal. Anti-trust laws are a thing of the past. This country is run by mega-corporations and the super wealthy.
But as for our Constitutional Republic, technically US Government is still based around these principles.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Jesus was not a hippie. They like sex with many people that is a sin, they like things handed to them when they are able to work, that is the sin of sloth. That is all you need to know.
Almost everything Obama does is illegal.
Corporate monopolies are illegal. Competition law.
Constitutional Republic, US Government is not based around these principles.
They can't be both. Most of the laws and treaties are illegal. Income tax is illegal.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
There are a lot of hippies and ex-hippies in monogamous relationships who hold down day jobs. Then again, there are a lot of so called Christians who are adulterous and can't hold down a job. But minus the promiscuity and your stereotype that all hippies are lazy, Jesus fits my description of a hippy and you can't deny that.
But corporate monopolies are legally tolerated. And Obama is beholden to the legislative and judicial branches. Neither has ruled anything he's done illegal.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
They are not true hippies and if someone calls themselves a Christians and is a fornicator or adulterer they are liars. Jesus was not a hippie.
I do not care what the legislative and judicial branches or any other liar in Washington says. They are despotic trators and you, like so many, believe their lies.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Income tax, illegal? Actually, there is this little thing called the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution. There is also the Commerce Clause. These give Congress the authority to raise taxes and regulate US commerce.
Your views aren't founded on any basis other than your political opinions, my friend.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Yes, income tax is illegal. In their own code it says the income tax is voluntary.
My views are founded on facts not any political opinions.
William Cooper - Income Taxes are Voluntary (Pt. 1 of 4)
watch?v=S01C5QvvFU0
William Cooper Tells it how it is about Income Tax to a caller
watch?v=516aeU5Tcpk
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Yes, it's voluntary to the extent that you file and submit on your own taxes to the IRS. That doesn't mean paying taxes is "optional" for citizens. There's never been a government in the world without some form of compulsory taxation, and the US, regardless of historical period, has been no exception to this rule.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
It's voluntary as in optional... Period. Listen to the audio. You have no idea of anything.
Not only does it say voluntary in the tax code. The law was never ratified and so on.
Look up:
16th Amendment - The Law That Never Was
The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
For purposes of the US tax code, "voluntary" does not mean "optional." Of course, naturally, this parlance has led to some confusion among people. Just because it says "voluntary," does not mean it is legal for you to elect to forego your tax obligation. That's a misconception and a misunderstanding of the word, plain and simple.
As for the 16th Amendment, not only are you backing a controversial claim but also one that has been rejected in every court case to date. It has no case.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
It is optional, that's what voluntary means.
Again...listen to William Cooper - Income Taxes are Voluntary (Pt. 1 of 4)
Camel76 1 year ago
@buzongtang
As for the 16th Amendment, is a factual claim. The courts are incorrect.
America: Freedom to Fascism
U.S Income Tax is a fraud(Tom Cryer) He has many videos. Look them up.
watch?v=U4nb62cAM3Q
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Just because William J Benson and yourself say the entire US court system at multiple levels and legions of lawyers are incorrect, does not make it so. You don't make facts with opinion. Unless, of course, you are Glenn Beck, then by all means, report your opinions as fact. It doesn't mean the rest of America is going to take your positions seriously.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
It's not just me that says they are all liars, many people say they are liars.
I deal in facts not opinions. Glenn Beck is one of their puppets. He's not on the side of Constitutionalists
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
What would you propose to replace democracy? A theocratic dictatorship? Sorry, we in the West tried that. It was called the Dark Ages. And they in the east have been trying it for decades, as well. Look where that got Afghanistan. Or perhaps a good old fashioned dictatorship? Yeah, look at North Korea. How bout a nice fascist regime? Can you say: NAZI Germany? Ultimately, liberal democracy is the least of all political evils, if it could be said to be evil at all.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
To restore America's Constitutional Republic.
Liberal democracy is the worst form of govenment. I guess you didn't hear me before.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
You do realize that Liberal Democracy and Constitutional Democracy are synonymous terms in political theory, right?
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Do you realize that I am only talking about a Constitutional Republic with real freedom?
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Now you're just splitting hairs. Liberal Democracy and Constitutional Republic both mean the same thing. As for the word "Freedom," that is just some rhetorical abstraction. It really has no legal meaning, whatsoever, beyond what's already codified in a given legal document, which in our case means the US Constitution.
Alas, then the question is, is the current government constitutional? For the most part, perhaps with the exception of the Patriot Act, YES it is.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Also, just for fun, I'm going to throw in Gay Marriage. The fact that gays aren't allowed to marry and have that marriage honored by full faith and credit anywhere in the US is very clearly against the wording of the constitution.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Sodomites are not given special rights in the Constitution. They are not mentioned, because they were considered criminals in America.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
It's impossible to speculate on WHY something was put into the constitution. You are neither a time traveler nor a mind reader. But the Equal Protection Clause and Fourteenth Amendment are very clear in their language. EVERY citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law and no state shall abridge this right.
In this case, there's no way for you to interpret that law to say anything other than what it says. You can't interpret it to say "everyone EXCEPT those guys."
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
"It's impossible to speculate on WHY something was put into the constitution."
Are you truly this stupid? When are you going to get...I do not care what you think.
" You are neither a time traveler nor a mind reader. "
I am not, but I do have better comprehention than you do.
I am giving you facts you are giving me garbage from Marx.
Liberal daydreams.
Camel76 1 year ago
@buzongtang
Not the same thing. Constitutional Republic is an entirely different thing.
Freedom is not some rhetorical abstraction. It has a legal meaning. It means we are free and no one can restrain us by illegal laws.
The current way things are being done is extremely unconstitutional.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 seems straight from wikipedia Fascism is a very vague term as is national socialism. Depending how what you pick and choose from them. Any extreme left or right is never good.
Crazyhorsemucci 1 year ago
@Crazyhorsemucci I always thought that society made in this movie is society THAT WE NEED IN REALITY... FUCK DEMOCRASY, IT'S IMMPOSIBBLE, AND IT WILL DOOM US ALL.
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
Military dictatorship? Fascism? Rule by force by a few elites? You really want to live in a police state? And you seem fairly certain that a fascist system like Heinlein portrays in Starship Troopers would necessarily produce such positive results. If you look at the historical track record of fascist states, the results are actually quite horrifying by comparison to this depiction.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang listen friend, weak people are affraid of such society, that's true... Don't worry I understand all bad things from society like in this movie, but it's the only way, democrasy and liberalism will destroy us, it already is.
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
Foolish people are pro-world governement.
Camel76 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
On the contrary, a sign of a weak society is one that has to rely on authoritarian government to keep itself together. It's not democracy and liberalism that are destroying us. What is destroying us is an ignorant, weak-minded populace who lack participation in that democracy and who have been brain-washed by mega corporate interests to be consumers first, citizens second. Liberal democracy has given us Youtube, the internet, and freedom of speech--think about that.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang you are naive, democrasy is SCIENCE FICTION from STAR TREK, democrasy isn't possible as long as homo sapiens exist... one day when homo sapiens evolve into more inteligent being, than it will have a chance for democrasy.
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@buzongtang You obviously never read the book if you think the world in SST is a military dictatorship.
emp0rizzle 1 year ago
@emp0rizzle
I did read the book. In the book it's an authoritarian, centralized world government that was founded and is run by military veterans, which, at the end of the day, sounds very similar to a military dictatorship. And at any rate, whether in the book or the movie, SST's is a fascist society that emphasizes uniform and draconian values over inclusion and pluralism. It's definitely not a liberal democratic system, which is what America and every other Western democracy is currently.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't read the book. You don't get franchised until you leave the military. Career military men don't have the right to vote. And the fact that federal service is completely VOLUNTARY.
emp0rizzle 1 year ago
@emp0rizzle
I didn't say anything to the contrary of that. I merely said that in the book, it is a world government that was founded and run by military VETERANS.
And so, I did read the book but apparently, you can't read what I wrote.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emp0rizzle
No one proved any point. You do not have a point.
Federal law is actual voluntary.
Camel76 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
That's DEMOCRACY. Have you passed 8th Grade English yet?
How about a 10th Grade civics lesson. We exist in a democratic constitutional republic, RIGHT NOW. Present day. Yes, it's a reality. And we've been at it for well over 200 years now. Not only are you mistaken and flat out wrong, but you appear to have a complete disconnect from the political realities of your own society.
Sure, it isn't perfect and never will be. But then, what is perfect?
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang yes I've passed 8th grade, I'm now 4th year of college archeology and history. Isn it arrogant of such inperfect race as human, to mask themselfs into something that cannot be achived by their incompetence, like democrasy?
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
You may speak for yourself, my friend. But where I'm from, civic involvement and a strong civil society are the cornerstones of my culture's political experience, both historically and personally. Nothing works ideally, but that doesn't mean democracy fails utterly, nor that it isn't a worthwhile pursuit preferable to that of autocratic regimes. That's not how it works where I'm from.
I also hold degrees in English and Political Science. Well, one semester shy of completing.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang Where in the hell did you learn your history!? WASHINGTON WAS NEVER I'll say it again NEVER A British Officer!
He applied 3 times for it,and was Denied. HE was a Officer in the Colonial Army under the British. but he was never a British Officer.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Don't you think that's a really minor distinction when put into the wider historical context? The point is he served the British Crown as a regimental officer, and not only that but he wore the British uniform and drilled regularly. He was for all intents and purposes an officer in the Royal forces, not just some run of the mill militia man.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang Don't get me wrong, I see you are a good person, and I also live in democratic country in Europe, but I'm just saying that you are little naive... you are living in capitalist world where everything is made of money, "your" democracy, liberalism etc..."they" are selling to you term democracy and liberalism same as someone would sell you a poison masked into candy so you can swallow it eaisly... but ok, you just live in your "star trek federation" :)
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@CroPETROforever
I don't entirely disagree with you but you can't view things in such absolutes. Yes, America is dominated by corporate influence which is fundamentally undemocratic, even though these corporations and their D.C. allies will try to tell you otherwise. On the other hand, America is filled with activists and concerned citizens who fight for what's right. Just because the country is currently intoxicated with consumerist frenzy doesn't mean democracy is dead or a pointless.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang in what do you belive? in gay-liberalism bullshit? you think we will all hug, all races, religion and continents and sing KUMBAYA? LOL JESUS CHRIST
CroPETROforever 1 year ago
@Camel76
The left stands for pluralism, respect and tolerance for minorities, and protecting the least advantaged in society from the most powerful and privileged. These are cardinal liberal values. By contrast, the conservative spectrum tends to stand for imposing mainstream values on minorities and, at least in American politics, tends to promote Christian conservative values and corporate interests over any other.
Alas, in political theory, fascism is an extreme of rightwing conservatism.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang "fascism is an extreme of rightwing conservatism."
That is incorrect. The true right wants less and smaller government intrusion into people's life.
A Constitutional Republic where all are free. That's why the Constitution says we are guaranteed a Republican form of Government.
The Declaration of Independence states that when the Government becomes despotic we have the right to abolish that government, even if that means armed insurrection, and make a new government.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
You're referring to libertarianism. Whether you label that true conservatism or not, that's a whole different discussion from left/right politics in America today, which usually refers to Democrats/Republicans.
Of course, on a personal note, what you are saying here sounds more like libertarian dogma someone has given you, rather than your own individually formulated thoughts. Maybe you should think about that, given you probably consider yourself a libertarian.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
I am not referring to "libertarianism."
No, I am a Christian and a Constitutionalist.
U.S. Constitution: Article IV Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
A republic is a state under a form of government in which the people retain supreme control over the government.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Really? Because I was thinking you sound more like a big bag of ideological platitudes more than anything else.
A Republic, as Constitutionally understood, is a system of government conducted by democratically elected representatives. That's what we have now at the State and Federal levels. And so, I don't understand what your point is, then.
buzongtang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzongtang
No, the true government is not people, it is the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.
William Cooper - Constitutional Republic Government (Pt. 1 of 4)
On youtube.
Camel76 1 year ago
@9mmparadox
In this case, Dogmeat is right. There was the Continental Army, made up of men who would be trained a full-time soldiers for the duration of war, and then there was the miltia who were made up of part-time soldiers. The big diff is that soldiers of the Continental Army had to stay and continue to campaign. Militiamen could go back to their farms at any time when it was time for the harvest and the sowing of new crops.
So jn reality you had two standing forces. Two armies...
suryavajra 1 year ago
@suryavajra you fail to understand what a Standing Army is. A Standing Army is any army in operation with NO Deceleration of war. With out a deceleration of war an army could not be created. Those in the Continental Army could leave after a 2yr enlistment. NO conscription, No draft, No professional army. Only militia who knew how to use their firearms to defend themselves.
9mmparadox 1 year ago
@9mmparadox
Actually, during the American War of Independence, they did use conscripts. The draft has been used all throughout American history. It only became anathema to American military policy after Vietnam, when being drafted was equated with what eventually became one of the single-most unpopular, publicly opposed wars in American history. You have your facts wrong, sir.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@9mmparadox
The American revolutionaries had two components to their armed forces: regular standing army and militia. The militia were a bunch of undisciplined, half-competent local yokels that ran away from more battles than they fought and the British had no respect for them. The regular standing army, which was a trained fighting force funded and supplied by the American government, formed the backbone of the American war effort. Also, some of these regulars were CONSCRIPTS! Dun dun dun.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Actually, George Washington was a high-ranking British officer. He served during the French and Indian Wars and some even argue he was chiefly responsible for starting the 7 year conflict.
At any rate, isolationism was an American policy which emerged in American politics between WWI and WWII. The politics of the founding fathers were a product of entirely different times, rendering your speculation meaningless.
Where the hell are you reading your history?
buzongtang 1 year ago
@9mmparadox
And yet, despite their mistrust for standing armies, the first generation of American leaders, the so called "founding fathers," were also the first to establish a standing army to challenge the British. Standing armies, just like the intelligence service and taxation, are necessary to provide for the overall security and well-being of the Union. BUT the major difference between us and NAZIS or Soviets, is our army is controlled by democratically elected civilian authorities.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
"So called "founding fathers," ? They were the Founding Fathers.
A standing army is illegal.
Standing armies, just like the intelligence service and taxation, are not necessary for anything.
We can defend ourselves and we have the Militia and I do not mean the "reserves."
They are not the Militia.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Dude, the Constitution empowers the legislature to raise armies as is necessary for our defense. Following WWII, the National Security Act of 1947 created our current defense structure and foreign policy, which is codified, legal and constitutional.
For years, the US had its oceans to protect it. But oceans aren't effective defense today. You think we don't need a dedicated intelligence and diplomatic corps? That we don't need a trained, disciplined, supplied army? You're deluded.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
for no more than two years....
Don't start with that oceans protect us garbage.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Under Article I, Section 8, the "2 years" clause has to do with appropriations. It doesn't mean we can't have a standing army for more than two years, it just means that Congress has to routinely decide whether or not it is going to fund that army. Again, nothing unconstitutional happening here in terms of the powers congress exercises with regards to our armed forces.
I might also mention that under the Constitution, congress is empowered to raise armed forces to suppress rebellion.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
For no more than two years. Nuff said. You have no idea what you're talking about.
This is a video for a movie. Not your lies. So, keep this on topic and go learn something.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Article 1, section 8 of US Constitution: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Note, this doesn't say anything about standing armies not being allowed for more than two years. It simply says that APPROPRIATION cannot run indefinitely, meaning Congress must approve funding every two years.
And how convenient, now you've run out of ground to stand on so you're simply resorting to telling me to "shut up."
buzongtang 1 year ago
I say "so called" because the term is bandied about to the point of being trite, with little understanding for who they were or the historical context from which they arose.
But listen, even during the Founding Fathers' times, they had a standing army. Without the standing army, the fledgling United States would have perished, because the militia sucked compared to the regimented, professional British army. Today our foes are far more sophisticated, numerous, and the threats are more complex.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
The term "Founding Fathers" is used because that is who they were!
The Militia were the one's who fought most of the battles!
You need to stop commenting. You know nothing!
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Come now. The militia may have been present throughout the revolution but the regulars provided the backbone of American war efforts. They were the only ones capable of meeting the British on the field of combat without breaking lines and running like the rabble the militia so often were.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
The Militia fought and died for this country they did not run.
Stop commenting and fighting with everyone.
You have no idea what you're talking about. At all!
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
What? Watch the History Channel or talk to a Revolutionary War historian some time. The American militia had a reputation for breaking lines and retreating. Sorry to shatter your rosy view of early American patriots but even patriots can be subject to a lack of organization and discipline, as well as succumbing to battlefield panic. Just being an American doesn't make you immune to these things. That is why you need a trained, regular army.
And I'm not fighting. Just stating facts.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
The revisionist "history" channel is full of lies!
The Militia is why America is here. Not any of the lies you state.
You are fighting, you don't have any facts. You do not know anything about anything.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
I also said you could consult other reputable sources. It's not a controversial statement. The militia were undisciplined. Ask any revolutionary historian. Personally, I don't like the History Channel but that doesn't mean it's full of lies. It's just crude, simplistic, and over-commercialized.
And I have stated facts. Facts rooted in the constitution. Facts rooted in history. Facts rooted in our legal system and institutions.
I know exactly what I am talking about.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
The militia were not undisciplined.
The History Channel is full of lies.
No, just stop.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
You know, that they were a militia doesn't diminish their patriotism or their importance to the War of Independence. I'm not criticizing them in any fashion. They just didn't stand up very well against the British in battles. But this comes as no surprise, we're talking about farmers vs. a seasoned professional army, many of whom had fought against Napoleon in previous campaigns.
And I don't understand your fixation now with the History Channel. This information is pretty well known.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang
I have no fixation with them. They do lie and you brought them up.
I can't remember which audio it was, but look up William Cooper he has a list of some of what Militias did to win wars and against whom.
The British were not that great. They lost battles to the natives.
Camel76 1 year ago
@Camel76
Sure, they had some rather bruising encounters, as is typical of war. But for much of the war they remained unrivaled. So much so that George Washington, at one point, famously resorted to deliberately running from the British, so that it would exhaust their forces and thus, wear them down by simple attrition. But in instances such as these, had he the capability to face the British head on, he would have. The British had the colonials outgunned and outmatched in many cases.
buzongtang 1 year ago
Put it in a military-historical context. The British Empire was the equivalent of America today. They were the world's super power. Such was their military might and reach, that even while they were fighting the colonials in North America, they were simultaneously engaged in a worldwide conflict with multiple enemies. Indeed, British distraction with other conflicts is no doubt ultimately what allowed the American revolutionaries to have a fighting chance in their war for independence.
buzongtang 1 year ago
@buzongtang That's a nice ideologically driven argument there, but I think it might have a little to do with the fact that the Brits were fighting a war across the Atlantic Ocean.
default013 1 year ago
@buzongtang That and we were fighting off most of Europe at the time who were supplying the US with arms and "technical" assistance.
richardpurves 1 year ago
This scene is the only part of the whole movie that even looked a little like the book!
Metew2 1 year ago
@Metew2 ya so true lolthe movie only used maybe 200 words from the book lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 yea, I read somewhere that Paul V. (director) was going to make a movie called "bug wars" and told some people about it and they told him to rewrite it and make it S.T. but after he bought the rights to the title he got the book and was "bored" and threw it out after 3 chapters and made his movie his way. which is why this scene is in the movie, seeing as it is at the beginning of the book.
Metew2 1 year ago
@Metew2 ya he's a retarded director.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 someone told me that ST3 was closer to the book and I saw it in BigLots for $3 so I got it. It isn't... I made it about 40 minutes into it and it was just bugs attacking the station the whole time
Metew2 1 year ago
@Metew2 non of the movies are close. the close thing to the book is the CG animated Series and a bit of the Japanese Anime one.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 I have these; Zephyr, homefront and hydora.. are there more?
Metew2 1 year ago
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
upload the shower scene plz
the ass slapping!
wolgreth 1 year ago 4
i like the shower scene >.>
zap785 1 year ago
The exact political agenda I go by
Well... almost
MattMatt39 2 years ago
Hi I think you're all taking this a little too seriously, heinlein was a fierce war monger ( & a fabulous writer) and Verhoeven used the source to create a satire, that's all
kowalski619 2 years ago
And i agree with Nightshift10000. The Liberalism nowadays is taking the role of the government: huge corporations has more power than many congressman. And a corporation doesn't have any repersentant elected by people, only investidors, wich excludes almost anybody from creating and revoke laws that might be harmful for a group, a state or even a country.
decapattack 2 years ago
Any kind of government which aims to concentrate a huge political-military-justice power in the hands of few people (military or civilian or clerical) tends to be tottalitary. Tends to be dictatorship. And so, ineficcient.
decapattack 2 years ago