Thanos: Ultimate symbol of global warming leftism goes to far

[Crepitus]

In the movie Thanos believed the universe has gotten too over populated (sound familiar leftists) and people use up the resources and destroy the environment. As a humanitarian and for the greater good, he will take it upon himself to kill off half the universe’s population. The people must pay the price for the environment. Sound familiar lefties? Surprised a Hollywood movie used such symbolism.

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

LMAO!!!

You are reading far too much into what is basically a comic book.

Get over it.

For the most part I know it is a comic book movie and it was not the writers or director’s point to make the baddie an enviroNAZI, but the symbolism is still there.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

In your own mind. That's pretty much it.

 

[bodecea]

In the movie Thanos believed the universe has gotten too over populated (sound familiar leftists) and people use up the resources and destroy the environment. As a humanitarian and for the greater good, he will take it upon himself to kill off half the universe’s population. The people must pay the price for the environment. Sound familiar lefties? Surprised a Hollywood movie used such symbolism.

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You understand it is just a movie, don't you?

A movie based on Marvel Comic plot lines from decades ago......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In the movie Thanos believed the universe has gotten too over populated (sound familiar leftists) and people use up the resources and destroy the environment. As a humanitarian and for the greater good, he will take it upon himself to kill off half the universe’s population. The people must pay the price for the environment. Sound familiar lefties? Surprised a Hollywood movie used such symbolism.

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?

I have seen the movie and have drawn my own conclusions without thought of you or your moronic assertions. So...carry on my wayward son, there will be peace when you are done.

Just as I can draw my own conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So true. No matter how moronic they may be.

 

[BULLDOG]

You understand it is just a movie, don't you?

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia


.

Yes, crazies have crazy ideas. Who knew?

Yeah, crazies like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers and Buffett. Do a bit of reading so you're not so ignorant.


.

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

Au Contraire. Any rich leftist that wishes to promote "Sustainable Development" CAN be latent eugenicists. To wit ----

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082702.shtml

That's the core of the problem that rich Western environmentalists have with the developing world - they are afraid that Issac and his fellow poor people will aspire to live the way they do. Issac's children and grandchildren will want bigger houses, private automobiles, university educations, computers, refrigerators, air-conditioning, restaurant meals, imported foods, and trips abroad. In the lexicon of ideological environmentalists this is called "overconsumption."

To prevent the spread of "overconsumption" the Greens at the Summit in Johannesburg want to mandate measures that would "protect the livelihoods" of people like Issac's cattle-raising father. Essentially, the goal is to stop poor people like Issac from moving to the city and driving taxis or doing other work. These rich country environmentalists


"Sustainable development is setting the necessary social and ecological limits to economic growth," he declared. In other words, poor people like Issac and his children
should not aspire to the opportunities and wealth enjoyed by the citizens of developed

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082802.shtml

At issue is how the EU and the environmentalists define the term "renewable." To understand how radical the environmentalists' proposal is, consider that today only two percent of the world's primary energy is produced by renewables that ideological environmentalists would regard as acceptable — among them wind, solar, geothermal and small hydropower. The Europeans on the other hand would count as renewables such already-existing sources as large hydropower and traditional biomass. "Traditional
biomass" is a term that encompasses everything from collected wood to cow dung.
Large hydropower includes projects like India's much-loathed Narmada Dam and China's equally execrated Three Gorges Dam.

Conveniently, the Euro plan requires little heavy lifting. Morgan points out that, using the
EU definition, fourteen percent of the world's primary energy is already supplied by
renewables; in effect the EU is calling for a mere one-percent increase in the portion of
primary energy supplied by renewables by 2015. European diplomats have practiced
this sort of continental guile since the days of Rochefoucauld. Less crafty United States
negotiators would simply prefer to dump any timetables and targets for renewable energy.


IOWs --- don't send microloans, tractors, power stations, general aid and trade. Send them windmills and solar panels so that their economies will NEVER develop beyond the Earth's capacity to shelter these hoards. Forbid them the consumption and waste and conveniences of developed countries. And underneath all of that is let them suffer at marginal poverty so that their birthrate is neutralized.

That's getting into tinfoil hat territory, isn't it? When a hateful RWNJ tells poor folks they shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them, is that advocating eugenics? According to your logic, it is.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yeah, crazies like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers and Buffett. Do a bit of reading so you're not so ignorant.


.

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

.

Thanks man. I knew I had heard him weigh in on population vs "the planet". But forget where I heard it. The folks who edited that did have somewhat of a conspiracy agenda since they focused on one slip up in his presentation about vaccines.

But I recall the TED talk was bad enough with his references that his PSEC equation was pretty much maxed out for fixing CO2 WITHOUT reduction in population growth in underdeveloped nations..

I just pulled up the first video I found on it, I figure if people wanted to learn more, I'm sure the full presentation is out there. There are also articles that are pretty good, with links, that people can read, I didn't post them because the regressives would poopoo the sources.


.

Here you go.. GodFather of CNN itself. GW action IS population control according to Ted Turner. THERE'S your leftist sugar daddy connection to eugenics right HERE VVVVVVVV

flacaltenn says
If you can't afford kids don't have them = eugenics

 

[bodecea]

In the movie Thanos believed the universe has gotten too over populated (sound familiar leftists) and people use up the resources and destroy the environment. As a humanitarian and for the greater good, he will take it upon himself to kill off half the universe’s population. The people must pay the price for the environment. Sound familiar lefties? Surprised a Hollywood movie used such symbolism.

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You understand it is just a movie, don't you?

Conservatives are ultra-triggered by movies, even the ones based entirely on fiction. Conspiracies are seen everywhere where they don't exist.

Paranoia is the term for this.

Conservatives are ultra-triggered by movies, even though the ones based entirely on fiction. Conspiraices are seen everywhere where they don't exist.

Paranoia is the term for this.

The GOP should issue tinfoil hats to all their members.

Conservatives are ultra-triggered by movies, even though the ones based entirely on fiction. Conspiraices are seen everywhere where they don't exist.

Paranoia is the term for this.

The GOP should issue tinfoil hats to all their members.

Yes instead of those colonial teabagger hats they should get colonial tinfoil hats. Cons you should get on that.

You fools do realize there is symbolism in fiction correct?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Triggered by a comic book movie......talk about snowflakey behavior!

 

[bodecea]

As for why it was changed to the whole "overpopulation" thing, I think it's because they needed (and succeeded in doing so, in my opinion) to make him a three-dimensional character. He couldn't be as cartoonishly (or comic bookishly) evil, to get the impact they were looking for.

Most Hollywood Movies are made by Hollywood types, you know the ones who molest children…

Catholic Priests make movies?

 

[bodecea]

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's actually being advocated.

SEPS Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization


.

They way you are presenting it it is a conspiracy theory.

I've provided 3 links, you, not so much.


.

Look dude, I can post links that "prove" bush destroyed the twin towers. That doesn't make it true.

So don't read the links or watch the video, you're free to remain ignorant.

Here's a search, feel free to scroll through and pick your own sources.

environmentalist call for forced population reduction - Bing


.

Well I'm not gonna respond to this line any further. The moderation staff has apparently decided that me pointing out this is a conspiracy theory is off topic while you bringing it up for discussion is not. Since the mods are biased in you favor and deleting my replies I'm out.

That's a real shame....because it certainly made for clear and interesting discussion that someone would accuse the movie of having a conspiracy like agenda......even tho the characters are comic book and the plot line is over 20 years old.

 

[bodecea]

I love the anger and hatred liberals spew when making a simple point about symbolism in fiction. Heck college courses are taught on it.

Many Hollywood blockbusters push agendas. The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind.

Get over yourself lefties.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Anger and hatred? By pointing out that this is a movie based on fictional COMIC BOOK characters? Such hate! Such anger! GRRRRRRRRRR!

 

[BlindBoo]

Who?

 

[bodecea]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia


.

Yes, crazies have crazy ideas. Who knew?

Yeah, crazies like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers and Buffett. Do a bit of reading so you're not so ignorant.


.

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

Au Contraire. Any rich leftist that wishes to promote "Sustainable Development" CAN be latent eugenicists. To wit ----

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082702.shtml

That's the core of the problem that rich Western environmentalists have with the developing world - they are afraid that Issac and his fellow poor people will aspire to live the way they do. Issac's children and grandchildren will want bigger houses, private automobiles, university educations, computers, refrigerators, air-conditioning, restaurant meals, imported foods, and trips abroad. In the lexicon of ideological environmentalists this is called "overconsumption."

To prevent the spread of "overconsumption" the Greens at the Summit in Johannesburg want to mandate measures that would "protect the livelihoods" of people like Issac's cattle-raising father. Essentially, the goal is to stop poor people like Issac from moving to the city and driving taxis or doing other work. These rich country environmentalists


"Sustainable development is setting the necessary social and ecological limits to economic growth," he declared. In other words, poor people like Issac and his children
should not aspire to the opportunities and wealth enjoyed by the citizens of developed

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082802.shtml

At issue is how the EU and the environmentalists define the term "renewable." To understand how radical the environmentalists' proposal is, consider that today only two percent of the world's primary energy is produced by renewables that ideological environmentalists would regard as acceptable — among them wind, solar, geothermal and small hydropower. The Europeans on the other hand would count as renewables such already-existing sources as large hydropower and traditional biomass. "Traditional
biomass" is a term that encompasses everything from collected wood to cow dung.
Large hydropower includes projects like India's much-loathed Narmada Dam and China's equally execrated Three Gorges Dam.

Conveniently, the Euro plan requires little heavy lifting. Morgan points out that, using the
EU definition, fourteen percent of the world's primary energy is already supplied by
renewables; in effect the EU is calling for a mere one-percent increase in the portion of
primary energy supplied by renewables by 2015. European diplomats have practiced
this sort of continental guile since the days of Rochefoucauld. Less crafty United States
negotiators would simply prefer to dump any timetables and targets for renewable energy.


IOWs --- don't send microloans, tractors, power stations, general aid and trade. Send them windmills and solar panels so that their economies will NEVER develop beyond the Earth's capacity to shelter these hoards. Forbid them the consumption and waste and conveniences of developed countries. And underneath all of that is let them suffer at marginal poverty so that their birthrate is neutralized.

That's getting into tinfoil hat territory, isn't it? When a hateful RWNJ tells poor folks they shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them, is that advocating eugenics? According to your logic, it is.

This thread has got some truly funny twists in it, doesn't it? Over a comic book movie.....

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, crazies have crazy ideas. Who knew?

Yeah, crazies like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers and Buffett. Do a bit of reading so you're not so ignorant.


.

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

Au Contraire. Any rich leftist that wishes to promote "Sustainable Development" CAN be latent eugenicists. To wit ----

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082702.shtml

That's the core of the problem that rich Western environmentalists have with the developing world - they are afraid that Issac and his fellow poor people will aspire to live the way they do. Issac's children and grandchildren will want bigger houses, private automobiles, university educations, computers, refrigerators, air-conditioning, restaurant meals, imported foods, and trips abroad. In the lexicon of ideological environmentalists this is called "overconsumption."

To prevent the spread of "overconsumption" the Greens at the Summit in Johannesburg want to mandate measures that would "protect the livelihoods" of people like Issac's cattle-raising father. Essentially, the goal is to stop poor people like Issac from moving to the city and driving taxis or doing other work. These rich country environmentalists


"Sustainable development is setting the necessary social and ecological limits to economic growth," he declared. In other words, poor people like Issac and his children
should not aspire to the opportunities and wealth enjoyed by the citizens of developed

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082802.shtml

At issue is how the EU and the environmentalists define the term "renewable." To understand how radical the environmentalists' proposal is, consider that today only two percent of the world's primary energy is produced by renewables that ideological environmentalists would regard as acceptable — among them wind, solar, geothermal and small hydropower. The Europeans on the other hand would count as renewables such already-existing sources as large hydropower and traditional biomass. "Traditional
biomass" is a term that encompasses everything from collected wood to cow dung.
Large hydropower includes projects like India's much-loathed Narmada Dam and China's equally execrated Three Gorges Dam.

Conveniently, the Euro plan requires little heavy lifting. Morgan points out that, using the
EU definition, fourteen percent of the world's primary energy is already supplied by
renewables; in effect the EU is calling for a mere one-percent increase in the portion of
primary energy supplied by renewables by 2015. European diplomats have practiced
this sort of continental guile since the days of Rochefoucauld. Less crafty United States
negotiators would simply prefer to dump any timetables and targets for renewable energy.


IOWs --- don't send microloans, tractors, power stations, general aid and trade. Send them windmills and solar panels so that their economies will NEVER develop beyond the Earth's capacity to shelter these hoards. Forbid them the consumption and waste and conveniences of developed countries. And underneath all of that is let them suffer at marginal poverty so that their birthrate is neutralized.

That's getting into tinfoil hat territory, isn't it? When a hateful RWNJ tells poor folks they shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them, is that advocating eugenics? According to your logic, it is.

This thread has got some truly funny twists in it, doesn't it? Over a comic book movie.....

Yup.

 

[Rustic]

As for why it was changed to the whole "overpopulation" thing, I think it's because they needed (and succeeded in doing so, in my opinion) to make him a three-dimensional character. He couldn't be as cartoonishly (or comic bookishly) evil, to get the impact they were looking for.

Most Hollywood Movies are made by Hollywood types, you know the ones who molest children…

Catholic Priests make movies?

Progressive’s... Catholic priests same difference

 

[Rustic]

They way you are presenting it it is a conspiracy theory.

I've provided 3 links, you, not so much.


.

Look dude, I can post links that "prove" bush destroyed the twin towers. That doesn't make it true.

So don't read the links or watch the video, you're free to remain ignorant.

Here's a search, feel free to scroll through and pick your own sources.

environmentalist call for forced population reduction - Bing


.

Well I'm not gonna respond to this line any further. The moderation staff has apparently decided that me pointing out this is a conspiracy theory is off topic while you bringing it up for discussion is not. Since the mods are biased in you favor and deleting my replies I'm out.

That's a real shame....because it certainly made for clear and interesting discussion that someone would accuse the movie of having a conspiracy like agenda......even tho the characters are comic book and the plot line is over 20 years old.

Except for the movie changed the plotline

 

[bodecea]

I've provided 3 links, you, not so much.


.

Look dude, I can post links that "prove" bush destroyed the twin towers. That doesn't make it true.

So don't read the links or watch the video, you're free to remain ignorant.

Here's a search, feel free to scroll through and pick your own sources.

environmentalist call for forced population reduction - Bing


.

Well I'm not gonna respond to this line any further. The moderation staff has apparently decided that me pointing out this is a conspiracy theory is off topic while you bringing it up for discussion is not. Since the mods are biased in you favor and deleting my replies I'm out.

That's a real shame....because it certainly made for clear and interesting discussion that someone would accuse the movie of having a conspiracy like agenda......even tho the characters are comic book and the plot line is over 20 years old.

Except for the movie changed the plotline

It's more of that conspiracy.....in fact I bet there's chem-trails in there somewhere......

 

[Rustic]

Look dude, I can post links that "prove" bush destroyed the twin towers. That doesn't make it true.

So don't read the links or watch the video, you're free to remain ignorant.

Here's a search, feel free to scroll through and pick your own sources.

environmentalist call for forced population reduction - Bing


.

Well I'm not gonna respond to this line any further. The moderation staff has apparently decided that me pointing out this is a conspiracy theory is off topic while you bringing it up for discussion is not. Since the mods are biased in you favor and deleting my replies I'm out.

That's a real shame....because it certainly made for clear and interesting discussion that someone would accuse the movie of having a conspiracy like agenda......even tho the characters are comic book and the plot line is over 20 years old.

Except for the movie changed the plotline

It's more of that conspiracy.....in fact I bet there's chem-trails in there somewhere......

Funny thing about Hollywood, Their political correctness dictates everything they do. And even shelters their child molesting...

 

[flacaltenn]

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

.

Thanks man. I knew I had heard him weigh in on population vs "the planet". But forget where I heard it. The folks who edited that did have somewhat of a conspiracy agenda since they focused on one slip up in his presentation about vaccines.

But I recall the TED talk was bad enough with his references that his PSEC equation was pretty much maxed out for fixing CO2 WITHOUT reduction in population growth in underdeveloped nations..

I just pulled up the first video I found on it, I figure if people wanted to learn more, I'm sure the full presentation is out there. There are also articles that are pretty good, with links, that people can read, I didn't post them because the regressives would poopoo the sources.


.

Here you go.. GodFather of CNN itself. GW action IS population control according to Ted Turner. THERE'S your leftist sugar daddy connection to eugenics right HERE VVVVVVVV

flacaltenn says
If you can't afford kids don't have them = eugenics

I don't care about people making poor decisions. That's called TOLERANCE. It's neccessary to live in a free society.. Even IF i do think someone's actions are stupid.

You don't think having kids you can't afford is stupid?

And your hero Ted Turner??? That's NOT eugenics???

 

[GHook93]

In the movie Thanos believed the universe has gotten too over populated (sound familiar leftists) and people use up the resources and destroy the environment. As a humanitarian and for the greater good, he will take it upon himself to kill off half the universe’s population. The people must pay the price for the environment. Sound familiar lefties? Surprised a Hollywood movie used such symbolism.

So question to the leftists, since Thanos is a liberal promoting your agenda, are you going to root for him in the movie?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You understand it is just a movie, don't you?

A movie based on Marvel Comic plot lines from decades ago......

The capturing of the infinity stones yes, his motivation behind it no. That is new


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[GHook93]

Gates, the Rockefellers, and Buffet aren't planning on the extinction of humans, you silly goober. And you wonder why people say right wingers are insane.

.

Thanks man. I knew I had heard him weigh in on population vs "the planet". But forget where I heard it. The folks who edited that did have somewhat of a conspiracy agenda since they focused on one slip up in his presentation about vaccines.

But I recall the TED talk was bad enough with his references that his PSEC equation was pretty much maxed out for fixing CO2 WITHOUT reduction in population growth in underdeveloped nations..

I just pulled up the first video I found on it, I figure if people wanted to learn more, I'm sure the full presentation is out there. There are also articles that are pretty good, with links, that people can read, I didn't post them because the regressives would poopoo the sources.


.

Here you go.. GodFather of CNN itself. GW action IS population control according to Ted Turner. THERE'S your leftist sugar daddy connection to eugenics right HERE VVVVVVVV

flacaltenn says
If you can't afford kids don't have them = eugenics

That is a very good reason not to have kids. See Africa or Latin America.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[easyt65]

This (Thanos Symbolism) reminded me of something - Before entering the military I went to college. I took this one specific course - 'Symbolism in Literature'.

We would read a passage of a poem, something like:

'He sat upon a blue blanket stretched out across the plush green hill, watching the sails of the schooner disappear over the horizon.'

The professor then went about explaining:
- The BLUE BLANKET represents 'DEPRESSION'
- The GREEN GRASS represents 'LIFE, FETILE, THRIVING'
- The 'SCHOONER' CROSSING OVER THE HORIZON, DISAPPEARING' represents 'HIS OWN LIFE PASSING, EBBING AWAY'




The professor then asked me what I thought about that. I asked him how do we know the author meant all of that - as he had never said so - and that he was not just describing an afternoon in the park overlooking a harbor he remembered having and that people like him read it, assumed he had to be using symbolism, interpreting the author as 'deeper' and a better writer than he truly was. My professor rolled his eyes and walked off.


MAYBE it is just a movie from a story in a comic book....which it is...and the perceived symbolism is just an interpretation by someone who was looking for symbolism?!