Flag-Waving Garbage.

None of you are right. You're all biased pricks. The original post was very biased, and the response was very biased, and your response to the response was very biased. That's the problem with this world today, nobody can have an intelligent, respectful discussion anymore. It's always "my way or the highway," and that's if you're on the left or the right.

What gets me is that people such as the person who started this message thread seem to have such a bad itch on their a$$ about 80s movies that they just can't let it go and allow the people who like them to enjoy them. Instead, they have to waste their time coming to a message board such as this one to intentionally incite an angered response from those who do like the movie in question. You know this to be true, whether you admit it or not. It's a very childish provocation.

As for me personally, I consider myself to be a proud Reagan era person, and I won't apologize for the way this country had to handle foreign affairs in the midst of a world on the brink of destruction. Sure, there was a lot of unnecessary paranoia, but it was on BOTH sides, but I believe that Reagan handled it about as well as could be expected. The man served two terms after all, and left office with high regard from the majority of the American people. So if you want to keep putting down the man as if he was somehow a horrible, evil President, then remember that you're also questioning the intelligence of the majority of American people. And if you aren't American youraelf, then don't weigh in on conversations concerning American leaders. It's none of your damn business.

Hey Aarodawg360-

I don't think that it's about anyone wanting breadlines that bend 10 miles down the road. No one wants that. I think that those that believe in Marxism believe in a world without envy or jealousy. They believe that if everyone has access to free medical care, everyone has access to a free education (including post-secondary institutions,) everyone has access to all the basic necessities, that there will be no more fighting, no more murder, and no more war. What they don't realize is that the world they seek cannot happen. For there to be total equality, everyone in the world would have to give up every possession that he or she owns. How likely do you think it would be for everyone in the world to be willing to do that? Let me put it this way: if someone wants my jewelry or my wedding dress, they'll have to pry them from my cold, dead fingers. But, for argument's sake, let's say that everyone does give up their stuff. In the place of the stuff that everyone gave up, everyone would have to be issued the exact same house, the exact same clothes, the exact same furniture, the exact same electronics, the exact same everything. Now here's the problem- someone else will always have the better looking husband/wife, the smarter wife/husband, more kids/better looking kids- there will always be something that another person thinks is worth killing for. It's not possible to legislate the end of greed, envy, or jealousy. If a person is determined to kill, he or she is going to kill. That can't be stopped by human hands. Humans can only punish the act after it has occurred.

Or let's say that it's not about trying to end war or killing. Let's say that the Marxists are simply trying to make sure that everyone will get a fair shake. What about the people who pretend they are disabled so that they won't have to work? (I personally know two people that fit this description). Is it really fair that everyone else has to work that much harder to take up their slack, yet the fakers get the same portion as the people who break their backs working? No, it's not. So Marxism isn't really a "fair" system of monetary flow.

Maybe what it's really about is leftists have guilty consciences. They think to themselves, "Look at all this that I have. Look at what I did to get it! I don't really deserve this when there are starving people in developing countries!" And if that's the way that they choose to feel, that's their right. But giving up all their money and making everyone else give up their money, too, will only temporarily assuage their conscience. It's not about the money. It's about whatever it is that they've done with their lives (or haven't done with their lives,) that makes them feel they don't deserve what they have.

And you're right. The 20th century was a different world. Most of those in their early 20's can barely recall the 20th century. Most of the teens weren't born until the 21st century. The best they can do is try to apply what they know of the 21st century to the 20th century. And it won't work. There were more oil supplies, there were more gas supplies, the United States was a country that produced products instead of importing them, Unions were large, and labor was well-regulated. But the new generation doesn't know that. They can't know that. They weren't there. You can't really blame a person for something they don't know. They're doing the best they can with the information they've got.

As to whether or not it's ok for a fictional movie to raise patriotism- I don't see anything wrong with it. And I don't see anything wrong with painting people who ACT like our enemies as enemies. If they want to be perceived as the good guys, they need to ACT like good guys. This means you DON'T strap a bomb to yourself, walk into an elementary school, and kill a bunch of tiny children. This means that you DON'T take a bunch of people as hostages that don't want anything to do with you. This means you DON'T drive airplanes full of screaming, crying passengers into buildings with more screaming, crying people. Good people don't generally KILL innocent people. Good people appeal their grievances against a foreign government through the LEGAL process. They cry out to the United Nations, Amnesty International, Interpol, any legal body or organization that will listen. And then they make an emotional appeal to the media. Killing another person/people is a last resort. It's something that should only happen at the very last end of need.