When even you know that you cannot debate what the Republicans are saying, when what they are saying is so irrefutably correct, there's always the race card. Say it ain't so, Sundance.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/robert-redford-racism-involved-government-648982

I am 'racist' and 'afraid of change'.

When the Nazis occupied France, some French formed the resistance, to fight back. Would Redford accuse them of being 'afraid of change', because they didn't embrace Hitler?

You know what? When the 'change' is mathematically guaranteed to cause ruin, you're goddamned right I'm afraid of it.

Are these people really this stupid? Does Redford genuinely believe that fiscal responsibility is based on racism? Or do these billionaire liberals want the economy to collapse, because that will make them even more wealthy than the rest of us? I ponder that sometimes. In the short-term, liberal economics eliminates economic upward mobility for the poor, by enslaving them to welfare. In the long term, te entitlements that liberals support, cannot fail to bring large scale economic harm to those that are not filthy rich.

Is that their intent? To keep the lines short on the ferry to Nantucket?

Is he any different than former Rep Allen West other then West was elected by the Reps?


Florida Rep. Allen West's controversial comments have once again landed him in the headlines – this time with the sort of accusation not seen in Congress since the 1950s.
At a town hall meeting with constituents in Jensen Beach, West was asked how many members of Congress are "card-carrying Marxists."

According to CNN affiliate WPEC, West responded, "I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party."
West's campaign manager, Tim Edison, pointed reporters to West's next comments, when he says the members in question belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"This group advocates for state control over industries, redistribution of wealth, reduced individual economic freedom and the destruction of free markets," Edison added in a statement. "These members of Congress advocate the type of policies that have put Europe on the brink of economic and fiscal collapse, and are driving the United States in the same direction. It is interesting that amid the swirl of feigned outrage and media misreporting of the Congressman’s remarks, all the attention is focused on the semantics, but no one is disputing the Progressive Caucus’s support for policies central to socialist and even Marxist systems."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus responded to West's comments with a statement calling the comment and others like it "personal attacks."
"Calling fellow Members of Congress 'communists' is reminiscent of the days when Joe McCarthy divided Americans with name-calling and modern-day witch hunts that don't advance policies to benefit people's lives," the statement, by caucus co chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison, read.
A spokesman for the Communist Party USA said Wednesday that the remarks are "not the epithet it once was."
"We think it's ridiculous statement and totally untrue. It's clear he's trying to give the impression that there are people with a secret agenda in the Congress," party vice chair Libero Della Piana said.
"We don't take offense at it. Really it wasn't a statement about us at all," he added, but rather a myth about Democrats.
Last summer, West wrote an email to Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz describing her as "the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the US House of Representatives." Last February, he described a fellow member of Congress who is Muslim as "someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established."
West was suggested as a possible GOP vice presidential nominee last week by the party's most recent nominee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The first term congressman said on CNN's "Newsroom" that he is open to the possibility.
"(My family) has always stepped up to the plate to serve our country, and if it's the right thing, then I will do so. But I really doubt that would ever happen," he said.
But, he has said, Romney has yet to call.

Is West still a contributer on Fox news?

Is he any different than former Rep Allen West other then West was elected by the Reps?


.

West is a heroic combat vet who served our country in ways that would make most of us wet our pants, while Redford has lived a life of celebrity and unimaginable wealth. West has been in some tough spots, I have seen his military resume. Redford is a noodle-brained celebrity, who like many of them, seemingly has no appreciation for the concerns of people who aren't uber-rich. And who unfortunately has made 2 of my favorite movies (The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid)

West, like Michelle Bachman, is someone with whom I agree on most issues, but he says things that do more harm than good. There are lots of conservatives who cringe when West says kooky stuff. I don't see similar condemnation when liberals, without end, play the race card, with no evidence whatsoever.

The othe rdifference is, on the issue of our debt, West is obviously correct, Redford is obviously wrong. That's the main difference. Two jerks, both saying uncivilized things. Only one of them gets called out for saying the uncivilized things. And only one, the same one, happens to be on the corrcet side of the issue of our spending.

That was a joke. There is no difference. You make me shake my head and laugh. So is sounds like you're defending West.

Is he still getting paid by Fox?

That was a joke. There is no difference. You make me shake my head and laugh. So is sounds like you're defending West.

Is he still getting paid by Fox?

I am absolutely defending the man. West has the same fault as Redford - a propensity for saying kooky things. That's where the similarity ends.

West is a combat vet. Redford is a wealthy celebrity who lives a life on uminaginable excess.

West is demonstrably correct on the issue of our debt. Redford is ignoring elementary school math to arrive at his conclusions.

Redford says that West is racist. Genius.

SInce I don't work in the HR Department at Foxnews, I cannot know if he gets paid by them. Nor do I really care.

How pathetic is it when you justify unexceptable behavior by pointing out other cases of unexceptable behavior .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How pathetic is it when you justify unexceptable behavior by pointing out other cases of unexceptable behavior .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How pathetic is it when you have to cherry pick a single person to white wash an entire segment of the population.

-spence

How pathetic is it when you have to cherry pick a single person to white wash an entire segment of the population.

-spence

Ever heard of George W Bush or Sarah palin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Both sides do it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd wager that not one member of the KKK voted for Obama. There's your proof that Redford was on to something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How pathetic is it when you justify unexceptable behavior by pointing out other cases of unexceptable behavior .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and how pathetic that the OP has to constantly posts things done/said by people he doesn't like and attributes them to all people who he thinks are of that political party.

Maybe it went over your head that the reason I did it was to show that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who do the same thing.

and how pathetic that the OP has to constantly posts things done/said by people he doesn't like and attributes them to all people who he thinks are of that political party.

Maybe it went over your head that the reason I did it was to show that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who do the same thing.

Paul S and Spence, it is a very common tactic for liberals to play the race card, in the hopes of demonizing the conservatives. In the other thread, I posted a crystal clear case of Obama himself doing it, At the expense of John McCain, a war her who adopted a black girl. I'm not making that up.

There are jerks on both sides. And not every single liberal plays the race card. But huge numbers of them do. They have to, it's all they have. It's better than trying to explain why almost $100 trillion in debt isn't a problem that we need to address. It's much easier to yell 'racist'!

I notice that neither you nor Spence condemned what Redford said.

I notice that neither you nor Spence condemned what Redford said.
Jim, Redford never called all Republicans racist...you simply made that up.

The irony of course is that in your fake outrage over Redford stereotyping Republicans you stereotype liberals.

Classic. You've become a parody of yourself.

-spence

and how pathetic that the OP has to constantly posts things done/said by people he doesn't like and attributes them to all people who he thinks are of that political party.

Maybe it went over your head that the reason I did it was to show that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who do the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and how pathetic that the OP has to constantly posts things done/said by people he doesn't like and attributes them to all people who he thinks are of that political party.

Maybe it went over your head that the reason I did it was to show that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who do the same thing.

Am I to assume the entire hypocrisy of what you just posted went over your head?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, Redford never called all Republicans racist...you simply made that up.

The irony of course is that in your fake outrage over Redford stereotyping Republicans you stereotype liberals.

Classic. You've become a parody of yourself.

-spence

He said those who oppose Obamacare, like Allen West for instance, are racist. I'm sure that comes as a surprise to Mr West.

redford's stereotype, that opposition to Obamacare is racist, is demonstrably false. my stereotype, that liberals like to play the race card rather than have an honest discussion, is demonstrably true.

You're still not denouncing what he said, I see. Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype.

He actually never said such a thing.

Funny, you demand condemnation and you haven't even really understood what you want people to condemn.

-spence

I'd wager that not one member of the KKK voted for Obama. There's your proof that Redford was on to something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good God.

If Redford said that membership in the KKK was rooted in racism, he's be on to something. That's not what he said. He said opposition to Obamacare was racist. Apples and oranges.

95% of blacks voted for Obama. So using your logic (that voting against Obama makes you anti-black), can I similarly say that blacks are anti-white because of the way they overwhelmingly voted for Obama?

He actually never said such a thing.

Funny, you demand condemnation and you haven't even really understood what you want people to condemn.

-spence

"He actually never said such a thing."

are you illiterate? Here is an exact quote...

"There's a body of congressional people that want to paralyze the system. I think what's unfortunately underneath it is racism"

Which "body" of congressional people was he referring to? The Congressional Black Caucus?

I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out the truth, which is that neither you nor Paul have said that his statement is irresponsible.

Dog; meet tail.....

imho he needs to stick to horses....

maybe Whisper a little something in their ears.

"There's a body of congressional people that want to paralyze the system. I think what's unfortunately underneath it is racism"

Which "body" of congressional people was he referring to? The Congressional Black Caucus?
So NOW you're a Congressman??? :rotf2:

-spence

I pick on Obama because he is Irish
Stanley Dunham is the grandfather of Barack Obama. He was born in 1918 and served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army during World War II, enlisting just after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Stanley and his wife Madelyn raised Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition to Obama, Stanley is related to six US presidents: James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.[31][32] He died in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1992, and is buried at the Punchbowl National Cemetery.

I pick on Obama because he is Irish
Stanley Dunham is the grandfather of Barack Obama. He was born in 1918 and served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army during World War II, enlisting just after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Stanley and his wife Madelyn raised Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition to Obama, Stanley is related to six US presidents: James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.[31][32] He died in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1992, and is buried at the Punchbowl National Cemetery.

So what you really saying is that Obama's Kenyan sensibilities came from somewhere else?

Please quit with all this veteran stuff, Jim won't be able to handle it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you really saying is that Obama's Kenyan sensibilities came from somewhere else?

Please quit with all this veteran stuff, Jim won't be able to handle it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama's sensibilities ! You should go on Comedy Central
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So NOW you're a Congressman??? :rotf2:

-spence

Spence, I see what happened...I didn't mean to say that redford claimed that all registered Republicans are racist. What I meant to say, and I am correct, is this...Redford claimed that the Republicans in congress are racist. His proof? Did he see them at a Klan rally? Nope. His proof is that they disagreed with Obama. That makes them racist.

I'd wager that not one member of the KKK voted for Obama. There's your proof that Redford was on to something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You'd lose that wager. Former Senator Robert Byrd was a democrat from WV. The democrats made him president pro tempe of the Senate, putting him, I believe, 4th in line for Presidential succession. Not only was he in the klan, he was a wizard. It's a safe bet he voted for Obama, his party's nominee.

You'd lose that wager. Former Senator Robert Byrd was a democrat from WV. The democrats made him president pro tempe of the Senate, putting him, I believe, 4th in line for Presidential succession. Not only was he in the klan, he was a wizard. It's a safe bet he voted for Obama, his party's nominee.

I don't believe he was a wizard, but regardless...he got caught up in it when he was young and had long since repudiated the klan. You do realize you're stretching back to the 1940's don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I see what happened...I didn't mean to say that redford claimed that all registered Republicans are racist. What I meant to say, and I am correct, is this...Redford claimed that the Republicans in congress are racist. His proof? Did he see them at a Klan rally? Nope. His proof is that they disagreed with Obama. That makes them racist.

He didn't claim register Republicans are all racist. What are you reading?

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct. He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct. He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

Oh, the horror.

-spence

Redford is very good at telling stories. :)
A River Runs Through It, one of my favorites.

I don't believe he was a wizard, but regardless...he got caught up in it when he was young and had long since repudiated the klan. You do realize you're stretching back to the 1940's don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He started a brand new chapter in WV, recruiting 150 of his buddies. Maybe he wasn't a wizard, I shouldn't have said that. Here is a quote from the man who was 4th in line for the Presidency...

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"

But nothing to see here according to Spence, because Byrd just "got caught up in it".

He apologized many times for his deeds, that's a fact. He also used the n-word until the year of his death. Google it.

But Spence knows what's in the guy's heart. he's a democrat, therefore he's above reproach. We aren't allowed to disparage him.

He didn't claim register Republicans are all racist. What are you reading?

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct. He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct. He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

Oh, the horror.

-spence

Spence, for the last time, I am not suggesting that Redford feels 'all Republicans' are racist. He specifically accused sthe ones in Congress, who helped force the shutdown, of being racist (news to white supremacists like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).

"He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct"

You make that accusation with NO support, yet you continually chastise the conservatives for engaging in speculation.

So Spence denies that Robert Byrd (an admitted Klansmen who used the n-word until the year of his death) is racist. But Spence is fine calling some congressional Republicans racist, with no proof whatsoever.

In other words, you ignore irrefutable proof that an influential Democrat was a racist, but feel justified in using that label on Republicans, with no proof whatsoever.

Whew! Robert Byrd is not a racist, but Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are! Thanks for straightening that out Spence.

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct.


Name 1 please......


He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct.

Name a human being that isn't motivated by a reluctance to change, partcularly if the change is not a positive change


He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

no clue what that sentence means


Oh, the horror.

-spence

it was stupid....but we're used to you defending stupid and indefensible as long as they are aligned politically with you :rotf2:

When even you know that you cannot debate what the Republicans are saying, when what they are saying is so irrefutably correct, there's always the race card. Say it ain't so, Sundance.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/robert-redford-racism-involved-government-648982

I am 'racist' and 'afraid of change'.

When the Nazis occupied France, some French formed the resistance, to fight back. Would Redford accuse them of being 'afraid of change', because they didn't embrace Hitler?

You know what? When the 'change' is mathematically guaranteed to cause ruin, you're goddamned right I'm afraid of it.

Are these people really this stupid? Does Redford genuinely believe that fiscal responsibility is based on racism? Or do these billionaire liberals want the economy to collapse, because that will make them even more wealthy than the rest of us? I ponder that sometimes. In the short-term, liberal economics eliminates economic upward mobility for the poor, by enslaving them to welfare. In the long term, te entitlements that liberals support, cannot fail to bring large scale economic harm to those that are not filthy rich.

Is that their intent? To keep the lines short on the ferry to Nantucket?

Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.

To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.

"It is so paralyzed, and the worst of it is that it's paralyzed by intention. There's a body of congressional people that want to paralyze the system."

First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.

The Constitution, actually, built in the possibility of "paralysis" with a system of checks and balances. Paralysis against harmful and unconstitutional legislation is a good thing. As you point out, paralyzing a Hitleresque system would be good. But, the congressional body that Redford seems to favor doesn't want to be checked or balanced out of whatever idea their mastermind wishes to impose on the rest of us. And, of course, since they are the smart ones, whatever idea they have is good.

He adds "I think what's unfortunately underneath it is racism involved, which is really awful."

As you point out, Byrd was a clan member (and yes a grand poohbah of the KKK, wizard or some other high position), but Spence points out that was decades ago and that he reformed. Of course, progressives, if they ever had a fault, are capable of reforming. "Conservatives," on the other hand, can never do so. Because, after all, they are by definition "conservative"--resistant to change. Well, there's an irony there. Politically "conservative" means to preserve individual freedom, which is the most potent force for change.

But there is also an ignorance, willful or not, or a hypocrisy, in Redford's contention. Not only is he actually ignorant of the motivations of that "body of congress" which he rebukes (how could he possibly know unless he's an actual mind reader--and a telepathic one at that), but he is ignorant, or hypocritically dismissive, of the racism that exists in the rest of the congressional body, and the entire body politic. The black caucus for instance. And the voting blocks for the Democrat party such as the unions, have many racists in them. They just co-exist for political reasons which does not make them any less racists. But, I guess, only the supposed racism in that particular congressional body which Redford doesn't like is the "really awful" racism.

Then he says "It's not just racism. I think it's a group of people that are so afraid of change and they're so narrow-minded that when--you see, some people when they see change coming get so threatened by change they get angry and terrorized and they get vicious."

As you point out, it is not change that is threatening, but change for the worse, even change that threatens terror and tyranny against the people. But the progressive mantra includes "change" as a higher order ideology. "Change" is not a specific, it is a general ideological concept which embraces movement to newer, smarter, more progressive, and the wholly good. If for you it is "narrow-minded" to resist change for its own sake, then you are well on your way to being progressive. And those who "paralyze" that change may anger and terrorize you.

But to dwell on the simple-minded thoughts of a super-wealthy actor who lives on a 5,500 acre property in Utah, and who supports the nature conservancy, not of course to protect his own property and wealth from encroachment of the lumpen American "middle class", but for the good of all society (anybody been to Utah lately to see the wonders?) is a bit of distraction from reality. Then again, if hordes of folks actually did go there and tromp on the "pristine" beauty, requiring all the necessities and niceties of vacationers such as more roads, motels, hotels, airports, restaurants, retail stores, gas stations, etc., it would kind of mess with the conservancy stuff. Better to leave it to the few who can afford 5,500 acre places. Don't even think about building those rows and rows of middle-class houses and gated communities, and certainly not "lower class" ticky-tack houses and progressive high rise tenements for low income people. Nor all the commercial enterprises to support it. Better to leave it to the few who already live there, so long as they don't mess with the pristine nature and demand more capitalist entrepreneurs to raise their standards and make wealth available for their children. And to a few more wealthy large land owners. So long as not too many 5,500 or more acre plots are carved out of the pristine land.

Better to leave it to a few Redfords.

Damn that was impressive Detbuch.

PS you are a loathsome, contemptible racist, in case you didn't know.

He didn't claim register Republicans are all racist. What are you reading?

He said that SOME in Congress are motivated partly by racism. On this he's 100% correct. He also said some motivation is a reluctance to change. On this he's also 100% correct. He's it's akin to saying they oppose Obama because they're conservatives.

Oh, the horror.

-spence

Actually I would wager a higher percentage of democrats are motivated by racism, and I would win
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Name 1 please......
How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while.

-spence

Jim, you've made some good points here. As often is the case, the negative responses to your post avoid those points and deflect with moral equivalence, nitpicking about verbal faults or moving on to other arguments.
Or, a lack of reading comprehension.

To reflect on, and support, what you tried to point out as illogical and ignorant comments by Redford, maybe a closer analysis of his quoted text would help.
This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.

First of all, what does he mean by "the system"? Does he mean the system that was given to us by the Constitution? If so, which body of congressional people intentionally paralyze and destroy that system? If he means to imply that it's the Tea Party Republicans, he's certainly picking on the wrong folks. They're the only congressional body which is trying to preserve what's left of that system. As for the rest of the congressional body, it seems to adhere to an insider system of scratch my back of legislative wants and I'll scratch yours. Of course, the Republicans who play that game always seem to lose, getting very little, if anything, and giving up the house to the Democrats. If you're a progressive, which Redford seems to be, that's a good system. I can see how he doesn't want it paralyzed.
The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.


This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.


The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

You analyzed it more closely, and quickly concluded that it was a benign statement. Now that you cannot defend it, it's not worth talking about.

"How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while."

Birthers, like Redford, make kooky accusations with no evidence. How about the people who said the Gulf War was launched for oil, or for Haliburton profits. No evidence to support that. Are those people racist, anti-white, since they made baseless accusations against a white president? Using your 'logic', I'm not sure there's a difference.

"Some of this is racism "

again, zero evidence. Zip.

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.


This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.


The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world. My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage. Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

"shutdown and real economic damage"

$17 trillion in debt (and at least another $50 trillion in entitlement liabilities) isn't potentially damaging. But a temporary shutdown is too damaging to allow. Got it, check...

Or, a lack of reading comprehension.

Jim made some good points.

This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis.

Perhaps your suffering from a mild form of reading comprehension. I know you're very busy. Maybe it was just an oversight. But if you're going to bother to post stuff, maybe you should exert a little more effort out of respect to others who will read it. I did say "But to dwell on the simple-minded thoughts of a super-wealthy actor . .. is a bit of distraction from reality." No need to add superfluous comments to your necessarily brief offerings due to the little time you have to give them. As you like to say, pay attention.

The "system" is obviously the entire thing.

So the entire thing does not include the Constitution? Oh, that's right, for you it wouldn't. The "entire thing" would be wrapped up in a few folks up there in the heights of D.C. making deals which direct what us folks in the rest of the country must do for the good of the "entire thing" including what we must buy.

Not an academic perspective but the real world.

So the real world does not include academic perspectives? I thought you liked smart stuff, and I thought you were very partial to perspectives. Maybe just the smart stuff and perspectives you agree with?

My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage.

Ahh . . . that's right. To have a perspective other than that of the folks who comprise "the entire thing" would be obstructionist. It would hamper our "entire thing" from telling the rest of us what to do, from operating to the point of a fictitious shutdown, and it would hamper the entire thing from wracking up more debt on top of the already amassed debt which is unsustainable in the way the "entire thing" operates. We must not hamper or obstruct the "entire thing" from its mission to control our lives (for our own benefit) since we are not capable in this new, smart world of centrally planned fiscal obsolescence.

Some of this is racism (or do we let Kenyan sensibilities dictate the behavior of Americans?) and some is a resistance to any change.

Is there something wrong with being Kenyan? Is it racist to call someone a Kenyan? Is it some frightfully bad condition that a mention of such heritage is tantamount to racism? Is it worse than being Canadian?

And . . . uhhh . . . "any" change is a bit too expansive. How about resistance to bad change. Or is that also racist?

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

Does that preclude perspectives which see ideological differences? Or must we accept Redford's statements as some basic truth and pass it on without comment? That would be a bit tyrannical, wouldn't it? But what's the harm in a little tyranny among friends.

BTW, it was not necessary to point out that the reporter didn't ask that question (as well as many others). I already implied that the interview was very limited when I said " . . . a closer analysis of his [Redford's] QUOTED text. . ." Pay attention. You're too busy to waste words.

Does Redford think that basic ideological differences aren't also at play? I don't know, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't appear to have asked that question.

-spence

Here you stumbled into the truth. Of course ideological differences are at play, and of course Redford wasn't going to talk about it.

Why?

Because it's easier for Redford (and for most liberals) to lob unsubstantiated charges of racism, than it is to try and explain why their ideology (spend with no regard to consequences, slaughter the unborn, paralyze the poor, no recognition of the notion of responsibility) is superior to an alternate ideology.

Redford calls the conservatives racist, and you clearly agreed with him. The ironic thing is that it's liberal economic principles that are destroying the black culture, and it is conservative principles (family, hard work, responsibility, love) that represents exactly what the black culture, any poor person really, needs to embrace to escape poverty.

Almost every big city votes Democratic. Almost every big city is far worse off today than it was 25 years ago. You don't need to be Steven Hawking to connect those dots.

How about anyone in Congress who's uttered a Birther remark. I'd list them but it would take a while.

-spence

I only asked you to name 1...

...apparently that would take too much time but you have plenty of time for all of your other nonsense :uhuh:

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

You analyzed it more closely, and quickly concluded that it was a benign statement. Now that you cannot defend it, it's not worth talking about.


Priceless.

Makes you wonder why he bothered to engage in the conversation. What was it that Spence said in another thread--plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

I only asked you to name 1...

...apparently that would take too much time but you have plenty of time for all of your other nonsense :uhuh:

Yeah, it might take a lot of time to look up a member of congress that made a birther remark. But I'd be interested in why birther remarks are racist. Weren't they about Obama supposedly not being born here therefor not being qualified to be POTUS? Oh, that's right, it couldn't be something as simple and straightforward as that. It had to be some code--like "Obama is black." Funny, I thought everyone knew that long before he was elected, and before any birther remarks were made. Maybe it was just to reinforce the obvious fact. Americans can be stupid. Especially "conservatives" who are racists and must be reminded that Obama is black so that nobody, no racist, would accidentally vote for him.

"This is great. A celeb makes statements to the Hollywood Reporter and it's worthy of closer analysis."

.

Yes Jim, don't you realize that former members of their HS drama club had
a handle on reality then, and still do?
Whatever playing and pretending to be someone else has to do with reality
and makes them experts on what's going on in the real world is beyond me.
They live in a world of let's pretend.

Senator Robert Byrd a democrat was the biggest racist a high ranking KKK member....Redford must not remember him.

The "system" is obviously the entire thing. Not an academic perspective but the real world.

Those two sentences are such contradictions that it shouldn't be needed to point it out. But, beyond leaving "academic perspectives" out of the entire thing including the "real world," there is also the paradox of to whom belongs the academic perspective and for whom the real world is the model and cause for government.

Your assumption, I assume, is that the real world is the unhampered cooperation of rulers and their expert cohorts to mold society in light of their superior wisdom. Not by any guiding principles, but by newly concocted responses to old problems, the newer the better.

And that older, presumably defunct, prescriptions and restrictions such as the Constitution are no longer real, since not followed, but merely academic conversation pieces which obstruct the progress of the wise rulers by binding them to procedures that don't apply to the modern world.

The thing is . . . the Constitution was based on experience, on how the "real world" had historically operated, on the reality of human nature, and on the promotion and preservation of that common piece of human nature which history and experience taught was a yearning for freedom. It was, at the time of the Declaration, and is now, still the most advanced governing principle.

The Progressive idea of rule by smart intellectuals and technocrats unhampered by real world precedence, but guided by opinion based on untried, or tried and failed because of incompetence, efforts, is actually the more "academic perspective" And, ironically, it is not even newer than the American constitutional system, but as old as human tyranny.

My take on the Hollywood Reporter coverage is that he's frustrated with the obstructionist Right's position on Obama and how it's hampering our government from operating to the point of shutdown and real economic damage.

-spence

The "obstructionist Right's position" and the hampering of government by shutdown and the notion of "real economic damage" are obviously your perspectives. The Hollywood Reporter didn't mention any of that stuff. What bug he/it had up its butt is still mysteriously embedded there. Amazingly narrow of you to exclude the "Right's position" from the "entire thing" and to cast it out as part of some academic perspective. The constitutional basis for the Tea Party opposition, or "obstruction" as you put it, is far more intrinsic to American political "reality" than the phony whims and constructs of progressive top down ordering of people's lives. If the "entire thing" is what you vision, then the "vector" is toward economic collapse fueled by a debt not based on economic principles, but that is irresponsibly compounded by larger and larger impossible amounts. If their is no return to basic principles of American government, but continued rule by unprincipled power mongers who sap the spirit and responsibility from our people, and who spend the wealth of the nation into oblivion, if that continues, eventual collapse will be followed by despotic rule. And the "real world" will once again have to find its way back toward human dignity and freedom.

right....ignore the..... unsustainable spending levels and debt, growing and unfathomable unfunded obligations, unprecedented continuing actions by the FED....record levels of dependency and continuing stagnation, historic Federal tinkering and thouands and thousands of pages of new regulations...millions not working...and the fraud in and abuse of the system which is operating continuing resolution to continuing resolution with no formal budget for years now

ignore all of this and...

and blame the only guy in the room with his hand up calling for sanity...label him a racist causing real economic damage somehow...this is like an alcoholic or drug addict labeling the family member that's trying to help an "obstructionist"....they keep pestering you for more money and when you finally say no...they get belligerent and let fly with all sorts of insults and accusations...blame everyone else for the predicament that they've caused and will continue to prolong if left unabated or aided by enablers who are either weak, naïve or similarly addicted.... the real damage is right in front of their eyes every day but the addiction clouds reality... and so up is down, the inevitable will never materialize, they believe, as long as they remain medicated....the good guys are really the bad guys from the addicts perspective.....cult worship has a similar effect



stupid or evil....:uhuh:

the real damage is right in front of their eyes every day but the addiction clouds reality...

....:uhuh:

The damage is there to see, all right. Black illegitimacy rates over 70%. Big cities, that have voted Democrat for decades, on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to promises to labor unions. How many times, exactly, does liberal economics have to fail, before we conclude that it's ill-conceived?

That's why sometimes I wonder if liberal leaders are doing this intentionally. Because I'm not sure anyone could be that willfully ignorant of what is right in front of their faces. Maybe their goal is to keep Watch Hill and Nantucket and Beverly Hills, free of the riff-raff. I mean, I worked in downtoiwn Hartford for 10 years. How can anyone who lives there, conclude that the one-party rule that exists, has done them any good? It's an absoilute wasteland, yet every November, they vote unanimously for the same liberals.

Yeah, it might take a lot of time to look up a member of congress that made a birther remark. But I'd be interested in why birther remarks are racist. Weren't they about Obama supposedly not being born here therefor not being qualified to be POTUS? Oh, that's right, it couldn't be something as simple and straightforward as that. It had to be some code--like "Obama is black." Funny, I thought everyone knew that long before he was elected, and before any birther remarks were made. Maybe it was just to reinforce the obvious fact. Americans can be stupid. Especially "conservatives" who are racists and must be reminded that Obama is black so that nobody, no racist, would accidentally vote for him.
The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

Islam is not a race. Kenyan is not a race. Being born outside of the USA is not a race. He's not like us is not a race. He doesn't share our values etc... is not a race.

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

Being a white guy is a race, and as such, it would take hold as a tactic in the "black community," in the "Hispanic community," etc... And the tactic, even more powerful, because it would take hold not only in those communities but in most others, is to call him a racist. The proof being that he is a white guy named Steve.

And he's a conservative.

Forget what Redford says, my wife tells me he's busy working on his women's
clothes catalogue.
Listen to Clint, he tells it like it is. :hihi: :D

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. -spence

proof?

no one has undermined Obama more than Obama....it happens when you constantly say things that are not true, can't be substantiated and don't come to fruition...

you can probably relate:uhuh:

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

So if you don't share the same values you're a racist now?
Oh and could you give Obama a different hypothetical white guy name please .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The effort to undermine Obama via his race has been very consistent and well coordinated. He's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he wasn't born in the USA, he's not like us, he doesn't share our values etc...

If Obama was a white guy named Steve this strategy wouldn't take. It's amazing though how far this scare tactic has went...with no evidence it's almost to the point of being mainstream in some circles.

-spence

Not only are any of the "efforts" you list above not fundamentally about race, but can only be made so by a silly notion that they are code for race. That a code is needed to call attention to Obama's race is ridiculous on its face, and on Obama's face. He is obviously black, everyone who was not blind and didn't live in a cave where there was no information about outside activities, including politics, knew he was black (maybe were not quite up to his being half white). Much was, and is, made about him being the first black President. His race was never hidden or obscure, and that a need for some "code" to call attention to it is absurd.

But the convenience of pretending such a code exists, of using the "race card," in order not only to deflect from the actual statements or opinions about Obama relating to his competency for the office of President, is the real "scare tactic." It is a real tactic for which there is no evidence and which is "mainstream in some circles"--as pointed out in this article:http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/10/24/shapiro-what-isnt-racist-according-to-the-media-nothing/?subscriber=1

Not only are any of the "efforts" you list above not fundamentally about race, but can only be made so by a silly notion that they are code for race. That a code is needed to call attention to Obama's race is ridiculous on its face, and on Obama's face. He is obviously black, everyone who was not blind and didn't live in a cave where there was no information about outside activities, including politics, knew he was black (maybe were not quite up to his being half white). Much was, and is, made about him being the first black President. His race was never hidden or obscure, and that a need for some "code" to call attention to it is absurd.

But the convenience of pretending such a code exists, of using the "race card," in order not only to deflect from the actual statements or opinions about Obama relating to his competency for the office of President, is the real "scare tactic." It is a real tactic for which there is no evidence and which is "mainstream in some circles"--as pointed out in this article:http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/10/24/shapiro-what-isnt-racist-according-to-the-media-nothing/?subscriber=1
This is completely missing the point. It's not about other elements being "code" for Obama being black. It's about using his race as "code" for all that other stuff.

-spence

It's about using his race as "code" for all that other stuff.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:....:screwy:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:....:screwy:

I know, it's hard to fathom isn't it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is completely missing the point. It's not about other elements being "code" for Obama being black. It's about using his race as "code" for all that other stuff.

-spence

And I'm still missing the point:

How is his race code for him being a Muslim? Most Muslims are not of his race. Why would making race a code for being Muslim be necessary. Either he's Muslim, which does not need a code to identify it, or he's not. Race has nothing to do with either.

How is his race code for being Kenyan? A person of his race could be from any country in Africa, or the West Indies, or from Detroit. Are white racists more so against Kenyans than other blacks.

What does race have to do with not being born in the USA? Most people of all races are not born in the USA. It is well known by the vast majority of Americans, if not, by some quirk, by all, that millions of blacks are born in the USA. Either you're born here or you're not-- No code is needed. A birth certificate is all that's needed.

Why is a "code" needed to point out that "he's not like us" if you're a white racist. Ditto for "he doesn't share our values". What's the point of a code for the obvious. On the other hand, sharing of values is not dependent on race. Many, many whites don't share common values. In the political arena not sharing values has to do with policy not race.

The "etc." might contain a code. Please spell it out.

Race being a "code" for all that stuff is as silly as all that stuff being a "code" for race.

And I'm still missing the point:

How is his race code for him being a Muslim? Most Muslims are not of his race. Why would making race a code for being Muslim be necessary. Either he's Muslim, which does not need a code to identify it, or he's not. Race has nothing to do with either.

How is his race code for being Kenyan? A person of his race could be from any country in Africa, or the West Indies, or from Detroit. Are white racists more so against Kenyans than other blacks.

What does race have to do with not being born in the USA? Most people of all races are not born in the USA. It is well known by the vast majority of Americans, if not, by some quirk, by all, that millions of blacks are born in the USA. Either you're born here or you're not-- No code is needed. A birth certificate is all that's needed.

Why is a "code" needed to point out that "he's not like us" if you're a white racist. Ditto for "he doesn't share our values". What's the point of a code for the obvious. On the other hand, sharing of values is not dependent on race. Many, many whites don't share common values. In the political arena not sharing values has to do with policy not race.

The "etc." might contain a code. Please spell it out.

Race being a "code" for all that stuff is as silly as all that stuff being a "code" for race.

all of this abstract nonsense and he still can't come up with 1 concrete name :)