"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...

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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 "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 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.

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

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

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:

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

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/201.../?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

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

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

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 :)