Robert Redford says republicans are racist
 

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/new...ernment-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?

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?

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 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

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.

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

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

-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.