Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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.