Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reuters: "Spielberg says "Lincoln" is no political football" (Mine: Republican's are pro-slavery?)
Yahoo ^ | 10/10/12 | Christine Kearney

Posted on 10/10/2012 10:45:16 AM PDT by The G Man

To audience laughter, Spielberg said he had deliberately sought to avoid such entanglements by asking for a release date after the elections. "Lincoln" is due for limited release November 9 and timed for the Hollywood awards season.

"Don't let this political football play back and forth," the Oscar-winning director said he urged distributors, noting the "confusing" aspect in the film that shows how U.S. political parties back in Lincoln's time "traded political places over the last 150 years."

In contrast to today, the Republican party to which Lincoln belonged was founded by anti-slavery activists and Republicans were often tagged "radicals."

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bias; liberal; lincoln; reuters
My God.
1 posted on 10/10/2012 10:45:28 AM PDT by The G Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Well to be fair, while the Republicans were anti-slavery, the democrats weren't "pro-slavery" so much as "Pro-Choice". Their position was "If you oppose abortion slavery, don't have one; but keep your laws out of my uterus plantation."
2 posted on 10/10/2012 10:50:06 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

Not only does he claim there is a party “reversal” today, but Spielberg plainly is delaying the movie until after the election so that people wouldn’t be reminded how evil democrats are and that republicans ended slavery.


3 posted on 10/10/2012 10:51:15 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Good analogy for the times. But Jim Crow laws were enforced by Democrats in the south.


4 posted on 10/10/2012 10:51:59 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
noting the "confusing" aspect in the film that shows how U.S. political parties back in Lincoln's time "traded political places over the last 150 years."

Because everyone knows that Republicans are pro slavery today.

5 posted on 10/10/2012 10:54:32 AM PDT by capydick (''Life's tough.......it's even tougher if you're stupid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

“traded political places over the last 150 years.”

Let’s see, the 1860 democrap wanted black people kept in chains, totally dependent on the people in the big house on the hill....

While the 2012 democrap wants to see black people kept in a welfare check chain, totally dependent on the people in the big house in Washington DC.

See the huge difference.


6 posted on 10/10/2012 10:54:43 AM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

If blacks and hispanics ever start voting republican, the democrats will make both of those groups out to be evil. The democrats of today are just as despicable as always. Can you imagine what they would do to illegal immigrants if hispanics start voting against them?


7 posted on 10/10/2012 10:55:31 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

And the civil war was NOT JUST about Slavery- it was about states rights

Imagine if the south tried to secede because the federal government tried to force them to do somethign else like.... oh,... i dunno... buy health insurance


8 posted on 10/10/2012 10:55:36 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
"In contrast to today, the Republican party to which Lincoln belonged was founded by anti-slavery activists and Republicans were often tagged "radicals."

In contrast to today? Did Democrats suddenly stop portraying Repubs as radicals? That's neeeews ta me!

9 posted on 10/10/2012 10:57:56 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
One can argue back and forth about the different currents of thought that were coalesced into the Republican Party from 1854 to 1860, but from 1860 on the Republican Party's views were defined by one man: Abraham Lincoln.

And Lincoln's views are best summed up by Richard Weaver's analysis of his thought in his chapter on Lincoln in The Ethics of Rhetoric: Lincoln was a definitional thinker.

America is a constitutional republic founded on specific principles, and those principles needed to be identified and applied if the Union was to have a future.

10 posted on 10/10/2012 10:59:29 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Speaking of Lincoln, anyone ever see this? Doh! He's ALIVE!


11 posted on 10/10/2012 10:59:59 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Speaking of Lincoln, anyone ever see this? Doh! He's ALIVE!


12 posted on 10/10/2012 11:00:00 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I’m a proud republican I have no racism and I would like to spit in Steven Spielberg’s face for daring, as the stupid rich leftist punk he is, to tie republicans- who destroyed slavery- to slavery.

The movie looks pretty good he can shove it I’ll never spend a penny to see it. Let him use his own money to support the democrat party of slavery.

I know someone who has family who are close friends with Spielberg. You would puke to know how imperious these people are and how they take for granted that everyone around them is there to worship them.


13 posted on 10/10/2012 11:03:00 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

What a jerk.

I stopped watching his crap movies years ago.


14 posted on 10/10/2012 11:06:46 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

Tobacco companies used to be HUGE Republican donors

If they were DEMOCRAP donors we would all be hearing about the wonderful health benefits of “bathing your lungs in cleansing smoke- now in menthol too!”


15 posted on 10/10/2012 11:06:45 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

bookmark


16 posted on 10/10/2012 11:07:55 AM PDT by nutmeg (I'm with Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz: Romney / Ryan 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

lolz

and this guy is going to make a Bible movie? I expect it to be a pro-gay, pro-commie, unchristian movie.


17 posted on 10/10/2012 11:12:35 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I will be skipping this film as well as all future Spielberg films as a punishment for his support of Obama. That is all.


18 posted on 10/10/2012 11:16:47 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny; Andrei Bulba

Spielberg is a spoiled rotten lucky SOB. He has worked with unlimited budgets since around 1979. This has never been granted to anyone else in film history, and it was well before he had done anything to justify it.


19 posted on 10/10/2012 11:18:56 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I’m not sure Spielberg said this. It isn’t in quotes. It could be the unbiased reporter.

cheers
Jim


20 posted on 10/10/2012 11:22:07 AM PDT by gymbeau (Freed Tibet yet, hippie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gymbeau

Well, Spielberg’s quoted for the “reversal” part, but the rest could be the reporter.

Not that I’m trying to defend Spielberg!

cheers
Jim


21 posted on 10/10/2012 11:23:34 AM PDT by gymbeau (Freed Tibet yet, hippie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
U.S. political parties back in Lincoln's time "traded political places over the last 150 years."

Spielberg is either ignorant of history, both recent history and antebellum history, of just stupid.

In 1860, The Republicans were anti-slavery and pro-business. The Democrats (pro-slavery and anti business) played race hatred and class politics against the Republicans.

By the 1950s and 60s, the Democrats were still using their power in congress to filibuster civil rights laws and anti-lynching legislation. Every one of those Democrats were liberal FDR New Deal followers. They loved big government, hated private business, used race to gain votes, and didn't mind violating the law or using violence to get their way.

Today, the Democrats still play the anti-business class warfare game and they still play the race card at every opportunity --- they just deal from the other side of the race card deck these days. But the intent is the same, use race and class envy to flame hatred of Republicans.

Nothing much has changed since 1860.

22 posted on 10/10/2012 11:38:43 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
He's never quite topped his first one, "Duel" IMHO.


23 posted on 10/10/2012 11:42:36 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

I don’t know if it’s been “granted” to him. He was smart enough to leverage his position as a successful director into being a producer, which thus allows him to make his own budget decisions, and he continues to be successful, thus keeping his production company profitable, so it has whatever money he wants to spend next time around.


24 posted on 10/10/2012 11:43:20 AM PDT by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I saw that this morning and had a good laugh. These people are insane.


25 posted on 10/10/2012 11:48:12 AM PDT by Hildy (F"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Spielberg needs to go back to making fiction and leave history to his betters.

The Republican Party in the 1850's and 1860's were a coalition of free soil in the Midwest (which is part of the coalition still to this day today as many of the rural German immigrants adopted it), Northern Evangelicals as slavery was considered anti-Christian and they wanted to save souls, parts of the mountain south such as East Tennessee (which are still Republican to this day), Whigs, Temperance folks, and those opposed to Catholic immigration.

The democrats at that day were a coalition of Jacksonians wary of the federal government, Irish Catholics, plantation holders, and Swallowtails in New York.

26 posted on 10/10/2012 11:50:08 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

Spielberg is a hack.


27 posted on 10/10/2012 12:00:50 PM PDT by Third Person (I'm in my prime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

This Spieberg film is going nowhere, revenue wise!!! End of story!!!


28 posted on 10/10/2012 12:01:54 PM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX (My only objective is defeat and destroy Obama & his Democrat Party, politically!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Mine: Republican's are pro-slavery?

Click for help
29 posted on 10/10/2012 12:06:42 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
He has worked with unlimited budgets since around 1979. This has never been granted to anyone else in film history, and it was well before he had done anything to justify it.

Before 1979, he had made the highest grossing film of all time (Jaws) and a hugely successful film (Close Encounters). shortly after 1979 he made one of the highest grossing films of all time (Raiders) and a film that toppled Jaws from the all itme highest grossing list (E.T.).
30 posted on 10/10/2012 12:06:44 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
What the hell would Stevie Spielberg from Glendale, Arizona know about it?

Nobody in his family was here for all of that.

My family was at the center of it. Split us for 100 years. Even to this day, when we're still all re-discovering each other. But it's in our family history books, what we talk about, how we think. Lotta folks on both sides still PO'd about Reconstruction.

And what in God's name would he know about the Republican party? There were Republicans in the South who still fought with the Confederacy, only reluctantly, because it was their State's vote.

Those people - my family - form the nucleus of the modern Southern Republican party, not converted Blue Dogs.

A neo-Bolshevik now from Los Angeles, and he claims to know who is who, and why they thought and did what they did?

BS. Whatta laughable clown.

31 posted on 10/10/2012 12:10:15 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

In 1863, Lincoln freed the slaves. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt bought them back.


32 posted on 10/10/2012 12:11:43 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

One could be interpretatively charitable here and take the ‘switch’ as one from federal crusading to local goverment oriented. Would it be accurate to say that the parties switched places in the 1890s when the McKinley wing of the Republicans became heavily pro business and ‘hands off’ whereas the William Jennings Bryan wing of the Democrats urged heavy Federal intervention in various financial matters? Wilson and FDR followed in this vein.


33 posted on 10/10/2012 12:18:09 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The Democrats and the South were 110% for aggressive federal intervention in local matters from 1830 until 1860, when they did a 180.

The Republicans were consistent on this topic from start to finish.

34 posted on 10/10/2012 12:34:13 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

As you know, many regard maintaining the Union and Reconstruction as Federal intervention.


35 posted on 10/10/2012 1:01:24 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I’ve grown weary of Spielberg’s leftist stupidity, so I won’t be seeing the movie.


36 posted on 10/10/2012 1:12:59 PM PDT by popdonnelly (The first priority is get Obama out of the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Compared to who?


37 posted on 10/10/2012 1:14:14 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

I would like my view of the historical Lincoln to not be distorted by Mr. Spielberg’s politics.


38 posted on 10/10/2012 1:17:58 PM PDT by popdonnelly (The first priority is get Obama out of the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Compared to the greats, a group Spielberg considers himself to be a part of.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you a few years ago...


39 posted on 10/10/2012 1:21:06 PM PDT by Third Person (I'm in my prime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Ha, I don’t. Among his contemporaries he ranks pretty highly.


40 posted on 10/10/2012 1:25:49 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

That is one of the most striking and original critiques on abortion I’ve ever come across.


41 posted on 10/10/2012 3:48:37 PM PDT by Norman Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Replace "Republicans" with "Tea Partiers" and "Slavery" with "Abortion" and history rhymes.

I'm proud to be a radical.

42 posted on 10/10/2012 3:52:09 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (The enemy of the American People? islam and the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The core issue is what does the Constitution say? And the Supremacy Clause is one of the less ambiguous passages of the document. It’s kind of odd to demand in 1859 that the federal government send federal agents into private homes in order to recover the putative stolen property of private citizens, and then in 1860 complain that federal agents are entering federal land to recover stolen federal property.


43 posted on 10/10/2012 4:13:47 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson