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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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