Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:35 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
Spielberg's LINCOLN the movie-Needing the other side,& Presidential war time power(like today)
Run and see this movie
Go for the directing (Spielberg), acting- Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field all possible academy award winners again for this
Go for the costumes, the cinematography
and marvel at what this story is showing
President Lincoln=President FDR=Rev.Dr. King=President LBJ=President Obama
and it's a slam bang message to those on the far left, showing how the far left can be as bad as the far right
It is showing that the eye on the prize is what is important, and getting there, do anything needed to get the legislation passed, even if it means going right to the other party to secure their votes BY ANY MEANS NEEDED &/or COMPROMISING with the other party.
And using special war time presidential powers that the constitution gives a president during a time of war (very relevant today).
AND SOUND REASONING/LOGIC working within the system to build a better tomorrow.
It is an amazing story of the fight for the 13th amendment, the abolishment of slavery.
And showed that President Lincoln, like President Obama now, painstakeningly made the case, and when the case needed a little more explanation, painstakingly made the words fit into legal, sound reasoning.
It so reminded me of how the far left has said today, well, President Obama didn't get 100% of this,
therefore he sucks type thinking.
NO, it showed the line I have used for years now
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
And the quote in my signature from President Lincoln himself, rings so true
We could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more-President Lincoln
and Tommy Lee Jones as Rep. Thaddeus Stevens,well, it's a name everyone should look up a bio of this person, if they don't already know his life story.(and note the exteme likeness the actor had toward looking like this past leader who was the only house member ever to be called a "great dictator").
And marvel at how Spielberg shows Lincoln to put forth to the people, the question of,
did LIncoln overreach his position and go above/beyond his presidential powers by saying,
it was 18 months prior to the election, and the people voted whether his Presidency did step over that line or not, and gave a resounding reelection to President Lincoln (meaning they approved of what the president did and felt it was within the lines of WARTIME POWERS that the Constitution affords the president.
(and note that back then republican=today's democrat and then democrat=today's republicans which I noted seemed to confuse some in the packed movie theatre we saw the film in yesterday
And of course, shows racism and sexism rearing it's ugly head, much like today's republicantealibertarians want to bring back the ORIGINAL BOR and get rid of ALL the amendments other than the original ones. And take away the vote from blacks, women and anyone but "the master race" type thinking the racists have.
4 replies, 768 views
Spielberg's LINCOLN the movie-Needing the other side,& Presidential war time power(like today) (Original post)
|Live and Learn||Nov 2012||#4|
Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #1)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:22 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
2. the PEOPLE OF THE USA supported it-and the FULL congress voted for it
asking me the Dukakis question is meaningless and attempting to smear the messenger as opposed to the situation at hand immediately following 9-11, where the US was under attack, though not by a state, by a group, and where REAL PEOPLE DIED on 9/11. MOST Americans after 9-11 wanted ONE single thing- to feel safe again, after safety was taken away that fateful day.
Nixon proved 100% correct when he said whatever a president does is LEGAL, as he was NOT impeached, nor convicted, nor jailed
and Congress is the one that passes/ or stops a bill.
CONGRESS ON BOTH SIDES unanymously passed the Patriot act and has voted to keep it going.
therefore it is the law.
If one doesn't like the law, they change it (LEGALLY through the system.)
OR they elect a different president.
2016 will be the judge of Bush.
YOU can vote for Jeb, or vote for Hillary.
the choice is stark clear
Like it was in 2012.
voters knowing all info voted for Obama in a landslide sweep.
And I wish there was a drone that would have obliterated Adolf Hitler before he killed 6 million Jews and 6 million others in WW2. Maybe if social media were around then, it wouldn't have happened.
BTW-if you don't like Bush, then YOU agree that Ralph Nader was at fault in the year 2000 with his bullshit that Bush/Gore were one and the same.(same with the fraudster Ron Paul)
Am I correct in your asssessment of that?
Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:55 AM
redgreenandblue (1,206 posts)
Your convoluted mix of talking points on various subjects is making it difficult to reply, but I'll try to take them one at a time....
No, I don't think Nader was the cause of the (s)election of Bush.
No, I don't think public majority opinion is the deciding factor of what is legal and what is not. That is, amongst other things, why there is a constitution.
No, just because "asassinating Hitler" (as was tried many many times by Germans) might have made the world a better place, that does not mean killing American citizens with drone strikes and granting quasi-dictatorial powers for an unspecified period a time to the executive branch is ok.
By the way, speaking of Hitler, he himself came into power through "emergency war-time powers", so he provides an excellent example of the dangers of unchecked executive powers.
As a side note: In your discussion of the patriot act, you first appear to be making a case for the similarity of "both sides", only then to decry this as bullshit a few lines below.
I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make other than "the left sucks and should just shut up and vote."