Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’
by John NolteOver the weekend, Time Magazine published a long, glowing profile of Tom Hanks to help promote his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific.” And as with all things entertainment media, the subject is never challenged or even made to shift uncomfortably in his seat. The push to ascend Hanks to “national treasure” status is clearly on.

Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.
But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]
[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.
No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.
Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.
But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.
And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.
This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high.
But that’s not who we are.
Whether they’re “yellow, slanty-eyed dogs that worship different gods” or the people of the Middle East who share the same language and religion as those pledged to murder us, America selflessly protects the innocent who are “different” and as humanely as possible seeks to “annihilate” only those — even if they’re not “different” (like, say, Germans and Italians) – who practice an ideology that actually does believe in annihilating those who are different.
You almost get the sense that Hanks suddenly felt uncomfortable talking about America so extensively without throwing a bone to his MSNBC fanbase. Or maybe he misspoke, or maybe he really does believe it. Douglas Brinkley, the man who wrote the Time profile, sure found those words important. Important enough that the excerpt above is what closes the piece – the thought Brinkley chose to leave us with.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
436 Comments
Remember that:
1) Only straight white American males can be racist.
2) If the US took Berlin, the Left would find something nice to say about Nazism.
Wrong. Only straight white CHRISTIAN American males can be racist
Brinkley is the same hack who authored John Kerry's slapdash campaign autobiography, a hagiography not befitting a Tulane Universty professor who deparately wanted the gravitas to step into Stephen Ambrose' shoes. Ambrose was the historian who pioneered the collection of first person historcal accounts from ordinary participants in history, rather than the "great men." His oral recordings of WWII grunts and front line trigger pullers lead to Band of Brothers and other well received books. Ambrose also authored serious biographies of EIsenhower and Nixon. Brinkley was a hack professor at Tulane around the time Ambrose, a professor at University of New Orleans, passed away, and would have sold his soul to take Amrose' place as a successful popular historian. Brinckley's reputation for serious history suffered a setback after his flirtation with Kerry, but he seems to have, unfortunately, taken Ambrose's place in rubbing celebrity elbows.
What a shame. Just yet another actor whose movies I admired and thoroughly enjoyed growing up, turning out to be another massive disappointment. It's not only scary at how abundantly disillusioned and confused these Hollywood "Gods" are, but it's downright sad.
No, Tom, no it doesn't sound like what's going on today. Just couldn't hold the idiot liberal tounge inside any longer, eh?
Ugh, so sad. Mr Hanks does seem like a very nice man in person. He could not be more wrong. Tom, take of the Zinn-colored glasses!
Gee whiz Tom, maybe a little thing known as the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor had something to do with it?
I'm an atheist conservative white American male who is labeled as racist by pointing out the New Black Panther voter intimidation in Philadelphia that Eric Holder won't prosecute.
I would be very careful about this new mini-series on the pacific theatre. Hanks and spielberg get that Nazis were the bad guys in Europe, but the Japanese are not the same concept to the lefties. They are not white guys so they automatically are put in the victim category no matter what kind of monsters they were during the 30's and 40's. They murdered as many people as the Nazis and yet they are not held in the same light. Possibly because they are now our allies, but so are the Germans, and yet look at all the movies about evil Nazis. Clint Eastwoods movie about Okinawa, from what I have heard, humanized the Japanese to a certain degree. Would anyone make a movie like that about the nazis?
The Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb was undertaken with the express purpose of using it against Nazi Germany. This completely destroys Hanks' arguement. Maybe next time he should actually KNOW what he's talking about.
Watched and loved Band of Brothers, my grandfather was part of the bombing run (B-24's, 15 Airforce 461st Bomb Group) on D-Day in southern France if memory serves – Mr. Hanks and HBO will not get one more dime from me.
Everything that he has been involved in I have liked…… another actor that there opinions on political stuff should be left UNSAID…. he snipes from the left for the left and it has become QUITE tiresome… honestly just shut up and act…… I could care less about your political views…. DAMN, get off your soap box and shut up… honestly, I have a opinion and MOST if not ALL people could care less about it…. opinions remember everyone has one just like a ARSEHOLE…..
"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
Excuse me, Tom. Was that a brain fart? Or do you actually believe that drivel.
How can you make movies about history if you don't know any?
Good point. By going off the reservation, you lose your "enlightened" status.
That article irritated me so much I cancelled my subscription…..
Tom Hanks can go pound sand for all I care….
but that is only me…an un-american Army veteran…..!!!!
Have you ever had that moment when you realized that some one you held in high regard was not as wonderful as you thought?
I had this with Tom Hanks about a year ago. I thought he was one thing but it turns out I had him mislabeled.
The fault is mine but I was no less disappointed.
It makes me wonder what had I been missing all those years.
The man puts out quality work, but I sure wish he would stay above the fray.
Yes, remember that the left did have nice things to say about Nazism and Fascism before we even entered the war, since they are both forms of socialism. Of course, all bets were off after they attacked the commie mothership, then they had to spend years on a propoganda campaign to convice gullible people that the National Socialist German Workers Party was somehow "right-wing" . But I digress.
bill, I can only think of one: "Das Boot."
I am happy to say that I have seen less than a handful of his movies, his voice is annoying to me. I wonder how he would feel if a loved one of his had been gunned down at Fort Hood or had been lost in the rubble of the Twin Towers. People like him are eventually going to find out the hard way that sometimes the bad guy really is a bad guy and not just playing one on TV.
As if we weren't attacked at Pearl Harbor & on 9-11.
I agree. Hollywood sucker-punches us once again. I guess they figure now that they need to make up for having held their fire during the Oscars.
I can't even process Hanks' quote. Can't do it. It's one thing to disagree on abortion, affirmative action and other contentious issues. It's another to fundamentally misunderstand a subject so thoroughly and come to such ludicrous conclusions.
Rape of Nanking, is that different but the same as our internment of Japanese Americans?
Its also why the Inquisition 'hated' the Jews, they acquiesed & sided with Muslims early on. When Catholicism finally prevaled in Spain, well, the Jews had to go with their masters, the Muslims.
what IS it with these people out there? Is there something in the water that shuts off the air supply to the brain cells or what? How CAN they be so unrealistic about life? I have begun to think all of California should be roped off and all the lefties put out there to wait on the final earthquake that drops that sucker in the sea.
Very dissappointed.
Gee Tom, have you forgotten to read about how barbaric the Japanese were towards the Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Fillipinos, etc…All pretty much 'inferiors' in their eyes. Even today, Chinese and Koreans despise the Japanese for what they had done to the vast numbers of innocents during WWII. We knew that could be our fate if Japan would win, or worse, we pulled back and left these lands to them. Also remember it was that liberal icon, FDR, who imprisoned many Japanese and Japanese-American families.
But they weren't Party members, except for that one officer. It didn't humanize Nazis, it humanized Germans. He quit being stiff-necked at the end, but it wasn't much.
I can't think of a single movie that strives to humanize the nazis. It's hard enough to find one that humanizes regular Germans. I know there's another one out there–my dad showed in in one of his high school classes–but I don't recall the name.
Hey Bosch! I'm the CG animator guy, this is my moniker or name. Just shoutin out. I plan on going 'real' with my ID soon. When i get around to it. I figure, I don't want to work with anyone in this business like Tom Hanks anyway. Might as well be me…FULLY.
So…we're bad because we don't want the terrorists killing more of us than they did on 9/11? What is it with leftists that they always automatically side with criminals and terrorists?
Dear moron,
Islamic terrorists don't care if you voted for Obama, McCain or a peach tree. They don't care if you're a non-believer, Christian, Jew, or agnostic. The sheer fact that you are American makes them want to KILL YOU and they would do so if given the chance. If you don't believe me, take a field trip to Karachi, Pakistan for a week to talk sense into those "misunderstood: terrorists. Bring your own coffin, Mr. Hanks.
P.S. Read up on Pearl Harbor… it's why we were none too fond of the Japanese. Also, terrorists view us as "dirty infidels".
These regressive leftist mental defectives truly are mentally ill.
Brinkley also edited the Reagan presidential diaries, so be careful before chucking him over the side. I think Nolte makes the key point here, that Brinkley treated Hanks with exaggerated respect due to his "star" status.
How come they can't just start by fixing California?
They should pay their bills and make a Utopia there first before they inflict their opinions on the rest of us.
.
I was just pointing out that you don't need to be a Christian to be labeled racist. I was raised Roman Catholic, which some claim is not Christian! I very much respect your beliefs, please respect my lack thereof. Also, the majority of my colleagues, mostly engineers and scientists, are agnostic or atheist.
Far and away they are conservative if you subtract religion.
There's a simple refutation of such sentiments: A link to the wikipedia list of Japanese war crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
It's a pretty sobering read.
Hey, hope all's well.
Here's a specific one to send to Mr. Hanks…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
The whole point of that quote is that Tom Hanks is better than you..
…see, Tom is above the base racism and nativism that animates you – he is a higher being…
…that is the defining worldview of elitists – they see the ignorance and fear that consume you – and they pity you.
So you were the subscriber to the rag.
How ironic, the lone subcriber to Time leans right.
I hope I'm not presuming too much. Mormons are
both left and right of the spectrum, I found out somewhat
forcefully.
From what I've read, the internment of Japanese Americans was a party at Chuck E Cheese compared to the unspeakable atrocities the Japanese committed at Nanking. But in the liberal world, it's all the same.
Dear Tom "political genius" Hanks,
Did the Japanese attack us for the color of our skin and the shape of our eyes? Are Islamic terrorists trying to kill us because of our skin color? Did the British fight us during the revolution for the color of our skin?
The world is a very simple place in Mr. Hanks slushy brain.
Tom has done a lot with his documentary work and support of the USO, So I'm not going to give him a hard time. I sort of see his general point in a limited context. Japanese mis-understanding of American society casued them to believe that we were weak and lazy and could easily brushed back with enough of a military defeat. (Afterall it worked against the Russians, and in their eyes we were similar)
Our limited understanding of Japanese society/culture/ technology/tactics et. probably cost us a lot of lives early in the war due to our underestimating of their capabilities. Where he is wrong, is if he believes we could have avoided that war in any way other than letting the Japanese commit genocide across the entire continent of Asia.
"……and they pity, or loathe, you."
They should realize it's mutual.
These people scare me, who are they? It's to the point I don't ever want to go to the movies, ever. Now I have to cancel HBO which sucks because I like Big Love. I guess I have to buy just what I like from now on, or just not watch at all. This is the time we MUST take a stand! I just read on gatewaypundit.com about all the Christians that just got slaughtered and they scalped the babies! This stupid actor is disgusting.
Young Lions tried to make a saint of Marlon Brando's Nazi. Downfall was criticized by some for showing some of the more human aspects of Hitler.
i happen to really like both films
They take it for granted – because they just KNOW we are hate-filled Morlocks and they are the Eloi.
Are they different? Yes. They follow a movement that seeks to either kill, enslave, or convert what they call infidels. Unfortunately, we do not seek to "annihilate" them — only to fight a war in an arena of political correctness that's only resulted in the deaths of more Americans.
Islam is the antithesis of everything on our founding documents. Thomas Jefferson knew this.
Hanks is easily the most dangerous leftist in the country. He passes himself off as this everyman, but he's also spreading treasonous lies.
I was looking forward to watching The Pacific. Not so much anymore.
To Unfatmatt, thanks for bringing it up. I'm always amazed at the liberal Jewish logic.
The Muslims have such a large successful entertainment and Film industry.
I'm sure a Jew, with the talent of Tom Hanks, could successfully make the business transition
should we come to our senses and understand the differences between us
an them. Once we become pardners and begin the trek to a glorius future of oneness,
peace and tranquillity.
You're right. He said, "They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?"
Not even close, Tom, and you produce movies about WWII? Trust me, you can easily find a liberal comparison between the Japanese attacking us and today (some of it was about, oh, what's the word, OIL).
I used to not believe it, but Tom proves it: Liberals don't read.
Young Lions–that was the one. My dad had some German exchange students in his class when he showed it–he said they cried during the film. "We never get to see a World War 2 movie that shows Germans as good people" they said (or some facsimile thereof).
Downfall makes me think of this.
"We . . . wanted to annihilate (the Japanese) because they were different."
I can't believe Hanks actually said that! I would expect that statement from a snot-nosed seventeen year old, but not a sane and respectable adult. What is Hank's excuse for his ignorance of 1930's history?
Much like the Euro-fascists, the Japanese fascists declared themselves a master race and roped off half the planet as their own property, including 60-percent of the Pacific ocean (the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere). They practiced genocide in China, the Philippines and lots of other places, slaughtering innocents by the hundreds of thousands. And they DEMANDED that the US keep them supplied with coal, oil and steel, or face the consequences.
So yeah, they were "different" than us – their language was fear, violence and murder, and it was fortunate for the world that we quickly learned to speak that language.
Morally equivalent, natch.
Die Brücke (The Bridge) from 1959, too. Extremely brutal film for its today. Heck, for any day. You really felt for the youth.
And, of course, Hogan's Heroes.
Well, no. There were some on the left in the 30s who had "nice things to say" about Communism. Many of them abandoned Stalin when he signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
The Americans who were pro-Nazi were right-wingers like Henry Ford and Lindbergh.
Just because you reaad the title of that idiot Goldberg book, that doesn't mean you get to rewrite history.
Does Pearl Harbor ring any bells, Tom? How about 9/11?
I was actually around during WW2 and while some people might have thought the Japanese were sub-human, most of us knew better and just wanted to stop them from killing us.
It took four years chasing them around the Pacific before we could stop them and we suffered lots of casualties, so Tom, you might understand why some people might not have kind thoughts about the Japanese many of whom were sadists who practiced their advanced torture techniques on prisoners.
All in all, the Japanese were amazingly similar to the adherents of Islam who attacked us out of the blue on a beautiful September morning in 2001. They too are past masters of torture, yet Hanks and his colleagues are more concerned about the sneak attackers than their fellow Americans who were attacked.
Tom Hanks has crossed over and won't be able to come back again. Too bad.
Guess what? Some people ARE different – as in, some people have no qualms about slaughtering us on our own soil and therefore we must defend ourselves!
What world do Hanks and all those like him live in? I keep trying to see things from their perspective, but it's like these people live in a different reality than the rest of us do.
Clearly to you "liberal" and "Jew" and "actor" must all be the same thing. But despite your anti-semitic delusions, Tom Hanks is not Jewish.
By people of color whom we already hated because of their diffentness, I assume.
well, the Japanese Americans had sports n stuff… but so did the Japanese in Nanking! Bayonet practice on children tied to trees, alive. Even pregnant women. And two officers had a katanna beheading the most contest.
Silly hermie,
They were only that brutal because the US made them that way.
"undereducated and uninformed"
Perfectly diagnosed.
People give me a break; although Tom starred in some great patriotic movies don't forget he starred in the De Vinci Code a direct attack on the divinity of God himself.
I am starting to believe that Hank's probably believes the conspiracy theories about Christianity. However, he apparently can't be bothered by the real history of Violent Muslim Jihad over the last 1400 years.
I honestly think that ALL of Hollywood is on some major drugs!!!
Everytime Tom Hanks opens his mouth these days it reminds me of his appearance in the Simpsons Movie.
The thing is, who is borrowing credibility from?
… goes without saving. s/off
Stop, ron. That kind of stuff makes you look like a troll.
We wanted to kill the Japanese because they were different?? What a totally ridiculous statement no matter how you look at it. He obviously has some brains so I can only assume that he's been in Hollywood long enough to be totally brainwashed and no longer questions the Hollywood mantras, like the one that Americans from outside of Hollywood and New York are a bunch of hicks who just want to kill everyone different than they are.
Maybe Tom could let us know exactly what the color of Islam is.
Mr. Hanks might want to sit down for a few moments with Rachel Ehrenfeld, one of his fellow bloggers at the Huffington Post, about where the real threat to freedom and liberty emanates. Ms. Ehrenfeld is currently fighting against Islamic jihad as it presents itself under the guise of libel tourism in European courts.
Hey Tom – never heard of the Rape of Nanking (300,000 murdered)? How 'bout the 600,000 across East Asia and the Pacific who were murdered by way of germ warfare experimentation carried out by the Japanese Imperial Forces? How about the millions of rapes and tortures carried out by Japanese Forces? Any of this reing a bell Tom?
What an effin' loser this guy is. That's right Tom, we only killed those Japs because we're xenophobic and we hate yellow slanty-eyes people who are different from us. This just confirms for me that "The Pacific" will be Japanese-apologist garbage. I'm guessing, that we'll have, at minimum, 20 different scenes where US Marines question what they are doing and why they are fighting. It'll be whiny self-loathing Marines in the same vein as the Thin Red Line, only ten hours of it. Blah!
Now hear this – Private Gump here says America's military only kills people because we're xenophobic! They gave you an Academy Award for Best Actor? They gave you, an imbecile, a moron, a man who goes on Time magazine and makes a total fool of himself, an Academy Award for Best Actor? We that's just great.
Well, yeah, they are different.
We have The Rule Of Law based on Constitutional Principles which have an earlier basis on Common Law and The Magna Carta and even Biblical foundations. These principles are the basis for "All Men Are Created Equal"… and even include the freedom to practice any religious faith or none at all.
They have Sharia Law which is, well, either you become Muslim or we kill everyone who is not Muslim, or they can pay the Jizya Tax for us letting them live if they have more value to us alive than dead but they will still be third-class citizens.
That seems different to me too, Mr. Hanks.
While I apologize for mistaking Tom Hanks ethnicity, if incorrect.
Liberal Jews perplex me as to why the're politics
are what they are. I guess it would not make you anymore intolerant
of my opinion if I substituted a good share of Hollywood
actors, directors etc. names in place of Hanks, say Speilberg for
instance. My point is the same. A Liberal Jew of any occupational
is delusional to use your word, if he is an apologist for America's enemies.
True, Mormons are both left and right of the spectrum. Sadly, Prince Harry is Mormon. From what I understand, he is a caring and helpful person on a personal level, he just has his head screwed on wrong when it comes to national politics (and many other things I am sure). Look on the bright side though, me and TrueBlue are both Mormon as was Ezra Taft Benson, former sec. of Agriculture who gave this speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-27680185...
The Majority of us stand and fight for personal freedom and responsibility as it is a main tenet of what we believe.
any chance anybody have a slightly more nuanced approach to this. there is a possibilty that Hanks was not talking about how we view the opposite army but how we as a public approached the lead up to war.
some of the public wanted to annihilate not just the opposite army but the country, be it Japan, Iraq or Afghanistan…
Bugs Bunny was even calling for us to wipe out those "yellow, slant-eyed Nips"
I know quite a few people who were calling for us to annihilate the "towel heads"
Hanks certainly did not phrase it right, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Contrary to some belief on this board he has done a lot for the troops for longer than the past year.
Plus with all he has done dealing with American history, he has consistently used an honest and straight shooter approach…
but hey, if you guys want to not watch HBO or anything associated with Hanks ever again, its your loss. Though I disagree with some of Hanks' politics, I view him as a true patriot and a class act.
(Read in a liberals shrill squeaky voice) But Ron, we put them in a fenced area, and kept them against their will. Ok, so we fed them whenever they wanted, and they had access to doctors and had all the creature comforts, and there were no executions or many injuries at all, but it's still the exact same as the Japanese at Nanking…
(/sarc deactivated)
Replace Christian with Conservative and you have a winner.
"At least Forrest Gump knew he was stupid. "
Best line of the week!!! Epic win.
No way! Check my id, I'm a hardcore conservative.
I ask a simple direct question, with a very simple answer. I want an answer. If I am a troll, then BigHollywood must be as well?
I don't mind Atheists per say, Ayn Randies are my favorite, but Atheism that claim conservatism whilst ignoring the obvious Christiendom lands that coddle their freedom twangs my left eye. Its my goal now, get Atheist Conservatives to tell me if they believe our founding fathers were christian or not, then I will know if they are ideologues or reasonable.
yeah, i love those Hitler scenes on youtube.. they've done about 5 of 'em and they are all very funny.
Tom's analysis of WWII and today shows a complete lack of understanding of history and current events. His analysis borders on the insane. The Japanese did NOT want to annihilate us. They simply wanted to cripple out military capability so they could plunder Asia instead of the Europeans. We did NOT want to annihilate them. Had we wanted to do so, we would have dropped more than two nuclear bombs. Today, there are some Muslims who DO want to annihilate us. We would like to talk them out of it, but they do not want to talk or reconsider their point of view. We invaded Iraq to free the people from a tyrant who was killing 30,000 of his own people without justice, and to stop him from supporting those who wanted to kill us. We do NOT want to kill the people of Islam, but it seems the only way to stop SOME of them from killing and destroying us.
Cancel HBO and do yourself a favor.
I do not mind Christians per se, but Christians that claim Constitutional principles while proclaiming Dominionism threaten my rights.
Do you believe the Constitution requires people to be Christian?
Do you believe the text of the Constitution appears in the bible?
Do you believe no law must ever be in opposition to a principle laid down in the bible?
Let us know whether you are an anti-Constitutional ideologue or someone reasonable.
Tom,we want to kill terrorist because, well………………they are terrorists!
I can't forget Geo. Romney, Mitt's illustrious father, which was my first experience with a
Republican of note that was also a Mormon of note. Being a comparably minor car guy
that was politically unaffiliated Mr. Romney was a big influence on taking notice
of the actual differences in the two parties.
No.
No.
No.
Now, please, answer my question, just as simply.
Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution, that believes in God?
Life is like a box of chocolates……………………….You never when one will blow up!
I think Hanks is the yellow dog, but that's just me. With apologies to yellow curs everywhere.
And we wanted to defeat all those blond haired, blue-eyed Germans because they were so different. No…wait….
I did check your id before I posted, and chose my words carefully. Picking fights like that does sound toll-like. It's like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I'm a Christian. I'm not convinced all the Foundimg Fathers were. They were men of the Enlightenment, and some were Deists. The Enlightenment could have come from nowhere but Christian Europe, though, so ultimately the Constitution is based on Christian principles.
I will not make other conservatives swear a loyalty oath before I'll truck with them.
You're right that Allied propaganda in WWII depicted the Japanese as subhuman caricatures. I think this is what Hanks is referring to.
While we clearly had to retaliate after Pearl Harbor, Hanks seems to have meant that the public was whipped up into a fever of racist, jingoist sentiment in support of the war. There is *some* truth to this. It's an unfortunate aspect of war that the public is encouraged to demonize and dehumanize the enemy. To some extent this has happened in the war on terror also, though not nearly to the same degree.
Here we have a bunch of rich people,living in a small community,acting or repeating what other people write in their scripts.NOW one opens his mouth ant tries to say something clever,but his brain has stopped evolving and it did not work on its own.It needs a trigger mechanism to start it again.Give up hollywood and leave so your brain can restart and be able to see clearly.You have spent your life in a cesspool run by one brain and you have only repeated what others have written so try not to answer anything until you see a lawyer outside of hollywood.
Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck wartime propaganda was aimed at the Japanese military. That's why the stereotypical Japanese character in those cartoons always wore a Japanese military uniform. Yes, there were probably SOME individuals who wanted to annihilate all the Japanese people, but Hanks insinuated that all Americans did and that it was official government policy. If that were true, we could've wiped them out very easily with a few more atom bombs than the 2 we dropped. We could've marched the Japanese-Americans that FDR imprisoned right into the gas chambers. But after Japan's surrender, WE REBUILT THEIR COUNTRY, and today we are prepared to sacrifice American lives in order to PROTECT their country. Hanks knows this. He's just purveyor of the "Blame America First" mentality that permeates the Hollywood elite.
I was brainwashed to believe they were Deists. But all Christians are deist, tolerant, at least in principle, cuz…. we're all sinners.
That 99% of Founding Fathers put down their Christian domination, that 2 official ministers provided prayer of Congress each day, that 10,000 bibles were printed for schools, by Congress… yah know… If I would have learned these in school, as the rest of us should have been, taught the truth… then Atheist Conservatives could comfortably accept this as a Christian nation, whilst still having their belief, their conclusion. As it is now, we are all fraught with, fretting over, some fake revision of this great country as some equal to China or the Soviet Union or France's concept that Men are the inherent endowers of our rights, that Men can thusly take those rights away.
Hanks is clueless when it comes to history, but not a surprise. Hey Tom ,ask the Koreans or Chinese what they thought about the Japanese. What did the Dutch, French or Greeks think of the Germans. Oh they all hated them just because they were different ! Nothing about them attacking your country, town, killing people, destroying buildings and wanting to enslave your countrymen. Nothing about wanting to live under a military dictatorship with no freedoms. Yet after the war, we spend considerable resources to support Japan and Germany, do you think Tom it was because that Nazism and the Japanese militarism were wrong, not the Japanese or German people.
Please Tom, I know actors are clueless…but please don't remind people how naive you are.
[...] reading here: Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
exactly and this is how Obama sees the lowly American workfolk who he needs to show which path to follow,not that he would know
Maaaaan, I can't read this website anymore. Another fav actor bites the dust. Stop posting their opinions, it's a-breakin' my heart!
Jesus I'm just Joe 6-pack sitting on the couch & I know better history than that – yet WW2 is this guy's full-time hobby! How many vets has he spent time with since S.P.Ryan? My mind just blew out the back of my head
Tom,mt father was a british soldier in Burma who faught the Japanese and he said there was never a more sadistic race of people that ever walked the earth. To show kindness to a fellow who was downtrodden ,was a weakness and if shown would entail death.How do you think they are so good in business ? they are ruthless and can smile at the same time as cutting your throat. My father never made it back but he did the right thing by the people of Burma,I am sure.
This guy is a dunce. Come on, he answered his own question , but didn't see it. We wanted to the Japanese because they wee trying to kill us. It's called self-defense turkey !
My thanks to your father for helping keep our country safe. His and your family's sacrifice isn't forgotten.
Looking at my copy of the Constitution, it says nothing about requiring faith of any sort, or expresses any belief that the Constitution itself espouses a particular religious belief in and of itself. Thus there is no U.S. Constitution as you suggest for me to believe in or not.
I do however fully and wholly support the U.S. Constitution that does exist, particularly noting the parts about there being no religious tests for office, affirmations being suitable instead of oaths, and no religion being established.
so you're just going to keep squirming. okay. nuff said.
Nothing wrong with humanizing our enemies from WWII – for the simple reason that they were all human, from Hitler and the Emperor down the lowliest Schutze and Nitohei. They didn't do anything that the rest of humanity isn't also capable of. You can't understand what they did unless you understand them as humans – not as some exceptional "bad guys." So some movies show us that Hitler was nice to his secretaries and that some Japanese officer on Iwo Jima missed his home and wrote letters to his wife. So what? That doesn't make the causes they were fighting for any better.
And if the Allies were actually no better than the Axis (as some revisionist historians today seem determined to prove) then morally it didn't really matter who won. In a nihilistic war like that, it's ALWAYS better if MY side wins. So either way, fuck the Japanese and the Germans. They got what was coming to them.
Revisionism is the first refuge of the progressive.
This guy didn't have me fooled for a second. The minute I looked at him I smelled pathetic candy-ass snivelin libbo. I know lesbians who wouldn't ry if you ran over them with a truck. This guy bawls at the dropping of an ice cream cone. I am so flippin sick of this Hollywood crap I could puke. There's not one person out there in that craphole of a California town that I'd even cross the street to meet. I'd cross the street to avoid a lot of them tho.
'Specially you, Old Yeller.
What squirming?
That you asked a nonsense question with deliberately loaded content does not commit me to answering it with single words just to please you.
Do I believe in a construct of yours that does not exist?
No.
Do I support a particular document that does exist?
Yes.
Your anti-constitutional religious test is rejected.
"But theres no reason to speculate about Americas motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these different people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods. Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies." So beautifully said, John.
I would like to ask ol' Tom to talk to my American father, who married my Japanese mother in 1953…only 8 years after the war ended. Didn't seem that my dad wanted to annihilate my mother and her family because they were different.
How frustrating that these intellectual midgets get access to the national and worldwide stage to spout their inane and uninformed opinions. In reality, Tom is on a misguided mission to revise history in order to better rationalize and justify his own naive world view.
And then promptly leaped back to endorse Stalin when Hitler betrayed him.
Ford and Lindbergh both embraced the same progressivism/liberalism that is at the heart of various flavors of Fascism and Communism.
Just because you did not study the history and ideology of those individuals does not mean you get to rewrite history because you read the title of that Goldberg book.
Gotta call ya on this one. When supporters of gay marriage fail in elections in that conservative bastion of California, or in Maine, or in New York, yet they still consistently vote for Democrats it tells me that *SOCIAL* conservativism is far more popular in America than *FISCAL* conservativism. The votes bear this out.
Why do you get to set the premise, the questions, the answers?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Do you believe in our U.S. Constitution, that believes in God?
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names…
OK, here's the deal. If the Islamic Fascists ever make it to our shores and have the power to do so, the first people they will put to their deaths will be the "artists" like Mr. Hanks. It happens in all these despotic regimes. Educators will be next.
My late Uncle Howie served in the Pacific. He was one of the nicest, most gentle men I have ever known. But to the day he died, he detested the Japanese people for the things he saw done by them to his fellow servicemen. Nothing, not even the passage of time, changed that opinion. I believe their direct descendants are the jihadists among us today. Mr. Hanks, while a fine actor, is a dolt when it comes to understanding history. If we watch his series on the Pacific, it will be with a huge grain of salt.
Fair enough, ron.
What denominations did the Founding Fathers declare? (If you don't have the list handy, don't worry. I would never expect anyone to cite every fact and figure off the top of his head. I can research it myself later tonight.)
At that time, before the Great Awakening and subsequent Fundelmentalism, many denominations held stances that would seem alien today. Even now Christiananity is diverse. Quakerism, for example, has aways been an outlier. Penn, a proto-Founding Father, was a Quaker.
(I'm off to work. So, I'm not blowing you off if I don't respond right away.)
Tom Hanks was always overrated. From Bosum Buddies to the present. He was a much better comedian when he did comedy but as a person to take seriously? No.
Lionel: One correction…. Islamic terrorists want to kill anyone who is non-Muslim, regardless of nationality. British, French, German, or American, if you are non-Muslim, you must convert, or die.
Why do you?
I get to because I read the Constitution. That is a nice quote from the Declaration of Independence though.
The U.S. Constitution does not "believe" in any deity.
As such your question is nonsense, and your attempt to force a religious test is offensive.
But you obviously feel that our Constitution is a religious document, making your previous answers to my questions highly suspect.
Isn't the very establishment of this nation based on the notion that we are created with certain inalienable right endowed by our creator. You can be a deist, a mormon, an evangelical or whatever and buy into that … but an atheist? I find it odd too … but the more people to put down the left the better, I guess.
Right.
Do you believe in the Constitution, that believes in the Independence of the United States of America?
That dating system is used as well.
That is the Constitution I believe in.
Likewise the one that begins "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You can believe in some religious document if you want, and keep your religious test for yourself.
You are correct sir…
Trap, set, & checkmate:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor
Question for Mr. Hanks: If the Terrorists are "just different", then you wouldn't mind one marrying your daughter? Is there someone on Rodeo Drive that makes Couture Burqas?
Just went through our complete DVD collection and threw away every movie with Hanks in it. Oh, and
I also just added Hanks name to the list of Hollywood's trained seals I will NEVER contribute financially to again. Let's see how much money you make, Commrade, when we're all wearing brown.
no problem.
i am Catholic, but know full well of its weaknesses… after all we Christians are fallible.
yah look it up!! & the one who didn't mark down his… was still a christian! he, like all, were worried, since all Christians were bickering with each other. which is great for a healthy democracy! & i dont mean to exclude most other belief systems from the quality of bickering. though again i wretchedly am antagonistic towards commie atheism & islam. though i'm still forced to love my enemy!
and christian diversity is healthy and what should be, as well as other religions, but not lies or deceit, which are hallmarks of islam, and revisionist atheism….. which is what really gets me. i dont mind atheists, but honesty, not something they need to hold to, is something i go after.
take care! see you around bighollywood!
My Gramma was a die hard Green Bay Packers fan and she thought the Chicago Bear were like those "mean old Japanese". That would be big, tough and mean…hmmm, guess she missed lecture that day. Point is she didn't dislike anyone for their difference. She sure as hell didn't like anyone that tried to beat the home team. Some of this liberal, intellectual, guilt trip stuff is just junk mascarding as fact.
What a putz.
Hanks conveniently forgets that, in addition to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese compiled a hideous record of barbaric treatment of American prisoners and non-Japanese populations. Rape of Nanking, anyone?
Already boycotting Hanks for the wretched "Da Vinci Code."
Don't even get me started on marriage as a whole…
The only reason we didn't take Berlin is because FDR wanted that honor to go the his pinko-commie pals in the Soviet Union.
"We never get to see a World War 2 movie that shows Germans as good people"
Wow. Never thought about it that way.
Doesn't excuse Nazism, but I'd definitely be more careful when using German as shorthand for Nazi.
I'd say that little Blow myself up/blow my kids up to gain a pass on heaven is a substantial differene Tom. You're different Tom yet I'm looking to see a cap in your forehead.
I won't hold my breath for a fair version of the vietnam war from Hanks.
"And if the Allies were actually no better than the Axis (as some revisionist historians today seem determined to prove)…"
Then they turn around and berate America for being evil for existing.
Hey Tom.
What part of……….. they hate YOU because YOU are NOT muslim………….. don't you understand.
Another stupid hollywood hack.
I have to agree, at least Forrest Gump knew he was stupid. I will never look at Tom Hanks the same way again. There must be something in the water near his studio. I know all people who live in southern California don't think like that!
Tom's a 9/11 truther, 'nuff said…
Tom Hanks is further proof (as if we needed any) that intelligence and talent are mutually exclusive.
Way to neglect the entire Eastern Front!
Brinkley also paddled around in the rowboat with Sean Penn after Katrina.
Well, some of them are happy to blow up a bus load of Muslim children if they get the one non-believer on board. Four bus loads if it is a Jew.
and… as christians, we are tolerant of others. even atheists. but to lie, to cover up our past, to change it or act like we are 'deists' or closet atheists! i mean, every christian & jew, by default of our belief, struggles with our faith. we read & tear up the bible then read it again, that is true, but to revise history and say we liberty seeking christians, in our frustrations and bickering must then be deists, must then be hidden atheists, and atheists get all the credit… i cant stand for it.
I started having second thoughts about Forrest's brain power when he was able to figure out how to get off the island, but after reading his "stupid is as stupid does" comments in this article, it reaffirms that without someone else putting the words in his mouth he's still dumb as a box of rocks.
Perhaps if Tom know who he was instead of one of his characters personality he might understand differently. Maybe a real tour of duty with the military would have helped him corral all those personalities. I guess he's too cowardly for reality.
Rape of Nanking. Bataan Death March. Pearl Harbor. How about Iwo Jima when the Japanese would capture, torture and mutilate American Marines?
The war was for a bit more than "they looked different", Mr. Hanks. Might wanna read a history book or two NOT written by Zinn.
Why did they sign a non-aggression pact in the first place genius? And I read the whole book, did you?
I meant to reply to wr1, BZ.
If Tom Hanks white-washes the Bataan Death March – I am going to go for his THROAT!!
I guess Pearl Harbor was just about the –what did Hanks call them–"yellow skinned, slit eyed" folks who didn't like the looks of people who looked different than them then?
And, the World Trade Center? Well that was just about people who didn't look like Americans.
Let's see. Okay, I'm lost. What was the American Revolution about then? I mean, those guys ALL looked alike. So it couldn't have been about that. It must have been about people who talked differently.
And, here I really, really thought Tom Hanks was intelligent. I thought he had integrity. It's funny how good that Hollywood PR machine is…
it's amazing how Americans seem to feel that if the take up for the enemy now then later the enemy won't blow their asses up along with the rest of us. I can here them now
"Oh don't nuke me – I'm Sean Penn and over here's George Clooney and he's Tom Hanks! We're on your side Don't kill us, We hate America as much as you do. Please spare our town… we wuv you peeps" …
Oh Yeah (snickers and outrigh belly laughs ensue) Thanks! Say, That Makes You TRAITORS…Yeah… You Know What We Do To Traitors?
On Yer Knees! Ya Love Us Now Punks? POW
Which came first, Mr Hanks? The xenophobia against the Japanese or the attack on Pearl Harbour? Mightn't it be that "xenophobia" was exacerbated as a result of Japanese aggression? The Japanese had an imperialist project and they were just as or far more "xenophobic" than the "wild west". I don't think we need to feel too sorry for the Japanese military — the stories I've heard from relatives about their occupation of Malaya makes one's blood run cold. It's the civillian population I feel for… lied to by their government and as far as I know, their young people aren't told all the facts.
As for Bugs Bunny being hard on the Japs, he pretty much dished out the same treatment to the Jerrys/Nazis.
Is there some kind epidemic in Hollywood… for this sort of misinformation?
I think Hanks watched one too many episodes of McHale's Navy when he was a kid.
Yes it is true that we demonized the Japanese and made them out to be less than human, it is what is done in war time. The Japanese viewed the Koreans and Chinese as less than human, used them for bayonet practice and took bets on the sex of a baby before cutting it out of the stomach of pregnant Chinese women. Atrocities happened and still do; but what is it with so many of our people who are blinded to any acts committed by anyone other than the US? I wonder if Tom Hanks is aware that 33% of American prisoners of war held in Japanese POW camps died. For Australians, it was 34%.
Turd…..
That was awesome…thanks for the heads up on that,
Have you heard the story of the speech he gave to the Farmers in Georgia?
Heard it first hand from his son…pretty cool stuff !!!!
Yeah its a rag….
A majority of LDS members are most definitely right leaning.
I am reminded every Sunday when I go to Priesthood meeting and talk guns with my brethren
before the meeting starts….:)
Well said sir, I believe lots of people probably believed that voting for a peach tree was the same as casting a vote for a real candidate, as there was not a dimes bit of difference between the parties. I do believe that the current administration has disabused a great many of that notion.
true that my brother…..true that
[...] In today’s example that proves the above statement we have one Tom Hanks courtesy of Time Magazine via John Nolte AKA Dirty Harry [...]
Must be the Calif. water…this is so Amazing to me, the very people who make millions of dollars in American..and could Not Any where else in the world for what they do…are insane. Mental disorder in Hollywood . No doubt. I am going bck to reading at night, the movies and their actors are too communist for me, why don't they go live in Cuba…its their dream, the perfect country. God….Get out of America.
Tom's mama always had a way of explaining things so he could understand them.
Tom Hanks is a political idiot of the lowest order. Probably a nice guy but not a lick of sense.
No, it was logistics. Go look up the difficulties that the English & Americans had transporting everything acroos a damn beach. By Jan 1945 they were burning a gallon of gas to deliver a gallon of gas to the front. If the Friggin' Limies had taken the Scheldt Estuary the port of Antwerp could have been a useful logistic asset before March 1945.
[...] Big Hollywood editor John Nolte: “No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By [...]
I wonder how it is that so many people do not have a lick of sense. What happens to keep sense from developing? It could have something to do with living such a cushy life that reality has a hard time getting in. I agree, he probably is a fairly nice guy, but that is probably about it. I liked him in Splash.
To paraphrase The Duke "Life is tough Tom. It's even tougher when you are stupid!"
Tom Hanks IS Forest Gump. His wife makes all of his decisions.
As much as I admire his work, and as much as I think he's contributed a great deal to honoring the memories of our service men and women, I'd like to see Tom Hanks pop up at a reunion of New Mexico's 200th and 515th Coast Artillery (AA) units and repeat that comment in front of those old remaining vets. They are among the very few who remain who survived the Bataan Death March and subsequent imprisonment for the duration of the war.
They would rise en mass and assault hm with their canes, wheel chairs, and fists. Stephen Ambrose documents well why the war in the Pacific was such a horrible affair that became what some call "racist." The reason we came to the point of annihilating Japanese soldiers was that Japanese treatment of captured Allied prisoners was simply barbaric.
Also, their refusal to surrender in each engagement when all was lost cost us far more lives that could have been saved if they had surrendered when it was obvious they were going to lose.
Their shocking barbarity is the sole cause of their being viewed as something other than human, at least by those who had the terrible misfortune to come under their control, or who had to root them out of every island we invaded.
Ask the British vets of the Pacific Theater what they think about the Japanese of that era. The Brits probably had more people in Japanese prisons than any Allied country. You won't get a polite reaction.
Lord Mountbatten's will specifically forbade attendance at his funeral by any/any representative of the Japanese Government. As British commander of the China/Burma/India area of operations, he knew well what happened to his captured troops. At least in the early 80's, the last time I saw the precincts of the Japanese Emperor's palace, the Union Jack flying over the British Embassy that bordered on the palace was the biggest regulation flag available, and it flew on a flagpole so high that it could be seen from anywhere in the palace grounds.
If the Japanese of that era were considered subhuman by civilized forces (calling that bunch "dogs" is an insult to dogs), they have only themselves to blame for it.
I got going on Japanese barbarity I forgot that I was going to comment on our "different" current foe.
They're different because they follow an alleged religion that accepts no other and one is given three choices if subjugated by them: convert, become a "dhimmi" and live as a virtual slave, taxed into poverty, or fight to the death. Their "logic" in rationalizing their barbaric, intolerant approach to the rest of the world defies logic.
If you want to learn why the Islamists are different, read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Mohammed – Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion." It's roundly vilified by Islamic critics on Amazon and iTunes which should give one a hint that Spencer has gotten to the heart of the matter.
Brinkley is also an obsequious Hollywood suckup. He's fond of hanging around with Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and assorted Hollywood lefties.
[...] the original post: Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’ Related Posts Post a [...]
Tell you what Hanks, how about we through you in a time machine, drop you in the middle of the Pacific and see if the Japanese soldiers are as understanding as you would pretend them to be. It wasn't American "intolerance" that led to the Rape of Nanjing, nor the abuse of POWs by the Japanese forces. This is all more politically correct nonsense from people who have not studied history, nor care to. They pick a few battles, talk with survivors about what they saw, add "Hollywood" and you get this nonsense.
If Activision's Call of Duty: World at War can get it right, why can't Hanks do the same? Might as well sit Tom down with an Xbox 360 and play through the Pacific campaign and learn about Japanese brutality… Pathetic…
http://clancop.wordpress.com/
P.S. Yes I know the Call of Duty games aren't 100% historically accurate, but they are far more accurate than this Hollywood produced nonsense.
A disappointment to be sure. I've loved Hanks since his early work in Bosom Buddies all the way through his Band of Brothers. We have many of his movies in our collection. He's drowing in the liberal stew of Hollywood, and yet he makes some beautiful work showcasing the "Greatest" generation.
I'm sorry he's unable to understand the mind of the militant terrorist. Obviously he didn't lose any family or loved ones on 9/11. If that had been the case, perhaps he would be able to think a bit more clearly.
Too much money, too many "yes" men/women following him around all the time. I makes me sad.
The ingnorance of the war in the Pacific displayed by Mr. Hanks in that small excerpt is breathtaking.
Historical Revisionism: Where everything old is new again.
Then you haven't read your history at all. Just leaf through the memoirs of the old-line Reds- when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was inked, the Comintern orders went out and the CPUSA jumped to. They were the leaders of the 'peace' movement right up until June 1941- then suddenly changed direction on a dime and started screaming for Hitler's head.
Some very few abandoned Stalin, largely those who had spent 1936-39 in Spain murdering priests and raping nuns.
Peckinpah's Cross of Iron.
Tom Hanks isn't Jewish.
Why oh why can't these celebutards take Michael Jordan's wisdom to heart:: "Republicans buy sneakers too."
Many excellents posts about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops during WWII, that evidently Mr. Hanks has no knowledge of. My wife is Korean and her father was forced to work in the mines during WW II. This and the treatment of Koreans by the Japanese when they controlled Korea, still causes less than love for the Japan by her family.
As far as Mr. Hanks concerns for the troops when they come home and fitting in, well he can stuff it. Many of us have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, then returned to work in the civilian world. As far as making rude comments about those trying to kill you and that you're trying to kill, well damn get over it and quit being so PC.
[...] So our latest you-know-what-wipe has the unmitigated gall to make a statement such as this one from Big Hollywood: [Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a [...]
And Hanks didn't have to take the part in The Da Vinci Code, that vicious (and historically bogus) attack on Christianity
Tom Hanks = Intellectual Lightweight
I like Tom Hanks, I really do, so I'll refrain from getting my dander up too much on this. But–really? Does he really think that's what WWII was about? Us going to war with Japan because they're different from us? I wonder what he thought of our war against the Germans, especially considering Germans were the single largest white ethnic group in America by that point. This is the same kind of mentality that produced those "My Name is Osama" books for schoolchildren right after 9/11, and what makes it so much worse is the fact that the people with this mentality honestly believe they're doing a service to the country.
Has Tom Hanks gone…………..NUCKING FUTS?
then you are the exception to the rule!!!
What a bizarre time when a Jew sticks up for the Muslims who seek the complete annihilation of Jews.
It reminds me of the scene in Schindler's List, "Why do you beat me?" "I beat you because you ask why I beat you".
What a p.o.s.
The Constitution is a document with no sentience in itself. It is a contract. It has no capacity for belief.
Perhaps you should rephrase your question.
I learned all I needed to know about Tom Hanks when, after BO was elected, he suddenly started showing up in television commericals telling the rest of us that we should do our part to welcome home the troops. My reaction was, "Hey, Tom, I've been supporting the troops since before I became one. Where have you been?"
He's a political hack, not a national treasure.
These people are undereducated and uninformed and should just stick to their craft. Being rich and famous does not add any IQ points and certainly doesn't mean we are dying for their opinions. I support a Hollywood actor tax for every time they open their pie holes.
How come they can't fix California first? If they could pay their bills and make it a Utopia first, then maybe they'd have some credibility before they try to tell the rest of the world what to do.
.
They take it for granted – because they just KNOW we are hate-filled Morlocks and they are the Eloi.
You know, I hope that they don't use those words to compare themselves and those they dislike. I can find an air-raid siren and some goggles to protect against bright light.
Excellent article.
I'm glad you referenced the German American population during WWII. They, alongside an equally significant number of Italian Americans as well as the whole ethnic and racial tapestry that was America of the day fought against uncles, first and second cousins, in some cases grandfathers, that shared the same God, face, diet, food, and ethnic folklore. Indeed, take a look at the film "Go For Broke" and read about the nearly all Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team whose heroics still live unknown, to some degree. You embarrassing, celebrity. I sit here far less worldly and probably less school learned than you and even I know it was always more of a "what we were fighting" than a "who." Hanks, front and center for your swift kick. My instinct is that you are not as shallow as you are coming across in this article. I think you, as a celebrity with the ego for remaining relevant, saw the America bashing band wagon moving along and you just couldn't resist it passing without at least a perfunctory spray on its wheel. Y'know, in case it picks up steam again and you can look back and claim a quasi "outsider" posture. I have praised your good work with regard to keeping the sacrifices of America and its Allies, thus far, but, I fear now, this may just be part of a larger revisionist history lesson.
What does it say about Tom Hanks that he see's people of color as nothing more than victims. Does this mean that he see's these people as to unintelligent to perpetrate evil?
but you still believe in the U.S. Constitution, that which believes in God?
Hank you got it all wrong . Japan ATTACKED us thats why we pushed back and no annilation. And 911 they attacked us do you have that short of a memory and we are fighting back . I wish america would stop giving their money to these hollywood crapheads .
Why is it that people like Hank can't sympathize with the Chinese that were slaughtered by the Japanese, or the freedom loving Vietnamese that were slaughtered by the Vietcong? I don't get it.
Damn! You got me with the shrill squeaky voice… I must concede sir! Well played!!!!!
And yet you know exactly what I'm asking.
Do you believe in the Blessings of Liberty?
And which state are you from, I'll find you an Almighty God just yet!
I never subscribed and now I'm sorry because I can't cancel in high dudgeon.
i should clarify Blessings for you, via Noah Webster's dictionary, he's also a founding father, and one they referenced for the meaning of words.
blessing
BLESS'ING, ppr. Making happy; wishing happiness to; praising or extolling; consecrating by prayer.
BLESS'ING,n. Benediction; a wish of happiness pronounced; a prayer imploring happiness upon another.
1. A solemn prophetic benediction, in which happiness is desired, invoked or foretold.
This is the blessing wherewith Moses–blessed the children of Israel. Deut.33.
2. Any means of happiness; a gift,benefit or advantage;that which promotes temporal prosperity and welfare, or secures immortal felicity. A just and pious magistrate is a public blessing. The divine favor is the greatest blessing.
3. Among the Jews,a present; a gift; either because it was attended with kind wishes for the welfare of the giver, or because it was the means of increasing happiness.
Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee. Gen.33.
[...] for me to go after…but after reading the article, Hot Air, the comments on Hot Air and John Nolte’s piece I find that I cannot take the [...]
They have in mind chopping off all our heads if we don't turn muslim. that seems reason enough to go after terrorists.
John N.,
This is your best posting (so far). Thank you.
Let me be clear. Secular conservatives exist. If we, as conservatives, want to retake the house and senate, we must prioritize. Is gay marriage more important than reducing spending? Abortion a bigger issue than the common defense?
We need to really push fiscal responsibility, and drop the social issues to the bottom of the list.
Your entire question answer was bogus.
"Do you believe in the US Constitution that believes in God?"
Of course we believe in the constitution. Does the constitution believe in God? It believes that certain rights were given by God, so it does.
But that's where your logic takes a weird angle that athiests have some sort of problem since they believe in the rights but not the God part. If those rights are God given, it's their rights and their relationship or lack of one is between them and God. Conservatism is not wanting a huge government that interferes with our daily lives. Why do you need religion to have that inborn yearning for liberty and freedom?
I'm sorry but I fail to see how the notion that we were fighting for a good cause in WWII and the idea that there was a strong overtone of racism in the American attitude towards Germany are mutually exclusive. It's a complicated world, folks. Deal with it.
Duh, should say "Japan" not "Germany" above. I had in mind both the internment camps and examples of propaganda which exaggerate Japanese features so that it was not the ideology of Japan which seemed to be "the enemy" but the Japanese as a race (hence the doubts about Japanese-Americans). I don't see why Hanks should be berated for this observation; it has nothing to do with whether the cause was just or there were other reasons for fighting the Japanese (obviously a big "yes" in both cases).
The weakest part of his argument, to me, is the analogy between then and today. American culture is far too PC – for better or worse, better in this particular case – to indulge in the kind of race-baiting that it did in the 40s. Nolte is justified in taking Hanks to task for this, but where exactly does Hanks imply that he DOESN'T believe Americans saw the Japanese as "barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world"? I think he assumes that goes without saying.
Tom "Stupid is as stupid does"!
Not to mention how the Japanese treated our POW's in the Pacific.
I believe that Spielberg did "Munich." Hmmmm….
Now, whenever I re-watch one of Tom's films, even "Big," I will look at it differently. I will be checking to see if his politics are showing. I won't be able to help myself.
Why, oh why, can't these people keep their mouths shut about their politics?
Nobody goes to see their films because they are such brilliant people. It is because some of them are entertaining. There is a cosmic spanse between entertaining and brilliantly accurate.
(obviously that's supposed to say "Japan", not Germany. I added an addendum which stretches out my views here, but it awaits moderation.)
I believe that Spielberg did "Munich." Hmmmm….
Now, whenever I re-watch one of Tom's films, even "Big," I will look at it differently. I will be checking to see if his politics are showing. I won't be able to help myself.
Why, oh why, can't these people keep their mouths shut about their politics?
Nobody goes to see their films because they are such brilliant people. It is because some of them are entertaining. There is a cosmic spanse between entertaining and brilliantly accurate.
Well, I have to wonder if our "speaking with our wallets" made a little difference in the Oscars this year. We need to "walk our talk" and keep hitting them where it hurts most – their bank accounts! Over time, it will make a difference.
At a certain level of wealth and success, they just seem to lose whatever sense they had.
So, by your reasoning then, I'm a jihadist?
And then, once the population of a given country is nearly all Muslim, they start killing each other because they feel the others are not good enough Muslims.
As a former Muslim said, "It is brother against brother, child against parents, parents against other adults, and all adults against each other."
What a great bunch to be defending, Mr. Hanks.
The Constitution is a revered document. As a piece of paper, it does not believe in anything.
Hey Tom….
What part of……. they hate YOU because YOU are NOT Muslim……… don't you understand.
Dense.
tom hanks is a complete nutcase! as the artical by john notle correctly shows, japan is the second most powerful economy in the world, mainly thanks to america rebuilding it after ww2. as for racism, the japanese had plenty of their own against the "white dogs" of the western world, but i doubt hanks would care about that.
Agreed. Same here.
Maybe unlike me, Tom can tell a Tutsi from a Hutu. I just know it's not likely a white guy hacking away with a machete. But most libs can't tell the difference between Sarah Palin and Hitler. Or Hitler and God. Or God and a tree.
Dumb. I have defended Hanks in the past, not least because of his involvement with "Band of Brothers" and "From the Earth to the Moon", which were both excellent.
But this is indefensible muddleheaded triple-dog stupid claptrap. And don´t give me the "nuance" excuse because that´s exactly what is missing.
Why don´t YOU deal with what Hanks actually said? The fact remains that
a) racism it is not why we went to war and
b) we did not fight a war of annihilation and
c) it isn´t what is going on today either.
Hanks is wrong. "It´s complicated" is just a cheap (and overused) evasion. Though you might tell it to Hanks; he´s the simpleton here.
It would actually be fun to challenge Hanks on this not for the most obviously slander of the U.S. population in general, but for what Tom has inadvertently done to the No. 1 hero of the Democratic Party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If he really does mean the statement….
…then he's basically attacking Roosevelt and the rest of the U.S. government — run almost entirely by Democrats during World War II — for fostering and encouraging this racist, anti-foreign cultrual mindset on the American public.
Obviously, Hanks meant the quote as just another Hollywood attack on George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent, on Barack Obama for not doing what they left wanted and totally bugging out of Iraq and Afghanistan a year ago. You're never going to change his mind about that. But it would be fun for some interviewer to ask why he has such a negative opinion of the actions of the Roosevelt Administration during the early 1940s, and shouldn't we think far less highly of FDR because of that racism (and I assume even Forrest Gump knows that the Democrats were in the White House during World War II, and that somehow Wendell Wilkie and those evil Republicans weren't running things on Dec. 7, 1941).
Has anyone bothered to ask the CHINESE what they thought of the Japanese in WWII? Or… what they still think of them today?
I guess the same way that Mel Gibson can make "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" and still think that 'war is not the answer."
You know, while I don't agree with the idea of the internment camps, there was one out here about an hour's drive or so from my parents' house. The Japanese were able to leave and go into town whenever they wanted, they used the bank, they had jobs, they bought better groceries than what the camps provided, etc. They obviously weren't perfect, and it was illegal for them to leave the camp for longer than the day, but they weren't exactly on par with concentration camps. I think that maybe there was a better solution to the spy worries, but really, they could have been so much worse. These camps were specifically designed to not be worse.
Harry Reid is Mormon.
I have often wondered why he hasn't been disfellowshipped for lying, stealing and cheating on public record.
You're not the only one. Believe me, most of us LDS members here in the United States are pretty embarrassed that he's one of us. But on the other hand, Glen Beck's LDS, too. They tend to offset each other.
Funny how we supposedly fought the Japanese because they "look different" but somehow during the same war aided Chinese and Filipinos and defended Koreans 5 years later. Did they not "look different"? The common thread was there were expansionist, totalitarian foes that needed to be stopped and Americans stood with those who wished to stop them.
It shows no matter how well produced Hanks' historical series are, his understanding of history is at best superficial, and at worst, guided by ideology instead of any sophisticated objective analysis.
Hanks if half-right. Let's see: Wilson hated black people. FDR hated the Japanese. Wilson was a Democrat. FDR was a Democrat. It's not America. It's Democrats. Obama hates white people. Obama is a Democrat. Surely he'll be a combination of Wilson and FDR.
We wanted to kill the Japanese because they were different? Hanks..just another reason I quit going to movies. Tom is just another rectum cancer like Sean.
"Cross of Iron?"
As far as the Crusades go, there is a Crusade going on right now.
Fanatical Muslim zealots won't care whether you are atheist, Christian,
Jewish, Buddhist when lopping your head off. Only an idiot would not
recognize these zealots are waging war, and those that kill because
their God tells them so are the enemy..
Lets see there Tom. The Japanese…WWII. Oh you mean Unit 731, The Rape Of Nanking, Death camps, Thai-Burma Railway, Bataan Death March, Hell Ships…you mean those guys didn't deserve what they got? And how again are the Islamomaniacs any different? And also how is Imperialist Japan of that era any different from the Imperialist Islam of today? Me thinks 'ol Tom has a serious cranial-rectal issue.
You would acknowledge that 100% of the time the attacks are never directed at White Atheist Males.
I did notice though, when Hillary Clinton lost the primary to Barack Obama the dialogue changed from White Christian Males (apparently due to their evil patriarchal system and whatnot) to simply Whites abandoning gender distinction altogether; the Left's of quilting white women into voting for Barack.
[...] John Nolte explains at Big Hollywood, “no matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By [...]
Tom and Obama have bumped heads while bowing to our enemies about ten too many times.
Whet does worry me is his comment about troops fitting in when returning home. Some of the tactics used to kill an enemy that refused to surrender in that theater were unbelievably brutal and could be used to make our men seem completely without remorse or humanity.
El_Gordo, as explained, I did deal with what he said. Unfortunately, the comment was to be "moderated" and never appeared. To make it brief then:
a) Agreed. But Hanks didn't say it was. As I wrote above, the "good cause" and the "overtone of racism" are not mutually exclusive. "It's complicated" is not an evasion, it's an admission of transparent fact.
b) That doesn't mean we didn't "want to annihilate" them, much as we wanted to annihilate those responsible for 9/11 (in the latter case, a group rather than a nation, which certainly makes the whole notion less questionable). Hanks' point is about national psychology and propaganda, not official policy (although there were certainly domestic results of this if not battlefield ones – see the internment). I assume the idea that we restrained our annihilating impulse (much better than the Japanese, incidentally) is something Hanks thinks goes without saying; same for the notion that WWII was a "good war."
c) Yes, I agree with that too, and said so in the comment that never showed up. Nolte was right to take Hanks to task for the facile analogy between then and now. But I think he was off-base in how he characterized Hanks' views of WWII.
El_Gordo,
I've responded to Hanks's comments and detailed my views in two posts, both of which have been withheld for moderation (the second just a few moments ago). Hopefully they show up eventually.
Hey, put you in a prison camp merely because of your race, see how you like it.
A rare 1977 WW2 movie that has James Coburn starred as a German soldier in the Eastern Front going up against a Prussian officer who's only seeking a medal glory. The movie is hard to find.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074695/
The Politics of Walletism is rather empty, not to mention cheap.
Stuffing people's personal wallets, this is how Nancy Pelosi is able to buy votes and remain in power.
Ask yourself why only a very small portion of the stimulus money has been spent? What is Obama waiting for, an election in which he can stuff your wallet fat for a vote?
Say Americans do get back their fat-happy wallets before the 2010 or 2012 election; now that they are satisfied will they return to the fat-happy days under GWB when the most their satisfied butts could muster was to switch entertainment channels on their Hollywood Big Screen.
The problem with Politics of Walletism is that once Americans have their money they don't much care about the soft tyranny of Liberal Fascism.
TO RALLY THE CAUSE FREEDOM IT MUST BE MORE THAN JUST ABOUT WHAT IS INSIDE YOUR WALLET.
I had full intentions of adding HBO to my Direct TV account today until I read this article. That will not be happening any time during my life time after reading Hanks comments. To think I spent 26 years in the Army defending the rights of leftist like Hanks to twist history as he has with those comments. No question in my mind now that I wasted 26 years.
God, this is annoying. One more time then:
a) Of course not. Nor did Hanks say it was.
b) Again, to suggest that "we wanted to annihilate them", while a generalization, is consistent with the tone and tenor of U.S. propaganda and does not contradict the notion that official policy did not have these aims in mind.
c) Agreed. In one of my withheld comments, I said it was fair to criticize Hanks for the facile analogy, but he does not seem to be making the point about WWII many seem to think.
After all the work he's done and things he's said to indicate he thinks WWII was a "good war" to berate him for this, at worst, sloppily-worded comment is overkill.
Assuming this comment actually goes through, unlike the other two – having dealt with what Hanks actually said, can you deal with what I said? In what sense are suggestions of racism in the U.S. populace/government/propaganda mutually exclusive with the notion that our fight with Japan was just?
this is quite possible the best idea I have heard in my ENTIRE life!
I'm very disappointed in Tom Hanks. That was just stupid and short-sighted of him.
This is annoying. Three times now I've posted detailed responses to Hanks' point. Three times they've "awaited moderation" while quickie comments like these have been withdrawn. I guess the policy is that only one longer unmoderated comment is allowed from each guest, after which responses will be withheld. This is understandable to avoid spammers (then again, are their comments typically long) but it does not make for the most enlightening discourse, limiting most comments to sound bites and cheap insults.
"At least Forrest Gump knew he was stupid."…….classic line.
Started my day off with a laugh…
Thanks Lionel !!!!!!
So for the majority within the Scientific community whose livelihood depends upon spending Big Government research grants are going to responsibly give up their government goodies?
You want fiscal responsibility?
You and your colleagues in the scientific community go first, give up all the Big Government research money doled out to Big Government universities.
I am Private-Sector who finds your Big Government Scientific community both highly unaffordable and irresponsibly wasteful.
Not to mention your Bieg Government Embryonic Cure-All for Death and Aging grows wickedly hideous tumors.
I pay for you BS while you lecture others on their religion.
I'll see if this gets under the gun: a) Hanks didn't say it was; b) To suggest we (population, government, media) wanted their annihilation is not to suggest this was the official aim of policy; c) Agreed, this was the most facile element of Hanks' argument, and it's fair enough for Nolte to criticize him for it. But I think people are misrepresenting his take on WWII, a cause he's indicated over and over he thinks is just, so much so that he probably thought it went without saying here. Does one have to jump on every little comment that's "out of line"? Btw, can YOU deal with what I actually said? How are racist overtones to U.S. propaganda and the attitudes behind it – what Hanks no doubt meant by the over-generalized "we" – and the nobility of the cause mutually exclusive?
Surely.
How interesting it would be to actually discuss and debate issues rather than lob around smug generalizations. You, sir, are no different from the zealous liberals you despise – content to attack straw men and characterize your opponents in as broad (and evil) terms as possible. This is why an ever-growing number of Americans are registering as independents.
dustrider, first off, thanks for a thoughtful response – I've been scrolling down the thread and am increasingly dismayed by the flippancy and shallowness of the discussion.
But I don't see any reason why Hollywood liberals – or any other liberals – would hesitate to criticize a president of their general ideology (to the extent that 40s liberalism belongs to the same field as contemporary liberalism; it does in some ways, not in others). As you note, they are quite critical of Obama when they think he's fallen short and given the distance of time and the change in public values, they're apt to be even more critical of FDR, "No 1 hero or not." In other words, I doubt that Hanks was unconscious of his attack on Roosevelt.
This cuts both ways. What about the conservatives who suddenly were opposed to the war in Afghanistan once Obama was elected? Or the ones who feel free to criticize officers and soldiers as soon as they don't agree with their actions (like McChrystal's policies about protecting civilians last year, or the soldiers like Scott Beauchamp who write about the uglier side of war and are accused of being liars)? I think many, many liberals and conservatives have proven themselves hypocrites since '08, particularly on the issue of Afghanistan which was perceived as the "good war" as long as either liberals needed to prove their "tough on terror" bona fides without supporting Iraq or Bush was the president conducting this war.
Guest, how many scientific advances have come without government aid? Including weapons systems, cures for diseases, technological breakthroughs, space exploration? Obvioiusly if there's an immediate financial incentive, or an explicit profit to be had, a corporation will foot the bill. If the benefit is more tenuous, less immediate, doesn't it make sense to have the government contribute?
My problem isn't gay marriage.
It's family courts always favoring women, as well as alimony (an outdated concept, now that women are expected to earn their own wages.) Really — why do I have to pay because she (at least 75% of divorce claims are filed by women) wanted to leave me? And if I had children with her, I'll never get to see them again.
Gay divorces will sure be interesting to watch, as the family court won't know who to screw over. Maybe it will force positive change in heterosexual marriages, but I'm not optimistic.
For the record, I've never been married, and I don't see myself doing so thanks to the way family courts operate.
you know what I will watch PACIFIC, just becasue of the historical references and it is probably very well done… but I purchased band of Brothers and watch it every chance I can, but this will be left in the video store, I will NOT buy this as acollection!!!! I may PIRATE the copies though.. lol
Are you serious? Name one mainstream conservative (Ron Paul is not mainstream or conservative) who opposes the war in Afghanistan. The criticism of Obama has been that he is not prosecuting the war seriously. And Scott Beauchamp? Really? He was accused of lying because he is a liar. He admitted it. He wasn't honorable, he was an extreme buddy f*cker who made up his selfserving lies because he fancied himself the next Ernest Hemmingway. He didn't even have the guts to print his lies under his real name.
And are you really claiming that conservatives want civilian casualties? Gimme a break.
Well that just shoots a hole through the entire thing, doesn't it?
Interesting – though I don't know if doing away with government recognition of marriage would solve this particular problem, as the law would still have to deal with couples/families/children. Interesting point with gay divorces I'd never considered…
Because our Founding Fathers believed it.
For 25 years i was brainwashed to believe this nation did not need Christianity… not religion. If so, why aren't athiest regimes, and their ilk, yearning for liberty? Why is Russia gloriously returning to a dictatorship? Why is China illegalizing the Bible? Why are there riots & anger in Venezuela… oh because they still got Christians, though Chavez's bodyguard are.. Cuban…Communist… Atheists.
Our kids are hating America, hating Christianity, and we think we as a nation will survive with pansy Atheism Conservatism?
I don't want to force anyone into Christianity, God & the Quakers know how annoying that is. But I am fighting a revisionist history of our Founding Fathers. One I once believed in, and now my daughter is being fed.
Every time I see or hear Mr. Hanks I can’t help but think this guy got his start wearing a dress. Now how smart can he be? Invariably he answers the question by opening his mouth off script.
Kind of like Obama. Don’t leave home without your teleprompter.
Old Irish truism: Better to keep your mouth shut and let them think you a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.
Wait, is it a piece of paper? Or something many men staked their lives on, signing it, against the most poweful Empire known to man, spanning the entire Earth, and on that, would be hunting them down?
Is that, just a piece of paper, just a revered document?
awesome.
With what he has been saying, this not only puts his current project under scrutiny of possible revision, but his past projects will now be revisited to see what kind of historic revision was missed by a public that used to accept him unquestionably.
Not sure why Paul isn't considered a conservative, but as he probably opposed the war under Bush as well, he's not who I had in mind. Specifically I was thinking of an editorial by Diane West which I read online and can no longer find. Here's a more recent one, along similar lines: http://blog.cagle.com/2010/02/12/outpost-decision... I was also thinking of an e-mail exchange I had with a conservative who would give no quarter to Obama on anything, including Afghanistan which was suddenly being couched in terms of Kosovo or some other sort of "liberal intervention." And beyond that, accumulated anecdotes from the past year and a half, conservatives I've spoken to, others I've read or listened to, who are giving Obama a hard time for fighting the "wrong battle" in the war on terror. Likewise with the liberals – I haven't kept a checklist of every one who's been flip-flopping on this, it's just a general trend I've noticed. Can you really say there is no debate within the conservative movement about whether or not Afghanistan is still a worthy fight?
And how is Obama prosecuting the war less seriously than Bush, who I don't recall being criticized by the right on this issue?
Scott Beauchamp recanted his stories because he had to, under pressure from military brass. Understandably, they wanted to stifle bad press when it gone blown out of proportion (by the right wing, I might add). Reading the New Republic explanation of the facts, it seemed quite clear that his stories were by and large verifiable that it was hard to pin down witnesses and correlations in the wake of the Army's clampdown. I saw nothing inflammatory about his stories, they were not liberal or anti-troop propaganda, simply anecdotes of the dark side of the war, which anyone who's been in a combat zone could tell you about. Publications like the Weekly Standard couldn't take this and started blasting Beauchamp as a phony. They love soldiers when they can treat them as cardboard cutouts, but as soon as they're human beings, not so much.
I am claiming that many conservatives criticize McChrystal for trying about civilian casualties. Heck, maybe they're even right to – that's not my point. My point is that we heard "support the troops" for years and yet whenever troops – soldiers in the line of fire or army brass – disagree with a right-wing talking point, they're suddenly fair game. I call that hypocrisy.
My only point is that both conservatives and liberals are flawed and there's been rampant hypocrisy across the ideological boundaries in the last few years. That's why I try to stay avoid ideology and approach everything on an issue-by-issue basis.
Hollywoodron, if we're looking at history here why is Russia considered "atheist"? It had a state religion long before the Communist era. Does Venezuala really have more Christians than Russia or China, even proportionately?
My understanding is that by the intellectual standards of their own day, the Founding Fathers were fairly free-thinking but that by the standards of today, they seem much more faithful than not. The best view to take would probably be in between, one which saw both the ways in which they were against the religious grain, yet still part of the fold.
Also, while the Constitution mentions a creator and divine providence, is there anything to indicate it is Christian rather than broadly monotheistic?
well, if there was a different outcome in that war, the Jewish Bolsheviks wouldn't be sitting in the WH today, ruining the USA.
Or the Koreans? Or the Filipinos? Or the Burmese?
Oh, but why bother (asks the leftist historian)? We locked up some Japanese Americans and bombed Dresden and Hiroshima, so we're just as bad.
Rita, clearly it's time to have a talk with Tom.
Tommy is almost as smart as the volleyball he talked to in that horrible boring moronic three hour movie
I agree with you – they are NOT mutually exclusive. There's nothing wrong with hating your enemy, racially or otherwise, as long as you respect his capabilities. And there's nothing wrong, sixty years later, with remarking how racist American propaganda was during WWII. But it is wrong to imply that racism was why the U.S. was fighting Japan. It is also wrong to imply that because Americans had racist attitudes they were somehow just as bad as the Japanese or the Germans.
I'm not sure Hanks was trying to imply either of those things. He may have been trying to make some kind of vague internationalist point – that the reason people fight wars is because they see themselves as different, with different needs and priorities and interests pitted against each other, and wouldn't it be nice if we could see each other as similar instead. Like a lot of off-the-cuff remarks by actors and politicians, it came out sounding stupid rather than profound. It's amazing how people who make their livings saying words in front of audiences are so lousy at speaking extemporaneously.
Well, let Tom Hanks handle the terrorists.
Then once they've killed him we can get back to a rational manner of dealing with things.
Tom, I want to stop them because they want to kill me. I'm sorry if you think defending myself is evil or wrong. Why don't you go show up how to nobly allow someone to cut your head off and kill you… maybe one of us will learn something.
[...] 10, 2010 at 11:40 (General Stupidity) What an idiot. Why do decent actors always have to try and make a statement that ruins what could be a large number of future movies for us? Now I won’t be able to watch [...]
A fair point, Monster. I didn't see his quote as implying this, simply because nothing else I've heard him say would indicate these are his views. Still, the wording he used is rather careless and the point, repeated over and over ad nauseum is something of a facile truism. So I get the eye-rolling and intellectual criticism, just not the vitriolic insults or the entirely bad-faith assumptions, which is why I felt compelled to step in. At any rate, to take your first point, I think the problem with hating your enemy racially is that it consigns a group of people, defined by their external qualities, to the status of "enemy" rather than individuals. I think you mean to suggest that, as a fighting force, one can still fight well while despising the enemy for whatever reason as long as this despising does not make one sloppy. But the problems are in the ramifications – the way this attitude can spill over into other areas it does not belong (such as the rounding up of American citizens of Japanese descent).
"It's amazing how people who make their livings saying words in front of audiences are so lousy at speaking extemporaneously."
Other people's words, Monster, other's people's words…
Again, the Diane West article you linked to is a criticism of policy, not the war or the troops. The first sentence of the second paragraph is, "The story concerns “failures” all right, but the three recently investigated incidents in question are not “battlefield” failures." That is a pretty clear indication that she is not criticizing the war, but the bone headed policies being implemented. The rest of the article complains how field level officers and enlisted men are going to take the rap for incompetence on the part of officers and politians who never leave Washington. How is that not supporting the troops? How is that hypocrisy? It's outrage over an injustice. Criticism of policy does not equal lack of support. My father supported the war in Vietnam but he was a vocal critic of Johnson's execution. Did that make my father a hypocrite? Apparently it does in your book.
And private e-mail exchanges and conversations you've had with unknown persons do not constitute "hypocrisy" on the right either. You have a problem with what your friends say, take it up with them.
And yes, I can say that the debate is over concerning Afghanistan. 911 ended it."
And how is Obama prosecuting the war less seriously than Bush?" Are you really asking me that? Really? You're asking me how Obama is not procecuting the war as seriously as Bush? How many troops did Gen McChrystal ask for? When did he ask for them? How many did he get? How long did it take for him to get them? And are you seriously telling me that you don't remember any critcism of Bush's handling of the war? Really? Really? Seriously. You don't remember? In the very article you linked Ms. West criticized President Bush for starting the stupid "hearts and minds" policy in the first place. Is my criticism of "hearts and minds" (a policy I've seen fail miserably up close and presonal) hypocrisy? Apparently in your book it is. To me it's saying, "We tried it, it doesn't work. Let's move on to something that does."
Scott Beauchamp recanted under pressure? Then that makes him a worse coward than I orginially believed. And a bigger buddy f*cker. Go back and re-read TNR, they recanted as well. His stories were not verified. If they were what was the name of the "burnt woman"? Who were the witnesses? What were the names of the soldiers that made the disgusting comments about and to her? The fact that you saw "nothing inflammatory about his stories" and do not consider them liberal (they were printed in the New Republic for crying out loud!) says a lot about you.
As for your claims that he was "merely writing about the darkside of war". I've been to war four times in my life. I have yet to see any behavior (from my Marine brethern or my Army cousins) that even remotely resembles the lies Beauchamp was peddling. You wanna see an honest rendition of the dark side of war? Go back and look at some of the films John Huston made during WWII. You want fiction (and bad fiction at that)? Keep reading Scott "Hemmingway" Beauchamp.
If your "only point" is that both consevatives and liberals are flawed you are not going to get an argument from anyone. Conservatives and liberals are human beings! Of course they're flawed. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." But to say you avoid ideology is incorrect. You're using "Hemmingway" Beauchamp as evidence of conservative hypocrisy. You're linking to an article criticizing bad policy and claiming it proves a lack of conservative support. What's next? Are you going to cite (phony soldier) Jesse McBeth as evidence that conservatives spit on the troops?
"Today’s column is for all hawkish Americans currently wrestling with looming doubts about the pointlessness of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and clubbing those doubts down with the much-mentioned perils of leaving Afghanistan to “the terrorists.” In short, it’s about how to “lose” Afghanistan and win the war."
-Diane West, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2419616/...
Apologies for not trying harder to find that initial post; it was not on the site I originally found it on anymore, but a google search quickly located it. She is a critic both of specific policies and of the war at large. And she criticizes generals – the point being that the military is no longer beyond bounds as they seemed to be for conservatives initially in the Iraq war.
srhoades, I did not say that all conservatives have turned against the war, nor that a majority did. Just that many have, just as many liberals have re-discovered their antiwar roots in the wake of the Republicans' defeat (when the "Afghanistan is the good war" line was no longer politically necessary). I offered this point as a complement to your own criticism of the "support the troops" switch-around. Why are you so passionate about defending any and all conservatives from the taint of hypocrisy? No side of the political spectrum has a stranglehold on it.
My frustration is that if the war in Afghanistan is really more important than petty partisan disagreements, conservatives should be defending Obama's commitment to the war – in the face of growing left-wing (and increasing right-wing) opposition. He took about ten months to address strategic concerns in Afghanistan, too long in my book, but Bush took 3 1/2 years to change course in Iraq – and left Afghanistan in the state in which Obama found it. And no, I'm sorry but I don't remember extensive criticism of him on the right, and I was looking…certainly not to the extent that Obama's been attacked since he took office. Even those who generally agree with his stand on the war have not taken to the ramparts defending him, focusing instead on areas of disagreement. I hope I am wrong about this last point – if you can point me to examples of conservatives stepping up to praise Obama's commitment to the war on terror, I will happily concede the point.
I used Beauchamp as an example because I was taken aback by the vitriol of his critics, and the degree to which they attacked his veracity at face-value without knowing much else about him. "Says a lot about you" – please rather than make assumptions about me, tell me what about the stories was "liberal". Such an over-used term, btw – it's hardly the same thing as "leftist" (just as The New Republic, which supported the war in 2003, can be pretty sharply distinguished from, say, The Nation).
Keep in mind, finally, that if I am offering correctives or alternative viewpoints to conservatism, it is because I'm on a conservative website. Elsewhere, I've done the same for left-wing points of view. It's a matter of trying to see the bigger picture and not allowing one viewpoint to run rampant.
By the way, I'm always interested in hearing views on Afghanistan and where it is headed and what should be done from those more familiar with the situation than I am. I'm not sure if you're an Afghanistan vet, as your comments seem to suggest but if so have you written anything extensive on the war and your overall views of strategy and mission? I'd love to read it if you have – please link. Thanks -
[...] Nolte at Big Hollywood [...]
Broadly monotheistic? As in Hindu? Islam? Native American? Pagan? Greek? Atheism?
As Christians we say God Bless You, does that mean were broadly monotheistic?
And what other religions of mankind are monotheistic? 1 God, creator of heaven & earth, and that volcanoes & trees are not gods, that the sun is not a chariot, and all these things can be measured? & they dont anger but are justly created. What other religions than would refer to these truths we hold?
The source of our divine providence, our blessings of liberty come from the Judeo-Christian, our sense of tolerance and openness as well. Is Hindu or Islam or Man-state atheism as tolerant and open to others as Christendom? Comparatively!?
Yep Tom…WWII was just a big 'ol misunderstanding. If only we had more sensible Lib types like yourself around…who really knew man's wonderful potential and could clearly see there is is no real evil in the world….um, unless you mean the Catholic church. Nanking, Dachau, Cambodia, Twin Towers…nope, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. What an @ss…
srhoades, I was wrong, apparently – Beauchamp backpedaled but never fully recanted. As no less a conservative than Kathryn Jean Lopez said, "Again, reads like a kid who is in way too deep and wants out. Does that mean he was lying all along and doesn't want to continue to? Maybe. But unless I'm misunderstanding — and unless there's more to what he signed that I realize — I wouldn't be comfortable calling it a confession." http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzBkNjFm...
The New Republic did not recant, but rather had to step back from fully endorsing the stories as professional journalism: When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."
In other words, despite the corroborations and indications that Beauchamp's stories were the truth or close to it the military threw up too many roadblocks (again, understandably) for the New Republic to fully verify these stories after the fact. They stepped back from the story as a matter of journalistic technicality, not from the belief that it was fabricated. I still don't see any evidence that Beauchamp, honest or dishonest, was trying to propagandize against the war – just that he was trying to share what he saw as the complexity of the situation. Incidentally, he does not portray himself as some horrified bystander, criticizing the inhumanity of his pals, but rather as a participant and in some cases instigator of the controversial incidents he describes. And I'm still perturbed by the way in which many conservative writers, most of whom had never been at war themselves, attacked Beauchamp instantly, as if anyone who had less-than-glowing reports to offer from the front was must be lying.
Here is Franklin Foer's lengthy description of the controversy at the New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/article/fog-war
We don't need to rehash this whole deal again, but I brought up as one example of conservatives bashing a soldier who stepped out of (their) line.
Tom Hanks also stars in the DA VINCI CODE series, another erroneous look at something historical. I dig these movies he's producing, but the guy is involved with some questionable material.
I've started callin' em Regressives. It really pisses em off.
In the end I have to go back to my original post. Name one mainstream conservative who supported the war and now opposes it. All you’ve done is provide two Diane West columns that criticize policy. You defend Scott Beauchamp and then back away, claiming that you were merely shocked by the “vitriol” his lies were met with. You say hypocrisy cuts both ways and that I am “passionately defending conservatives against the taint of hypocrisy” when all I’ve done is ask you to prove it. When you can’t, you claim that you were actually agreeing with me (that Hanks’ support is selective) when you asked, “What about the conservatives who suddenly were opposed to the war in Afghanistan once Obama was elected?” Which conservative has proclaimed, “This war is lost”? Which conservative has said, “We cannot win”? Which has said, “I am uncomfortable with the term ‘victory’”? Name him and I will call him out. Because I do not “passionately defend against the taint of hypocrisy”, only against untrue and unsubstantiated allegations.
Have a nice life, MovieMan.
P.S. Are you Tom Hanks?
We did not want their annihilation and we didn´t act like we did and Hanks is simply wrong there. I know the propaganda and the talk and some incidents in the front lines – nothing unusual about it – but even so we never became like them and we were pretty magnanimous victors.
It is undeniable and not surprising that there were elements of racism – compared with the Germans, it was much easier to see the Japanese as completely alien and less than human (although the behavior shown by the Japanese didn´t help at all and the racism went both ways).
Still, I think Hanks went overboard. I cannot speculate as to what he meant; I have to take him at his word.
"…a cause he's indicated over and over he thinks is just"
Yes, and maybe he still does. But many people are herd animals and opportunists – even those with "f**** you money" – and he wouldn´t be the first opportunist in the entertainment industry to make a politically correct adjustment.
"Does one have to jump on every little comment that's "out of line"?"
Only if one wants to
Look, if he misspoke, is it not revealing that he erred in the usual modern-liberal direction? These people always do. The opposite never happens. Hanks would not for a second sound unabashedly jingoistic by mistake because that is not even remotely how these people think (and who would defend him if he did?) And that´s why these small remarks are significant.
It's gotta be something stronger than drugs.
Historical inaccuracies in the "Da Vinci Code?" Nooooooooo . . . hehehehe. Yeah, it was atrocious. Man, now that I think about it – you're so right. The movies he's actually been acting in over the last several years have been abominations. When was the last good movie he actually acted in? "Saving Private Ryan?"
the sinner,
Patrick
Several German Americans were also arrested and put in camps – something we rarely hear about.
Agreed! I refuse to watch Matt Damon now because he decided to spout off his nonsense. A shame, because I really liked the Bourne films…
I almost wonder if he was talking about the mindset that some (mind you, a very extreme minority) held during WW2, about annihilating the Japanese. If that was the case, he should have stated it that way. But I'm afraid that is not what he meant…unfortunate, really.
Does anyone else get the feeling that both Hanks and Spielberg are fighting a war within themselves? They produce these wonderful love-letter series to individuals they probably would publicly excoriate for their personal beliefs. They pay homage to individuals and ideals they, themselves, disdain. I wonder if, given the generations they grew up in, and, possibly, their family lives, they grew up with more solid, common sense (not necessarily conservative, mind you) notions regarding government, the military, sacrifice, etc., but have – either through exposure or a desire to fit in – taken on affectations, at the very least, of the dominate liberal mentality of Hollywood.
the sinner,
Patrick
Great info here. I took a course in Japanese history in grad school – opened my eyes quite a bit.
I wonder if Tom will fall into the ranks of all those who have issued apologies for their statements…"That's not what I meant."
Sorry you´re having commenting troubles; awkward to have a conversation that way.
All I can say is that I hope Hanks thinks it goes without saying because it is an amazing and salient fact. For a few years, the US could have annihilated every nation or regime it wanted (and the people of China or Eastern Europe might have greatly benefited from that). But there was no popular movement for revenge. We sent food and money (the people did, too, not just the government). The internment was a black mark, but one must keep things in perspective – it was an injustice and meant hardship, not annihilation. By all historical standards, no other nation would have behaved like we did. To take this for granted shows a certain unawareness of history.
Let me put it this way: Just 12 years after the end of WW2, Jerry Lewis would make a movie like Geisha Boy. Perhaps Americans are not built to hate.
Hmmm…when will he just come out and apply his moral relativsim to the Nazis or the Japanese Empire?
[...] that title is pretty low-hanging fruit, but I couldn’t resist after Tom Hanks said this: Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in [...]
ha !…Yeah, we debate them – eat their lunch – and then…eat them for lunch !
and that's where we disagree. statiscally, historically, big picture, i see Christendom as the source of overwhelming foundations you and i hold so dear today. science, liberty, democracy, unalienable rights. I do not see these things exploding in other regions of the world, now or in the past. there are pockets, bursts of it, but nothing that ever lasts, at least as the 2000 years of Christianity. and i see judaism as the foundation for that of course. but islam… nope, we can not even say that was part of the American Heritage… except in forcing Jefferson to create a Navy & Marines and fight Allah's enslaving will upon Musselman.
And aren't we just humoring each other, here in the bowels of a forum that just you and I tit for tat?
[...] we are no different than our enemies. We are very, very different.UPDATE: I see that Hot Air and Big Hollywood are also on this, but their concentration is on different quotes from Hanks, which makes me wonder [...]
"All you’ve done is provide two Diane West columns that criticize policy."
Actually I provided one in which she explicitly comes out against the war itself. Not the way it's being fought. The war. Did you read it?
I didn't back away from "defending" Scott Beauchamp. You misinterpreted my post which was, from the beginning, about the response his pieces got – he was called a liar right away, even accused of not being a soldier, because he didn't toe the neocon line. (By the way, the TNR piece – which you should really read if only to sensibly refute – leads me to believe he was probably telling the truth, though I have no way of knowing for sure; it seems like TNR backed away on the basis of technicalities, which they had to do, not because they disbelieved his material). But enough about Beauchamp.
Diane West said virtually all of the above in the second piece I posted. "It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to 'let Afghanistan go.' It is not in our interests to civilize it." If that's not a call for leaving Afghanistan, a condemnation of the war and not just the policies surrounding it, I don't know what it is.
She also describes a debate within the conservative movement here:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns...
Which reminds me, George F. Will also called for us to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan. Care to concede anything yet?
P.S. I wish – then I'd have something better to do than run in circles on an internet message board. (Actually, I do have better things to do but I've been sucked in anyway…priorities, priorities…my lunch is even boiling in the other room and I haven't attended to it yet…)
Incidentally, you didn't respond to my last point. I'm genuinely curious as to whether you've written anything about the Afghan strategy. I'm always interested in different perspectives – especially if not exclusively ones derived from direct experience.
Tell me about it!
In a way, it's down to interpretation – I see oodles of bad faith in these comments, calling him a rectal cancer (?!), swearing not to see any more movies, and I'm just baffled. Isn't this also "dealing with what he 'meant' rather than what he said"? The problem is not with his exact words so much as the context – from the quote we're given it seems he said one thing and not another – that there was a desire to annihilate (natural in a war, if exacerbated more in the past than today) without mentioning that, of course, we didn't take this nearly as far as the Japanese. I'm also not sure what this has to do with "soldiers adjusting when they come home" – he could have explained that better (maybe he did, and it was left out). And, as previously stated, I think the analogy between then and now is not very good.
Ultimately, my issue is less with criticism of Hanks than the tone that criticism was taking in these comments – as if he'd said World War II was unjust or there were no reasons to hate the Japanese, neither of which was true. It sounds like you and I more or less agree on this but emphasize different aspects (in your case, the Hanks argument, in mine the response to it).
Another "awaiting moderation" reply below! Oh well. Didn't something sort of similar happen, in terms of being politically incorrect, with the remarks by Mickey Rourke and Isiah whathisname on Grey's Anatomy?
I think Hanks' statement is less of a "mis-spoke" than it is a self-conscious gesture toward evenhandedness, which is why it comes off so clumsily. In other words, it probably has less to do with his real views on the war than it does with a desire to seem like he's questioning something instead of just celebrating. The feeling that it adds nuance, and so forth (which is true, but it has to be done genuinely rather than tacked on). You see this all the time in movies – even in The Hurt Locker, as a writer on this site recently pointed out. Personally, I'm bothered less by the political content, which I can take or leave depending on how much I disagree with it, than with the rote quality of the PC line, of which I've certainly seen far more egregious examples than this. Not saying I've never been susceptible to it either – but I'm usually dissatisfied when I look back at what I've said/written and notice this.
"And aren't we just humoring each other, here in the bowels of a forum that just you and I tit for tat?"
Perhaps, hollywoodrun, but I've already sunk into the Internet quicksand and stopped struggling! (Seriously, I had several movies to watch and review this morning before work, and I barely managed to even get out & pick them up…)
We could have an interesting discussion about Christianity's beneficent impact on human history but I don't think it's really pertinent to my original point. The Constitution loosely implies a monotheistic framework, yes, but in what sense is it a Christian or even religious document (monotheism seems to me a bit too loose a definition to call strictly "religious")? Now, of course, you didn't say it was, but by constantly stressing the founders' faiths you seemed to be
As for Islam, my point is not that it was a peaceful religion nor that it played any role in early American history but merely that it is also a monotheistic religion and as such the Constitution, as written, is just as much Muslim as it is Christian.
George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I respect Mr. Hanks because of his wish to honor those who fought, but he needs to study and learn. We fought the Japanese because they wanted world domination. We fought them because of Pearl Harbor, The Bataan Death March and the beheading of prisoners. We fought them because of the atrocities in China and because some of their officers practiced Cannibalism on prisoners. And stranglely doesn't this sound familiar, the Trade Center, the beheadings…need I go on!
You bore me, I'm done with you. Thank me for my time.
Marginalizing people is what progressives do. You should know better!
One can not believe in G-d and still believe in the principles of the Constitution because those principles exist whether or not you believe in G-d. That is why there is no religious test for office. It is counter-productive to attack those who understand the importance and relevance of our founding document, simply because they are not carbon copies of you. One can understand and respect the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our country without believing in G-d. You, sir, are being ridiculous.
And "documents" cannot believe in anything.
Truly pathetic. Good timing, though, as I have to go to work now. While there, I can reflect on how I wasted my morning and afternoon trying to reason with someone too stubborn to admit when they're wrong, even nominally. At least the other threads I engaged in were more stimulating.
And your rude rebuff of my interest in your point of view is duly noted. Perhaps next time I engage with a stubborn opponent, I'll be less inclined to indulge in good faith. You've done your "side" proud, srhoades.
And while I won't thank you for a time, I'll glad you thank you for your inadvertent concession. Good day, sir.
You guys don't get it. Tom Hanks is giving us a sneak preview of the mindset of his new WWII series. He probably caught crap from his liberal friends over Band of Brothers being too gung-ho America. I'll bet anybody here that The Pacific will be more like Flags of Our Fathers and less like Sands of Iwo Jima. The message will be far more relativistic, more "relevant" to today (lefty code for, "America is evil, full stop").
If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and pissed off Stalin, we would see a lot more "humanizing" films about Nazis. After all, the Left here in the U.S. were quite supportive of Hitler while he and Stalin were carving up Poland as BFFs. That same Left found themselves having to do an awkard and immediate about-face once the crazy swastika dude marched onto the soil of Mother Russia.
Our founding fathers also included people like the Quakers that fled to America and tried to pass along in the constitution the freedoms that they risked so much for.
We need Christians in our country, they have the qualities that maintaining a republic demands. But that is different than making demands as Christians. As a Christian I woudl rather live a sermon than preach it. The kind of religion you're describing, whether you realize it or not is Islam. After time, you can see where that has led. Yet there was a time when Christians and Jews lived in peace in muslim countries. So, the situation you play out here would end up in a place you may not want to go.
Yes, revisionism is at work, and we need to keep the facts straight. But teaching the past should be studying the past. Pushing an agenda for the future should be clearly labeled as such. You wanted him to admit to something today, so you could step from that place tomorrow, (my take). 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'. (anon)
I challenge trolls constantly and prove them wrong relentlessly. I'm not saying to be quiet. Just be very focused, and instead of shouting someone down, deconstruct their arguement. If you're right lay out the facts and stick to them! Facts are our friends, use them! If one question is ignored, find another one, and another one. I've kept up discussions for days (ask my followers) and respond to each comment usually slightly different just to keep them from using the mantra for any longer I can help.
Discussion is the goal, not indoctrination, that's for the left to use.
As far as religion is concerned; Scientists, atheists or otherwise, blew both their legitimacy and credibility when they allowed 'religious' fundamentalists to formulate the Church of AGW .
Because those in the scientific community (atheist, agnostic or otherwise) allowed for this scientific fraud and manipulation meant to serve a political purpose I, personally, am an Atheist on the subject of scientific truth.
Science Lies, please fix this problem because Science is unbelievable.
Scientists, spout your smart all you want but at the end of the day a rose is a rose and you smell like BS Artists.
[...] John Nolte at Big Hollywood and Allahpundit at Hot Air have weighed in by citing: [Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply [...]
Indeed, what is the government doing definining what is and isn't marriage? Leave that to the private institutions. It's a tenet of conservatism – and a reasonable one – that government does not define what society is or legitimize an institution in some top-down fashion. The debate over gay vs. straight marriage would not have to distract us from other issues if it was left to individuals and churches to debate. Of course this will never happen.
A liberal simply cannot hold non-white people accountable for their actions. He would have us look at Pearl Harbor and say "Wow, they've just committed an act of war on us! Well, we shouldn't fight them back because, you know, they're Asians. And that would just be racist!"
Anyone want my "Saving Private Ryan" DVD before I throw it in the trash?
I asked if an Atheist Conservative believed in the U.S. Constitution that believed in God. That was it. I didn't ask if he was a Christian. I didn't force anyone to believe in anything.
If Atheists want to put the moniker of Conservativism, I want to know what their Conservativism is based on. The French Revolution or the American.
You might be the troll. ? Perhaps? Its debatable right?
Do you actually think that Tom Hanks has ever studied a single history study? This guy would be just another blue collar hearty drinking bud if he hadnot been the lucky actorish guy who accidentially hit the lotto in HollyWeird. Please forgive these freaks for the damage they do.
The context is the foundation of America, and specifically of Conservativism that comes from our Judeo Christian heritage. I want to know, via an Atheist Conservative, if they believe that, or that we are not founded on Christian beliefs. Conservativism is not, for me a BIG TENT Democrat party to please everyone. Others come to conservatism, but come to it, understanding its heritage and truths. I never got to answer my view of him after that… he was too much in a pickle.
so anti-hollywoodron…. that took a lot of effort on your part right? signing up… hiding there… And it's God…. not G-d… you should show some respect. Like the preamble to every state constitution and Blessings of Liberty afforded you in this land. The reason there is no religious test to office, is because Christians get testy with other Christians. They most certainly weren't getting testy with Muslims or Buddhists. And granted Deists… or rather, Christians annoyed by other Christians, certainly made their mark…
But I actually agree with your statement, "On can understand and respect the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our country without believing in God."
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! Please let everyone else on here know, Mr. Anti-Hollywoodron.
The problem, is that, not even that, is being taught.
Troll is an interesting word. It implies one so insistent on his positions that no logic, no facts, not new information will cause them to rethink anything. That's you.
Most are liberal, and almost all are wrong. A very few are right, and are just inflexible.
I am flexible and evaluate positions, I change – but not very often. And you are simply a troll.
There are three monotheistic religions, Judiasm, Islam and Christianity. In each and every post you have made you have flaws in your logic and outlook. And by repeating yourself, by just insisting and refusing to given anyone else air to breath you do indeed act the troll.
You take a little truth and use it as a wedge for your own agenda, that atheists can't have the same God given instincts for freedom and liberty.
In Russia with that stolen from the people the birthrate has dropped, they would rather not pass their situation on to children. They deny God and consquences happen.
Your examples can be picked off one at a time, but you probably wouldn't let anyone really debate you, because you are a troll.
Conservatism is based on it's own merits.
How can that be so hard?
I am glad you respect our Constitution and seem to know what it is, unlike many in this country today.
My point is this: in order to make your point, don't personalize it. It was the brave and wise founders of this country who sacrificed to write the document. It is the brave and wise patriots who continue to support the values found within it.
No matter how valuable and revered it is, it is not a human being. It can not think, reason, or speak. It is up to us to do that.
If he did then he would know that McHale and the gang protected a Japanese sailor.
Another Hollywood Commie siding with our enemies over America. Ho-hum.
Senator McCarthy has been fully vindicated.
So were Italians….
You are correct, those are 20%, and conservatives are 45%. Christians are about 70%. Conservative Christians are the majority of Conservatives. But you prefer the minority, for your argument & to demean me.
You seem quite absolute in your opinion of my posts, what do two trolls like you and me do now.
I'll see you on other bighollywood posts!
Just as long as our schools aren't indoctrinating our kids to think, that Deists & Atheists, barely & inspite of Christians, were somehow able to pull out liberty & justice.
that's what vexes me so.
Has anyone read the Newsweek review? She didn't think it related to Iraq/Afghanistan enough…
It also contains this whopper that needs Retracto's attention:
"Flags of Our Fathers was Eastwood's splashy failure about the men who raised the American flag at Iwo Jima, then re-raised it to stage the famous photograph."
Tom Hanks is so clever the way he let people pay to see his movies but all the while he is just like all the rest or most of bollywood. I wish Hollywood was blown off the map. Hollywood is so responsible for so much crime in this country. Hollywood uses the screen to manipulate the people to see things the way they want them seen.Oh america why do we pay for these idiots to live the way they do and corrupt the USA with the films they have created. Just like the Oscars.Why oh why did the film hurtlocker get the academy? not because it was the best but because it was all political. and we still watch if. oscars broke a record. Tom Hanks you are one that I will never watch anything you are in because you just couldn't keep your big mouth shut. I know and hope that Americans will see you just like shawn penn, susan serandon, tim robbins as a far left idiot who someday will die thanki God and won't be able to use your films for corruption.
"Broadly monotheistic? As in Hindu? Islam? Native American? Pagan? Greek? Atheism?"
How is Islam not monotheistic? And why the laundry list of (otherwise) pantheistic or a-theistic belief systems? I'm not disputing your point that the Constitution is a monotheistic document (though I suppose, if we wanted to parse semantics, I could), just that it's a Christian one.
"As Christians we say God Bless You, does that mean were broadly monotheistic? "
If all you had to go by was that Christians say "God Bless You" than yes, it would be. Likewise with the Constitution. The question is not whether the Founding Fathers were Christians. It's whether or not the Constitution is a Christian document?
"And what other religions of mankind are monotheistic?"
Seriously? If anything, Judaism is MORE monotheistic than Christianity, locating divinity not a tripartite unity, but a singularity. Likewise, a Deism which did not believe in the divinity of Christ would also be monotheistic. And I'm still not sure why you discount Islam as a monotheistic religion.
"The source of our divine providence, our blessings of liberty come from the Judeo-Christian, our sense of tolerance and openness as well. Is Hindu or Islam or Man-state atheism as tolerant and open to others as Christendom? Comparatively!?"
This is kind of a moot point, not pertaining to the specifics of the Constitution, but to humor it I'd say that "Christendom" has historically been more tolerant and open than some cultures, and less so than others. Ultimately, it comes down to individuals and societal conditions, with belief systems playing a role but not a dominant one in my eyes. For centuries, many Christians ignored the inconvenient parts of their faith – the social gospel of Jesus, the nonviolence. Just as I don't countenance the atheists' favorite argument that "Religion caused all the world's evil" I also don't buy the argument that it – or Christianity specifically – caused all the world's good. I think religion can be a motivating factor but ultimately it comes down to people and to human nature, both good and bad.
Pearl Harbor was an inside job! (I'm a Harborer)
Also, the next time you go to a tea party, I want you to bear a sign or two, like:
Christianity is Questionable
or
We Don't Believe God Gave Us Rights
or
No God, Just Acceptance
or
Atheism isnt Anti-God….We Just Don't Want God in any Discussion or Questions
And if I'm a troll… so is Jesus Christ, George Washington, John Adams, Noah Webster, & how dare Jefferson try and re-edit the New Testament! What a troll he was!
So MAKE SURE… next Tea Party, tell'em… NO GOD. Take GOD out. America is a Godless nation… our Constitution, Independence, Anthem, every State Constitution… NO GOD.
I once read "The Maker of Modern Japan: The Life of Tokugawa Ieyasu." At least the Japanese were consistent. If that book is an accurate account, and I think it is, I learned that the Japanese were as barbaric and sadistic in their treatment of their own as they were of us.
After Tokugawa's forces won a battle during the many he fought conquering the rest of Japan, it was followed up with a "Viewing of the heads." Apparently all of the the defeated forces were beheaded.
Even after immersing myself in the study of such a culture for a while (as an amateur historian), I still couldn't get my head around the sheer barbarity of those people.
I think Hanks' statement indicates that his study of his movie subject matter is a bit superficial and is a good example of the old saw, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
The "Law of Warfare," as much as that term seems almost an oxymoron, exists, if I recall my history correctly, "so that a return to peace is possible." Brutalizing a foe in battle and following their defeat, as we found out after the Versailles debacle, just sends them away to lick their wounds until they can attack us again. The Japanese dehumanized the war in the Pacific, not us. They should thank their lucky stars we weren't like them or the "viewing of the heads" throughout Japan after they surrendered would have gone on for months.
PS: For another good read on some little-known info about the Pacific War, read Senator Jim Webb's book, "The Emperor's General." It's a novel about the US occupation of Japan, MacArthur, the Emperor, and the war crimes trials that took place after the surrender. MacArthur was "handled" by the Emperor. Hirohito maneuvered well and managed to prevent any members of the Japanese extended royal family who were responsible for war crimes from ever being tried and executed.
That is a crying shame because so many of them, including Hirohito, deserved to hang.
I am careful when I form my opinions. And I have changed my mind on things due to posters on Breitbart. but I only post when I am sure I disagree, or want to encourage someone on the right track.
With your approach I was sure I disagreed with you, and as a troll you keep 'repeating' yourself instead of 'explaining' yourself. Just saying something over and over makes it no more right than it was the first time, hence 'troll' applies. But usually liberals use those tactics.
I demean your position and tactics.
I show why your logic is wrong and how you distort facts.
The way you say Christians are 70% for example, how do you define Christian? Several denominations are not so conservative, Catholics push for open borders and programs for illegal aliens, some want same sex marriages. So, you take a word and use it for your own agenda regardless of it's original meaning.
I prefer to let people use forums like this to discuss, not indoctrinate.
I went to the tax day tea party. Non since, but keep in touch with some members.
Since Christians seperate spiritual and worldly issues (render unto ceaser….) they attend and are active as Americans with constitutional values. No one spoke as 'a Christian' or 'an athiest' just Americans with common bonds and values. Most of those values are consistent with Judeo Christian backgrounds, but that was not spelled out, or shown to be a requirement. Why are you so antagonistic? Why do you try to shoehorn the founding fathers into a box? They had a wide range of opinions on all kinds of things! That's why the confederation of states was tried until it was shown to be unworkable. Then they moved on, but there was a lot of wide ranging opinions in the hall. You impose your own views on history, that is revisionism at it's worst. The left does that, we don't need to.
We do need got as citiizens if we are going to discharge our responsibilities as a citizen correctly. And we can be a guiding beacon to those who haven't learned of God yet. But anytime morality is legislated or forced it's a disaster and becomes something horrible, as has happened to Muslim extremism.
If I go to another tea party, I will be discussing lots of thing, but it would be poor manners to preach of lecture to people that are just as sincere, just as intelligent and just as loyal to their country as I am.
Who are you to talk down to anyone else as desperate to build up our country as you?
Exchange ideas and let them come to their own conclusions. If your ideas merit it, they will agree in time.
Actually, no, I don't. I was pointing out that the question you posed made no sense.
I believe in Liberty. Since I'm agnostic, I posit that it is possible that it comes from a deity's actions, but would believe in it even if no deities existed to do so or even if all the deities and demons out there demanded I do not.
Oh, and your proselytizing is politely refused. You will just have to learn that some people have the same exposure to the Scriptures and aren't as inspired. Others may accept it, feel free to politely ask them and they might do so, though I suspect your manner will drive them further away than you can possibly imagine.
Actually, progress is movement towards a goal, so the progressives do count as progressive. Their leaders likely don't want people (especially their rank and file) to know what the goal they're progressing towards really is so they try to use the usual assumption that "progress" is something good as camoflauge.
Calling them liberals on the other hand, is horribly inaccurate. Liberty isn't their goal. Privileges granted by government fiat is more accurate.
The loud noise was the way overdue crashing of Hanks career, as far as I'm concerned anyway.
[...] Tom Hanks: America wants to annihilate terrorist because they’re different – Listen to Peter Heck on the subject. [...]
Exactly. My Italian grandparents had their short wave radio confiscated.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll look for it!
Atheism… does not mean agnostic, nore does it mean… I'm a Conservative. If someone is going to claim they are an Atheist Conservative, as opposed to just a Conservative, I'm going to ask them, well since you are an Atheist, "against God", then do you believe that we are endowed with rights by God or not? The core of this nation, the core of our freedoms. If they can accept that that is the belief of the United States of America, then we can move on. But if they believe that inspite of Christianity, the 'Deists' & 'Atheists' were able to pull of this Great Nation, that's where I have a problem and will call them out. EVERYTIME. (that's what I was taught in public school)
Anyone that states they are an Atheist Conservative, is someone going to a Tea Party with a big sign saying, NO GOD NEEDED. That person started their message on this board, with their Identity & Proclamation, not me. It's time we confront Atheist proclamators with their own WORD, Against God.
You twist and distorty words and meanings. You want to demean atheists and belittle them. For that you are not intellectually honest.
Conservatism isn't a religious thing, it's a 'choice' thing. A conservative wants a small government, a government that lets the individual make their own choices, live their own lives.
The reason the founders wanted that may not be the same reason anyone else may want that.
Go ahead, try to makeit more difficult than that. But even if you repeat yourself dozens of times you will still be making an issue that isn't necessary or even advantageous.
If you want to impose religion as a requirement for conservatism then you are trying to force something that God does not want forced on anyone. "Free Will' is one of the most basic of beliefs for Christians. Do not speak for God unless you understand and promote the principals that God lays out.
So you respond by revising things too?
People believe things, objects do not believe things.
The founding fathers believed in liberty and freedom. They laid down the why's but the active part of the constitution and declaration of independence was clear that the actions were to limit government. That people were more important!
Anyone that has that approach is a conservative, for what ever reason they take that position. Why do you insist anything more than that?
You want to impose your agenda on others, and that makes you just as corrupt as the liberals who want to do the very same thing.
But why would you believe that we have inalienable rights? Is it scientific? Logical?
It's a belief. Literally a faith. There's no scientific method to prove we have rights. Thusly, we can not brainwash our kids to think Atheism somehow brought about our belief in inalienable rights. It doesn't. And as a kid, I was brainwashed to believe that, especially of our Founding Fathers, but now, actually reading their glorious letters and exholtations, I realize how deeply rooted their Christian faith brought them to liberty & justice…FOR ALL.
if we forget that, or ignore that, or revise history, as they even warned, we will be doomed.
If you find my proselytizing offensive, well… Jesus wasn't exactly welcomed in his 1-3 year attempt at it… I mean, didn't end well for him.
Let me be clear. You have an interesting take, but I have a problem with it.
The people of California had an election and made marriage part of the state constitution.
Government if following the spirit of the founders would say that the people had spoken! Then it would be limited in it's actions opposing the will of the people, or their freedom to make that choice.
For us to back off and let the 'social liberals' impose the courts over the will of the people, that's liberalism and they will want government interfering in every part, not just the social parts of society.
Governor Arnold is a perfect example that there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative/social liberal.
You keep telling me I'm a troll, and what I can or can not do. And since you defined me as a troll, why keep posting?
All I want, is for an Atheist (against God) to acknowledge where he is. If he can't, then I know, his Atheism was brainwashed and not of Reason. Even Thomas Paine was a deist & understood the concept, though no Church would accept his body for burial.
Turns out Hanks is just another Hollywood douche.
will you stop implying I'm a liberal, a troll… I have a voice, I have an opinion and I have a right to say it.
our founding fathers believed in liberty and freedom…. WHY!? Why?
because it just exists? because a scientific method proved it? WHY?
Can I be a Communist Conservative? A Satanists Conservative? A DrugAddict Conservative? A ShariaLaw Conservative? A HinduBrahman Conservative? Are any of these Big Tent groups good with out, as long as we don't ask or call them out on their beliefs?
When Thomas Jefferson asked the Islamic ambassador for his citizens back, should he have accepted that Allah ordained it was the right of Muslims to take Americans as slaves? Is that the freedom & liberty you want?
Last week I was in a discussioin with a muslim who kept insisting that Islam and Christianity were equals. Every single reason I explained that made us different? You tear them down! We love freedom of choice! Freedom of religion, the ability to make our own decisions free of fear of intimidation. That Christianity is a personal thing that changes us, not forces change on anyone else but us as an individual.
You use Christianity as a battering ram, a club to smack people around, and I see nothing in my Bible that says that, not in the new testament.
I see you taking founding documents and missing the point of those documents, freedom for the individual without anyone, not even the government having the power to interfere with that ability for the 'governed' to make their own path towards happiness.
I didn't use troll in this last posting, if you saw that then you need to wonder if it's something you need to consider as you compose your posts.
And one of our best allies in our struggle for independence was France, an athiest nation. Go figure, they wanted liberty as well.
Read it again. It was endowed by their 'creator'. What do atheists believe created them? That's what they feel they were given the craving, the need for freedom.
When a Christian works with the Holy Spirit and can witness to an unbeliever.. then the new convert can make better sense of all this. But it's an individual process that done in God's time, not ours. And for us to force and browbeat anyone is wrong.
Inalienable rights are rights that can't be separated from us as humans. It is part of what makes us human, and it doesn't need faith, it needs our humanity.
well, their majority are Christians, but yes their Constitution states that the State gives them rights. And thusly can take them away.
their revolution was influenced greatly by ours, even Thomas Paine, I believe, went over there to work with them. But the end result of their revolution, like so many precepts of Atheism, was a brutal genocide of any dissenters… including Robespierre… They turned him upwards, so he could watch the blade come down.
& Paine barely got out with his life.
But France is not an Atheist nation, though close. Though yes, their Constitution does not believe in God.
You have a voice, and the right to your opinion, just as I do.
When I feel you misrepresent things, I will use my right just as you use yours.
Christians have a job to do in this world. A light with the task of lighting up the world! But as individuals. As a nation self defense it a responsibility we can share with unbelievers, and against any threat, even religious ones like extremist islam.
It's amazing that someone with strong beliefs hasn't examined those beliefs and refined them more.
I read your comment to bronxzionist that you wanted to keep him squirming. You should go back and re-read your posts. You do your best to browbeat everyone and shout them down by repeating the same flawed question over and over. The question is as flawed as the old "is this the first time you beat your wife' question. It has no answer that can be accurate, not entirely. And it makes no sense in any rational way. It's just a way for you to make people uncomfortable. That's why people keep giving you thumbs down.
but humanity… where'd that come from? you keep wanting to rename, that which is quite simple… our belief in God. The Humanities, Age of Reason, the Renaisance, Science, Liberty, Abolition… all came from the West, from Christian Europe, the only place in the world with Christianity. Not from the more populace China or India or S.America… but from Christian lands… And Atheism existed long before Christianity, why didn't it have some HUGE movement somewhere?
My frustation is not in Atheists, I love Ayn Rand! But in the attempt by Communist Atheists to make us and our children believe Atheism in Europe is what saved us. That's the core of my frustation, and one I know first hand, one I believed as FACT growing up. When I never read the writings of our founding fathers, etc…
So I want to call out anyone who adds the label of Atheist to Conservative, or anything really. I don't want to kill them or imprison them or guillotine them, I just want them to acknowledge our God given rights, at least that the nation they live in believes that, not necessarily that they believe that!
I am very rough around the edges… yes.
He has his little take on things, and is so invested in it he can't admit he's wrong or fighting where the battle isn't.
well i havent done any thumbs at all.
yes i do put people in a corner. But you know, that person put Atheist Conservative in there, and was making a statement. So I have a right to call it out. Politely or not.
I'll try and reword it for the better….
Like 'burn in hell' or 'eternal damnation' ya know…something not so browbeating!
It is a 'secular' nation. Hence they ban the muslim headscarf.
And we are technically a secular nation as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Our constitution forbids a state run church, that makes us a secular nation. No church runs our government, we have the freedom to make our own choices regarding how we worship.
Score, point, game.
Also, your view of Paine is not the view of most historians.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/paine….
And in insisting on your approach I feel you are wrong.
You insist that conservatism is something other than what it is.
Humanity is more easily understood with judeo-christian values. But even Christians understand that unbelievers were created in God's image and have intrinsic value as humans. The belief of the true God existed longer than the denial of that God.
I disagree with atheism and those who take that approach to life. But to make them squirm and try to force them to admit anything is not with Biblical teachings. It's up to the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin, not ours. So, I find myself disagreeing with you more stridently than those I am repelled by. Your approach ends up leading to the Spanish Inquisition, when followed to it's ultimate end.
And you still miss the point. That makes it clear you are still meeting the criteria I put out earlier on what defines a troll.
And you continue to define 'conservative' as something it's not.
To put atheism and conservative together may not be common, but it's not impossible.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservativ...
ahhh.. bummer… i thought we were getting somewhere. with our Christian mutual belief. See? Just like Christians of old, we disagree.
So you are winning, because you give me a link to PositiveAtheism? & a wikipedia link?
Forbidding a state run church? Do you not know that is the tenent of Christianity? That when Christians made the Constitution, they knew full well the desire of limiting the Ceasar from that which is God's?
Thomas Paine was not one of our official founding fathers. My view is that he was a Deist, he did believe in natural law. You probably were force fed his Age of REason,but just as popular or more so back then, was the Age of Revelation… yet our schools will not show both sides of our wonderful history.
So as Christians we can not spread the message of Christ?
And you know the history of the Spanish Inquisition right? Here's some google words to help you.. Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula, the Moors, Islamic slave armies, Reconquesta, Battle of Tours 732A.D., 1400 years. Inquistion courts, & finally, maybe 3000 executed over a 300 year period, but only if they claimed they were Christians, but were in actuality, using the islamic doctrine of Taqiyya to further Islam, & betray the defenses of the cities of Spain.
student news daily????
COME ON!!!
You thought we were getting somewhere?
You keep repeating you same position and back it up with one sided and a limited version of people and things.
When I don't just repeat my position but give you places to start in opening up your one sided views doesn't mean I'm retreating. I'm simply calling in reinforcements. When you claim Paine was against atheism and atheists claim he was an atheist there is a gap there you can't jump.
I understand separation of church and state. That's why I say a person can be a 'atheist conservative'. We've gone a full circle, and it shows the flaw in your position and question.
I'm firmly aware of the spanish inquisition.
Catholics were fighting for their lives against the invading moors.
But the inquisition was also used against heritics, or protestants and jews. Boiling water was poured down their throats and they would convert to catholicism and then died in the Lord, as approved by the priest. There was use of racks and other tortures, and it wasn't tolerated by the church but done by the church.
If the Church wasn't running the state it never would have happened. If someone's religious loyalties could have been separated from their political loyalty the inquisition never would have happened. That ability to keep those two issues independent of each other is what has made the current freedoms possible.
And you toss that out when you refuse to admit 'atheist conservatism' could be possible.
Then prove the content wrong.
Liberals attack the source instead of the content. If you think you're better than rise above their tactics.
I never said they couldnt be an Atheist Conservative. I merely wanted to know their stance on the founding of this great nation. I keep repeating myself because you are not reading… & keep accusing me of hogwash. Paine was against Atheism? Where'd that come from?
Seperation of church and state? Where'd that come from? Do you even know?
You keep acting like a liberal… linking to wiki & atheism & studentnews… calling me a troll outright.. playing with the THUMB monitor… acting like its all a BIG TENT and we gott multicultural multi-diversity issue here. LIBERAL!!!
I never refused to admit Atheist Conservatives!!!!! Where'd you get that? Because I have a belief and want to know theirs?
You are a liberal, your Inquisition knowledge is Liberal Academia. In war, there is collateral damage, but for you, its an excuse to use it as a tool of failure. And to say "if only" the Spanish were nicer? When for 700 years they were slaves to & in fear of the Islamic regimes? How nice should the sex & war slave ridden Christians should have been?
LIIIIIIIIIBEEEEEEEEERRRRRRALLLLLLLLL…….
Uh
this
is
ab
su
rd.
This shows you were being absurd.
Yes, I'm just a horrible person for thinking that a person should have the freedom to want a small less intrusive government. That a persons religion and views shouldn't be a test before joining my political views. That our founding fathers wanted it that way too!
If that makes me a liberal, it's news to me. And facts are facts. The source is secondary to the facts themselves. If I had given right wing sources then any liberal following this would have tossed them out.
The catholics have admitted to the history as I laid it out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3809983.stm
Troll.
"That a persons religion and views shouldn't be a test before joining my political views."
then what should be the test of someone joining your political views?
The political views they hold of course.
Why do you keep making this so hard?
And once again you avoid content.
And you have given no links supporting your views either, I might add.
so their views should not be tested or questioned, so a liberal commie could be a Conservative?
And yes… Conservativism is HARD. It is not easy. It is not fluffy or open to all ideals. Principles, conviction, intergity… its tough man. Not easy.
The BBC, that article…. is a vacuum of Liberalism. You're being brainwashed man… brainwashed.
What were the Kings and Emperors doing in those days? The pagan villages? The Chinese Dynasties, the Mayans, the Zulu Warchiefs? The Islamic slave trade? What was going on? Peaceful hippy love fest?
The Spanish Inquisition, then the European Inquisition… was that all the horrors of mankind at that time? And thusly Atheists were innocent? Pagans?
when a village sought to sacrifice its infants to the Earth god…. well… unlike you, I'd go all Inquisition on'em… You see, Liberals act like everyone is all innocent till Christ came along, and you take it hook line & sinker. The world was full of sacrificing, it was full of blood letting & live & die by the sword paganism…. that was what Christian men & women were dealing with!
CONTENT…..
If you would actually admit to what Conservatism is, then it would solve a lot of your artificially inflated issues.
Their political views should decide what party they join, since political activism is voluntary! (unlike muslims) If they don't agree then they don't have to join a party or attend a meeting. That's the nice part of a free system, people go where they want and do as they wish, why worry about weeding out?
Conservatism is a framework of less government and less intrusion where it doesn't belong. You still don't get it, do you?
Why make it hard? So you can pretend you're sophisticated and intelligent on the subject? Why not just allow the simple to be simple?
You troll.
The article points out something you won't admit to. Not only did the article stick to facts but it pointed out that the inquisition was religious persecution against other christians. It was Catholics using persecution to solidify their power base and hold on the people.
Germany burned hundreds, and no muslims were handy to blame it on.
The papacy did stop the muslim masses at tours, it was a part of the picture, but not the significant part you paint it to be. And you still don't site any sources to back you up.
How many would you like from me?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/sp... />http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html
/>
more reading might include:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yb8YAAAAYAAJ&dq=...
the person i questioned, stated he was an Atheist Conservative.
Is that simple? Is that Conservative? Is Atheist Conservative the framework?
Conservative… now that's simple.
i take it you read all of that.
and so Atheist Conservatives should not be tested or questioned.
Okay, you win. I'll see you on the bighollywood boards…
Troll!!!!
It is simple, and it can be conservative if he is against a big government intruding outside the framework the founding father's laid out.
Wow, how easy can it be?
I grew up with all that. I had a Christian School education that made us learn and think.
Well in your mind… that easy.
I agree. In your mind.
Well I grew up in the public education system, and we were taught that Atheists & Deists freed us from Christian oppression. And that our Founding Fathers had to fight off the Christians. And that Science is absolute Atheism. And that Logic is absolute Atheism, Reason is Athiesm…
oh i see you're not Thumbing me down now, thanks!
In Israel it's religious courts, not secular courts that rule on marriage and divorce.
If the state stepped out of the religious ceremony and stuck to civil unions, it would really shake things up. What would the lawyers do?
oh i see you're not thumbing me down now.. thanks!
And almost everyone's but yours.
At the tea party protest I went to, everyone understood it! And united around it!
You should pick up the book "Una Storia Segreta" which is written in English, only the title is in Italian I believe. It reveals to those, like Hanks, that Italian nationals as well as some certified American citizens, were indeed interred. Not in the numbers of the Japanese but their civil rights were completely taken away (for security reasons). My grandparents' radio was also taken. My grandparents had to carry an "Enemy Alien" care at all times. They were not allowed to work in any area that could be deemed vulnerable to sabotage. Outlined in this book is the story of the Great Joe Di Maggio's family and how his own father was not allowed to visit his son's restaurant because Italian nationals were forced to stay miles away from the coastline. In San Pedro, virtually all the Sicilian Fisherman had to turn over their boats, their livelihood, the government. They were remunerated at a bargain basement price, but, it interrupted their American dream with dire consequences. Yet, I know of no Italian American that didn't consider this a necessary evil at the time. Of course there are/were some that thought it as fascist as Benito but still they smiled with pride as their sons marched off to stop "the other side". A sad tale overall, but IMO, Italians of that generation were more realists and rejected the notion of victim-hood. Btw, I believe the Japanese and Japanese Americans were equally silent on this matter but for the feel good social workers that had to show the world how utterly cruel the "Americans" really are/were. Visit this site: http://hcom.csumb.edu/segreta/
Then you have a chance to education yourself and free yourself from a flawed indoctrination.
The Heritage Foundation is a great place to start.
Some atheists were brought up and indoctrinated in the same way. And even believing what they were taught, they instinctively crave more.
It's a learning opportunity, not a browbeating opportunity.
You think?
Tom Hanks is a coward and idiot. Don't watch his movies!!!!!!!!
HBO sucks and I will not watch their new series with Hanks involvement.
Liberals have turned against freedom!!!!! Make them pay!!!!
From the Heritiag Foundation:
These are not idle questions. In 2008, the political scientist James Ceaser observed that for 30 years, the conservative movement in the United States has been defending ideas "that almost all other nations in the West are abandoning": "the concept of the nation itself," "the importance of Biblical religion," and "the truth of natural right" philosophy. Traditionally, Americans have adhered to a form of national self-understanding that scholars term American exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan did, and he carried the country with him. Now, increasingly, the Reaganite vision of American goodness and uniqueness that most conservatives embrace seems both more exceptional and more vulnerable than ever.
Hey I think I'm gonna like this site!!!
It's the kind of Place Tom Hanks needs to study before he opens his mouth next time.
I didn't forget about God. I left Him where He belongs, in the spiritual and personal level, not the political level. If God works on the heart, then the person will make the right political choices.
I agree, I agree. My problem is that kids today aren't evening getting to know God, to choose him or not.
I feel like Atheist have the platform, at school, universities. So i gotta call them out whenever they rear their anti-God heads.
The "rectal cancer" thing is an allusion to something Sean Penn recently said.
I think the reason why comments are so exasperated is because it is all so damn predictable.
I am not FORCING anything. I asked a question. I merely wanted to know what their belief was about the foundatoin of this nation. As an ex-Atheist… That's it. I don't understand why you think I'm forcing anything?
The BBC!!!!! Yay!!!!!!!!
& God! don't forget God!!!!!!
If you find my proselytizing offensive, well… Jesus wasn't exactly welcomed in his 1-3 year attempt at it… I mean, didn't end well for him.
You're not Jesus, so I'm sure the results will be worse for all involved.
"They laughed at Gallileo!" "They laughed at Bozo the Clown, too."
Excellent article and response to the Hands, Spielberg, and Brinkley article in Time Magazine. Thank you – I agree!!!!!
If you feel that is your job as a Christian, please show me a text.
It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict us.
[...] John Nolte at Big Hollywood has some powerful commentary on Hanks: …when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross< And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today. This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high. But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong.We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies. But that’s not who we are. Whether they’re “yellow, slanty-eyed dogs that worship different gods” or the people of the Middle East who share the same language and religion as those pledged to murder us, America selflessly protects the innocent who are “different” and as humanely as possible seeks to “annihilate” only those — even if they’re not “different” (like, say, Germans and Italians)– who practice an ideology that actually does believe annihilating those who are different. You almost get the sense that Hanks suddenly felt uncomfortable talking about America so extensively without throwing a bone to his MSNBC fanbase. [...]
And in insisting on your approach I feel you are wrong.
You insist that conservatism is something other than what it is.
Since he's spoken of being "brainwashed" before I'm starting to wonder if he's a recent convert. People like that sometimes have an overzealous urge to outdo themselves because they believe they have found the "Ultimate Truth" and must browbeat all into following it.
This mini-series will be shown on HBO. I dropped HBO a year ago because of ignorant dipsh!tz like Bill Maher. Looks like Tom Hanks' ignorance is now showing. Tom, you're a suckup and a disappointment.
your website links to liberal agendas, watching the right, Right Watch…
you know that right?
and it is our christian duty to spread the word of the gospel.
Galileo!!!??? Oh no, you brought up the typical Liberal sneak attack!
Do you know who sponsored Galileo's hyposthesis? The Pope.
Do you know why he was in court? Because his mocking & ridicule as the dunce character in his book as the opposing viewpoint. You see the Pope was intrigued by his hyposthesis but wanted him to write it out with both sides, both viewpoints addressed. So Galileo used a smart man as his viewpoint and a dunce Pope as the other. Now imagine Galileo back then, mocking a King or Emperor, in a published dissertation. What would have happened to him? Well, the hearings, a court session, on Galileo's mockery of the one who financed & supported him, was the trial… NOT what the 50s Broadway play or recent school textbooks claim as science persecution by religious fanactics. A court hearing that resulted in 6 months house arrest at a Villa.
So yes, YOU ARE RIGHT, I'm not Jesus…. the results will be worse for all involved.
I am well aware that we are to spread the gospel.
So, go back to your question. How does that spread the gospel?
If you want to be cute and aggressively promote your point of view great! But don't blame it on religion.
1 Peter 3:15 explains our job. We are to explain the hope we have within us. That includes our born again experience, the things God has done for us, the future we look forward to.
Can you explain were politics comes into that? \”Render unto ceasar…\” Have the political views you want, but just be honest enough to explain it's political views.
On using liberal websites. In case you haven't noticed there are liberal trolls (amongst other trolls) on this forum. They refuse to listen to conservative sites, so if I can find the same information on their own sites it kneecaps their arguments. It is a shrewd way of avoiding a shouting contest with them, and you still haven't shown where the stories I linked to were wrong.
You pretend to stand for the 'right' (in the debate between right and wrong) yet use all the tactics of the left!
You refuse to debate facts. You refuse to actually debate instead of repeating yourself.
You use trick questions that have no answers, you refuse to fine tune or re-evaluate your positions.
That makes you a troll pretending to be doing it 'for' Christianity. Don't bother, it makes us all look bad.
so you're saying, my way of spreading the gospel is wrong.
and your links, like to the BBC, is why Big Hollywood exists… these links are not facts but liberal agenda. and its wierd, i keep answering, & explaining yet you keep saying i dont. just because what i answer destroys you accusations doesn't mean… i'm not answering.
you just are learning. i dont need to google a subect to reply to you. or find a link like positive atheism… ON THOMAS PAINE!!
that's a hoot. i really gaped, mouth wide open, when you sent that lil google link. because you and i both know, you now squat aobut the Spanish inquisition, Thomas Paine… you had to send me google links, saying nothing in your own words. typing only libearl outlines that despise Christianity.
I'm done with you. and your google links. DONE.
i dont need google search lessons, links to bbc, google docs, studentnews… DONE.
Which facts were wrong? You never answer that, not with even another link backing up your 'selective version' of things.
What you were spreading wasn't the gospel. Not the gospel the Bible preaches.
why does your IDENTITY, have a main website that links to this? http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hom...
i mean… YOU ARE A LIBERAL in disguise aren't you? that sight has a RIGHTWING WATCH, against the Religious Right, for Obama judge candidate… Why are you attacking and accusing me of liberalism… when all this time, your main website link, is a Liberal Activism in the guise of patriotic American Way??? YOu are a shill man. You are an outright deceiver. YOu are attacking me, while purporting a multi cultural big tent liberal agenda. Your website link from your intensedebate info, is LIBERAL. Nuff said… I can't keep replying to a liar. No need to respond, I will not read anymore of your posts. A lie is a lie is a lie and your link finally has told me the truth.
You simply fear someone who knows history, that can show that you are shallow and unable to reason.
You are probably jealous because I can point to historical truths even on websites hostile to my own world view. And you can't seem to find anyone to back up your flawed historical version even on friendly sites. Poor you.
I am many things, but I don't have to stoop to lying. Being a conservative is easy, being a troll isn't.
So, it's no wonder you're so cranky all the time.
The pope had his own church try Galileo?
And what reading and academically accepted source did you get that from?
Or was it the little dancing unicorns that told you?
and im sure assface wouldnt say anything if he had children die in Beslin or on 9/11 or in Madrid.
Kendama
Amen!!!
[...] that he wasn’t really as big a fan of American exceptionalism as his work might suggest. Here’s what he said:[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a [...]
what a sickening display from this piece of crap…..I wish I ran into this POS somewhere in NY….Guy like him needs to be told off..media has no balls. Him, Spiel and Obama are arrogant assholes.
My family were mainly partisans in Italy but I had one great uncle that actually fought on the American side in the navy. I have another great uncle who was a sort of partisan mascot. You see, he was a young boy and managed to take out a German plane after having been shot. I always thought he was kidding when he told that story until I got older and found out he really did do it.
A friend's father was an American prisoner of war. I forget when he was captured but I visited the place in Texas once where he was imprisoned. He never complained about his treatment either. He's no longer alive now but her whole family came here after the war and may even be more pro-American than I am.
And um… that name of yours…. Shame!
Your the first person to even comment on my screen name. I was gonna change it but I used it so many times that I feel like I'm being deceptive if I do.
He's using my selection of Galileo to have a case of the vapors because Galileo's tale is… embellished by progs as "proof" that all Christians are icky, anti-science, etc. Alas, I was paraphrasing some old saying where someone was trying to defend a view by proclaiming "they laughed at-" someone important and the counter being that "they" laughed at a clown too.
I guess I should have picked another scientist or person whose views were disputed so he wouldn't be able to seize upon it and make a rant. Maybe the bit about Bozo the Clown hit a bit too close?
I didn't realize he thought Bozo was an inflexible troll?
This guy has a very original view of many things in history, including that the inquisition was somehow against the moors?
Be careful what sources you use for him, he's going to call it a liberal source and then think you're a closet liberal.
An American friend of mine somehow got the idea the word meant cool. Yep, she managed to say it loudly right in the middle of a room full of Italians. She still thinks it doesn't even sound vulgar at all.
I say leave it. In a way it's kind of humorous given how some English words that aren't super offensive are censored here.
I'd like to see Hanks humanize The Bataan Death March.
Tom Hanks has sunk to the level of nearly every other hollywood celebrity. He clearly knows very little about WWII and the dynamics that made up the Pacific and European theaters and even less about the wars we are fighting today! Was there hatred and demonizing rhetoric about our enemies, absolutely – wake up Mr. Hanks (and Speilberg, Penn, Glover, Robbins and the rest of the ignorant "thesbians" of hollywood) it's called war! But look at the history of this great nation – we are far from perfect but despite our imperfections look at our track record. Yes, the "left" and those "americans" that simply hate this country can certainly point to event like Mei Lai, Abu Grehb, and perhaps a couple of incidents at Gitmo but contrary to their pathetic opinions any such incidents are the exception, not the rule! Remember Mr. Hanks, this is also the same country that rebuilt Japan. Pretty interesting actions for a nation driven solely by hatred, bigotry and greed! We also rebuilt Germany and much of Europe – so much for the "spoils of war"!
SIMPLE FACT IS —having made BILLIONS upon BILLIONS looking the other way, at best,
while catering to the franchise-slum denial needs of the —MOST— awesomely genocidal
regime in history —ACROSS the Pacific —the self-serving Hollywood moral alibi of choice
remains the ad nauseum, anachronistic PC WWII retread —uh, we mean 'tribute'.
Meanwhile, BOTH the 20th Anniversary of the Tiennamen Massacre —and the 60th
Anniversary of the epic, urgently relevant and STILL unfolding KOREAN WAR
were once again 'mysteriously overlooked'…
"Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world."
Nope, it's because you saw them as yellow slant-eyed dogs. Just as you annihilated the 'red-skinned dogs' and brutally exploited the 'black-skinned dogs' just a century earlier.
Just as you see every dark-skinned person from the middle-east as a terrorist.
While the only terrorism that goes on there is the one you are sponsoring in the Palestine and the one you have sponsored in your proxy wars against the 'red-commie bastards'
You must be logged in to post a comment.