Posted on 10/21/2016 11:27:37 AM PDT by Steelfish
Tom Hanks Sees US Election Warning in Thriller 'Inferno' By JILL LAWLESS, Oct 21, 2016
Embedded within the manic action of "Inferno," the latest big-screen adaptation of a Dan Brown thriller, is a warning about the dangers of seeking simple solutions to complex problems. Star Tom Hanks says it's a theme with echoes in the current U.S. presidential race.
"Inferno" sets Hank's polymathic professor Robert Langdon on the trail of a deadly plague concocted by billionaire scientist Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster) out of a sort of warped humanitarianism: He plans to end war, poverty and famine by wiping out half the world's population.
Hanks says the belief that there's a "one-step answer to all problems" is alarmingly relevant.
"Down through history there's been an awful lot of people who say: Here's what the problem is, here's what it was caused by, and all you have to do is my suggestion, there's an easy way in order to make it go away," Hanks said.
"It's very simplistic, it's very reactionary. It's almost like a fundamental embracing of a brand of ignorance," he added. "But I think it's part of the political discourse."
Hanks clearly has the contest between Trump and Clinton in mind.
America, he says, needs "vision and leadership and scope, as opposed to one-stop shopping fixes all."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
LOL
Hey Hanks, you dumbass, enjoy the drunk driving illegals in the People’s Republic of California when they crash into your limo while they’re driving 90 miles an hour.
Of course it is!! There are NEVER easy answers to hard questions.
Like when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have set up a think tank to figure out WHY they bombed us instead of going gung ho into war.
And thinking that killing more of them than they do of us would work. How simple minded.
He peaked at “Bachelor Party.”
Clancy’s Rainbow 6 had a similar premise.
Simple solution: Welfare
Simple solution: Social Security
Simple solution: Medicaid
Simple solution: Section 8 housing
Etc...
Tom should talk with fellow actor Leonardo DiCaprio, we think that all environmental problems will be solved by the simple solution of immediately stopping the burning of all fossil feels to power our modern industrial society.
I never understood all the gushing praise for him from the critics either. In every movie I've seen him in, I feel like I'm watching Tom Hanks rather than the fictional character Tom Hanks is supposed to be portraying.
He and his wife financed the first Fat Greek Wedding movie.
then they did the second in an orgy of PC BS that deserved to fail at the box office.
Hanks is killing his box office.
He should shut up and focus of being the paid minstrel. He is not being paid to pundit.
Mrs. Clinton is not advocating a single solution; but she has demonstrated a combination of corruption, ineptitude & incompetence, that will bear a more critical analysis than Tom Hanks is likely to provide.
That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most--pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, on the 19th.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
The Law of Diminishing Returns has taken hold of me regarding Hanks and his movies.
Hey, that sounds just like George Soros and Agenda 21 and his support for Hillary Clinton's candidacy...!
Oh, wait - that wasn't who you meant... :)
Tom is as deep as a puddle.
The only ones wiping anyone out are the (D)generate eugenicists, European euthanasia practitioners, and Islamokooks. Well maybe the Chinese if they’re still doing that one female baby per family thing...
>Hey, that sounds just like George Soros and Agenda 21 and his support for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy...!
I was going to write something similar: “I have a simple solution for the Earth, and half the planet needs to die” is the mantra of the Gore/Gorbachev global warming machine, isn’t it?
Making the same movie over and over again, with no actual solutions, is sort of like the Democrats approach to politics.
He’s right about over-simplified solutions, just maybe chose the wrong example.
Great Web site.
While I agree he is overrated, I submit as an exemplar of being overrated: George Clooney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.