Jon Voight speaks up...

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
A friend let me know about this from the Mark Levin show.


VOIGHT: My concerns for America
Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people

Monday, July 28, 2008
Actor Jon Voight. Associated Press.

OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.


__________________________________________________________

I know in Hollyweird right now, they are gasping, "How DARE he denouce the Chosen One (peace be upon his name!)"

I do respect him for taking a stand for his views. A nice counter to some of the blind support Hollywood is giving Obama.




posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Yeah thats why he is better known for neglect of his daughter.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This has been made possible by
the Republican party
Enron scandal
oil conglomerates of America
The Ford foundation
KKK

please stay tuned to your Republican Broadcasting corporation
for the special presentation of
eyes on the prize 2
how the [SNIP] could not accept a black President
R B C

Mod Edit: Removed "racist" insult.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Voight hit the nail on the head. You can tell by the replies.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Why do people take celebrity speeches like they're divine intervention?


Do you realize that Jon Voight is no where near as intelligent and insightful as any of the characters he portrays in movies?



We, as parents


Jon Voight as a parent?



Please.


"My concerns for America" ?

He's just pissed that he'll be paying his fair share of taxes from now on.

What a pathetic whiner.

Actors should grow up and realize that when they open their mouths politically - it ruins their credibility as an actor.

Case in point:

I love the movie Shawshank Redemption. But now i cringe when i have to watch Tim Robbins.

After his comment of


We've killed over 400,000 of their citizens


I started watching Shawshank Redemption just to watch him crawl through a river of [snip]
and i keep hoping he slips on something and goes face first

it hasnt happened yet - though ill keep you posted

[edit on 7/31/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Why is it, at every election, the two sides (and I'm talking voters and "emotional pundits" - not the politicians running) always start engaging in this doomsday hyperbole as the election nears? It's been this way my entire voting life - "if he....it will be the end of democracy!" "if he....it will be the end of our society as we know it!"

As a Republican (a true Republican, that is) I don't fear the total destruction of the democratic processes of this country if the other side happens to win, nor do I believe 4 to 8 years of a more "socialized" approach will destroy the very fabric of our being.

I have to say that in my lifetime the most republican acting president we have had was Bill Clinton. He decreased government, decreased the entitlement rolls, and paid off the national debt. If we could find one "Republican" candidate that would vow to operate (at a minimum) at a Clintonian level of fiscal responsibility and central government implementation, I'd stop feeling like some one switched the signs in the middle of the night. Because at this point I can't tell the difference between either party - oh wait, there isn't any...they just pick difference fear-tactics...they both want unconstitutionally large central governments and want to spend us into the next millenium...just for different pet causes.

I'm tired of the current pet cause so maybe taking the cubic tons of dough being spent on war for oil and power-mongering and applying it to internal projects to help my neighbor might be a refreshing change.

They both scare me - that point should be what concerns some one - they BOTH scare me.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Why do people take celebrity speeches like they're divine intervention?


I don't know. How come on ATS, when Willie Nelson said that 9/11 was an inside job, everyone took it to be the Word of God!!



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by solo1
how the [SNIP] could not accept a black President


You're absolutely correct! It has nothing to do with people not agreeing with Obama's politics and views, it's ALL to do with the fact he's black.




posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Here is a reply.....

Even IF Obama was expressing a Socialist sentiment in his chosen policies and speeches...

Even IF there was a true Socialist sentiment put out there by the Democrats...

Hell, EVEN if there were contemporary politicians sowing COMMUNIST sentiment into the fabric of society, especially in the youth...

...in a democracy, the exposure of people to such sentiments does not matter. A government can be run in a socialist, capitalist or communist manner and still be a democracy.

It is those people who would limit what is allowed to be sold in the Marketplace of Ideas that should be considered the greater threat to democracy than any socialist ever will be.

Ironically, the Liberalism, in the modern capitalistic, liberal democracy, works in opposition to its democratic aspects.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I agree with your sentiments, mad. Just one correction. We're not a "democracy" (even though our leaders seem unable to grasp this Political Science 101 concept)...we're a constitutionalized republic that enjoys democratic processes.

I know it's semantics, but it actually is important semantics on this issue.

And other than that faux pas, you are absolutely correct. In a country that operates on democratic processes the majority will decide what political philosophy will be employed...and the rest will live with it or rise up and either militarily repress the majority of their fellow citizens - or if history repeats itself, get their rebel flags slapped - so to speak.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 



A government can be run in a socialist, capitalist or communist manner and still be a democracy.


No actually, most of us would rise and fight.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Oh look! There's one of the rebel flag, shoot your neighbor because you didn't get your way people right there!



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Guess what buddy, we aren't a socialist or communist nation. If there are Americans dumb enough to vote for socialism or communism, than they will have become the enemies of this country. Its pretty simple.

Its got nothing to do with the rebel flag, the KKK or whatever red hearing you can come up with.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek


Its got nothing to do with the rebel flag, the KKK or whatever red hearing you can come up with.


I don't hear red...I hear red, white and blue...buddy. And if you vote for a person I don't vote for - I promise not to gun your disagreeing butt down. k? No one is talking about voting to change the governmental structure of the U.S. -THAT'S THE FEAR MONGERING HYPERBOLE I'M REFERRING TO.

Just because one candidate wants to operate in a more socialistic style doesn't mean he wants to destroy the constructs of our country. And insinuating such is lying for the benefit of scaring others into thinking/acting your way.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Just because one candidate wants to operate in a more socialistic style doesn't mean he wants to destroy the constructs of our country. And insinuating such is lying for the benefit of scaring others into thinking/acting your way.


If thats true, why isn't Obama truthful and open about it? I'll tell you why, because Americans don't want to be socialists.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
You seem unable to grasp the concept that terms of political approach can be both adjectives and nouns. You also seem to be totally confused as to what can co-exist and what is mutually exclusive.

A person can be "socialist" in approach without being a Socialist or even a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party. *doh* A socialist approach in no way threatens democracy or our constitutionalized republic. Because if a socialist approach is taken to societal issues, the democratic process will either accept that approach (i.e. not the noun Socialism, but the socialist approach to the specific issue) by voting Aye or they will reject it by voting Nay. This does not require the very same people to vote the very same way for the person running for office. So a person can vote for Obama because of his overall approach to societal issues and still be opposed to a given "socialistic" approach to a specific issue.

Democracy and socialism can co-exist - so I don't know why you are talking as if they are mutually exclusive. ???

I'm just going to skip over your communist reference because it has nothing to do with the thread topic in the first place, so it isn't worth muddying the waters over.

P.S. If you really want to get to the correct viewpoint, capital S Socialism is a much purer form of a "Democracy" than a Constitutionalized Republic that practices democracy. Note the big D and little d...I'm just saying, these terms mean specific things so you really need to choose your words carefully when discussing these issues.

[edit on 7-31-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by madhatr137
 



A government can be run in a socialist, capitalist or communist manner and still be a democracy.


No actually, most of us would rise and fight.


No, you misunderstand what I'm saying.

No doubt, there are those who, if the government of their nation did not operate in a manner that was satisfactory to their own personal standard or beliefs, would take up arms and wage war against it, becoming "Patriots" or "Revolutionaries"(not really much different than "terrorists" or "insurgents") in order to defeat whatever vileness had come into power...(and yet, despite the criminals running America currently, have done nothing of the sort, perhaps because they agree with the views of these particular fascists..) ...that is neither here nor there.

What I was alluding to is that IF Obama won the election, it would be because the majority of the US population agreed with his political stance, his speeches, etc. IF Obama's political stance/agenda was Socialist leaning AND he won the election it would mean that the majority of American people would be voting for an individual because of their platform, in this hypothetical a socialist stance, therefore, the voting majority would be in favor of socialist policies.

It is the same argument used by the Bush Administration in its resistance to change policy in Iraq by saying that because he was re-elected that "the majority" of Americans were in favor of his policy decisions, when the reality is they are not.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Here is a dumbed down version of what Valhall is trying to say (ill use a different way):

You can be Christian and still believe in evolution. You can believe that evolution is the workings of God, but not entirely in the way that man perceives it.

By droneteks argument - you cannot believe in God if you believe in evolution.


Thats what this argument is about.

Now that we know the answer to my rendition.

We know the answer to this one as well.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I totally agree with you.

Why would ANYONE listen to willie nelson?

He had 1 good song (in my opinion) and that was it



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Why do people take celebrity speeches like they're divine intervention?


I don't know. How come on ATS, when Willie Nelson said that 9/11 was an inside job, everyone took it to be the Word of God!!


No they didn't. Insulting members of ATS as sheep that can't reason and make decisions on the evidence is myopic thinking on your part.

Perhaps this had more influence than Willie....
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Just more rightwing nut "no shades of grey" Limbaugh logic.

I think most of the members here can make informed decision without the input of the rich and famous.




[edit on 31-7-2008 by whaaa]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join