comment #1

Jonas Grumby says ...

I wonder what the King of the Paralyzed Brain set, Travis Crabtree, will have to say about this.

comment #2

bents75 says ...

I realize it was merely the final reason in a string of many, before anyone debates me, but Abraham Lincoln essentially "created" the first civil war when South Carolina seceded soon after his election.

Look at what side of history they fell on, and then look at how he is viewed 150+ years later.

Good riddance. If Voight wants to go his own way, he should go right ahead. I don't think those with the intelligence to fully exampine the context and greater ramifications of these situations will miss him or his ilk.

comment #3

lbeale says ...

Another frightened, aging white person looking at a changing America and freaking out. Latent racism becoming not so latent anymore. Really. Does anyone think these birther crazies and Nazi placard holders would be around if Obama were white?

comment #4

Mowkeka says ...

Why is Jon Voight so worried?

Barack Obama is a one-termer.

comment #5

televisiontears says ...

Where he falls on the political spectrum has really obstructed the true tragedy of what's happened to Jon Voight over the last few years. He is clearly suffering from dementia, and it's getting much worse. Yeah, he spouts off all kinds of crazy-right talking points, but the man is obviously losing his mind. It would be just as sad if he were talking about anything other than Obama's civil-war-inducing Socialist policies.

comment #6

televisiontears says ...

Sure, Mowkeka. We'll talk when you nominate Palin in 2012. You know it's gonna happen.

comment #7

iamanerd says ...

As long as we're putting taxes into the war on terror, all will be fine. Right, Mr. Voight?

I think domestic issues have been ignored so long (like the last 8-10 years or so) that we will have some growing pains when the focus turns to them. It's only natural, so let's all relax a bit. And lately, with the election cycle and the last few months (economy is another booster in the look at home first philosophy), it's been look in the mirror first day and night. We all should have issues with what we see, honestly, and I think the aggressive nature of the country the last few months reflects that. We got a bit lazy, lost some integrity, wasted some money, forgot what was most important, whatever. Obama said the plan was to look at home first in many ways (change), and I think there are too many pundits, politicians, and people who have been looking elsewhere since 9/11. It is easier than cleaning up your own back yard. As scary as it sounds, it's probably cheaper too. We itch for a fight, dirty creatures that we are, but we will have to fight ourselves for a while. We cannot blame the "other" for health care woes. We tried to pin the economy on immigrants, but that didn't really stick. We have sort of proven that this nebulous terrorism threat really isn't what we were led to believe either. No more bullshit and misdirection. We have to deal with real issues.

I think we're finally getting to the things that affect EVERYONE, so that means many will be angry. It will mean more work, more money, more thinking, change, etc. It will simply be harder than the path we've been on. People, like Voight, are naturally going to resist that. And attempt the misdirections of the last few years. Then it was the idea that we have to sacrifice freedom because of terrorism, and now it is this notion that this interior threat is taking our freedom. Either way=money. Let's call it what it is.

comment #8

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

haha. Just exactly what's wrong with Socialism, Mr. Voight?? United States is one of the very few countries in the world that has such an ignorant, pathetic phobia of Socialism...

comment #9

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

the birthers and crazy right wing nuts are PRETENDING to protest Obama's healthcare plan, when really, they cannot stand the IDEA of having a BLACK PRESIDENT!!!

It's all done out of pure racism and hate, as simple as that.

comment #10

televisiontears says ...

"It's all done out of pure racism and hate, as simple as that."

Oh come on, DeafBrown. That's fucking simplistic. Of course there's a plethora of backwards idiots who will oppose everything Obama tries to accomplish simply because of the color of his skin, but can you really keep a straight face and say that everyone who has doubts about the plan is a racist? That's like saying everyone who supports his policies only do so because he's black. That's fucking ridiculous and distracts from the conversation.

But I'm white and I don't agree with you, so I must be a racist. And you're brown, and you probably don't agree with me, so I guess we're both racist. Everyone's a racist!

comment #11

rayciscon says ...

DeafBrownTrashPunk,

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you get through the day.

From your point of view, it's simply not possible to disagree with President Obama on the issues--it simply HAS to be racism.

How cynical do you have to be to have such a simple-minded outlook on people.

I am PROUD that the American people elected a black man to the highest office in the land. I also disagree with a whole lot of what he's doing and NOT doing.

Where is he on gay/lesbian marriage?
Where is he on gays in the military?
Why are there still troops in Iraq?
Why is he sending MORE troops to Afghanistan?
There's so many Bush policies he told us he'd end that he's continuing...

I don't see that he's enacted much of his electoral agenda... he's just consolidated a whole bunch of power in the federal government, and spent a LOT of money (the stimulus) that doesn't seem to have done much for the economy.

comment #12

Jonas Grumby says ...

Mowkeka, that's funniest thing I've heard since "Mission Accomplished". What Rethug has ANY sort of credibility that would get them elected to the highest office in land? Huckabee?Captain Magic Underpants, Mitt Romney? Palin? Pawlenty? As the former Witless-In-Chief used to opine, "Bring it on!"

comment #13

televisiontears says ...

"Where is he on gay/lesbian marriage?
Where is he on gays in the military?"

Thank you. This NEEDS to be addressed. I thought I voted for a progressive President who believes in, you know, equal rights, and so far we haven't heard a peep about gay rights. I understand he's got his hands full, but my god. Throw the gay community a bone, sir! I'm starting to think he's not on board, and that really worries me.

comment #14

rayciscon says ...

Jonas,

I'm pretty sure that Mowkeka was kidding, but don't forget the leading factor in recent elections: dislike for the other candidate.

If the people don't generally 'like' the incumbent, they'll vote 'em out if the alternative is halfway decent.

Let's take a look at the last 20 or so years:

1988: Bush the elder vs. Mike Dukakis - The country was tired of the GOP after 8 years of rule, so they were looking for another option. What do the Dems give us? An uber-lefty from Mass. People might be tired of Bush, but there's NO WAY they're going to put in Dukakis.

1992: Bush the elder vs. Bill Clinton vs. Ross Perot - Bush runs an awful campaign, his base is split by Perot, and the Dems put forth a palatable candidate who runs as a centrist from the south. The people are tired of 12 years of the GOP, and Clinton doesn't give them a reason NOT to vote for him. Victory Cliinton.

1996: Clinton vs. Bob Dole - "Dead-arm" Dole runs a horrible campaign. Clinton hasn't pissed off the populace enough to get voted out. Victory Clinton.

2000: Gore vs. GWB - People have grown weary of 8 years of Dem rule and Al Gore runs a campaign worse than Bush the elder and can't even win his home state. Don't get me started on Florida... all Gore had to do was win his HOME STATE! Bush was inoffensive enough to bring in the win.

2004: GWB vs. Kerry - The people aren't generally happy with GWB, but John Kerry (uber-lib from Mass. sound familiar) runs the worst campaign in recent history and enough people vote for GWB to bring forth his reelection.

2008: McCain vs. Obama - With the GOP in tatters, they elect the "least offensive" candidate possible (IMO, he might have won against Hillary). Unfortunately he's running against the juggernaut that would be Barak Obama, who runs the best campaign by a Democrat in at least 40 years. Runs as a centrist, despite his minimal record and wins.

2012: Obama vs. ???? - Unless something happens quickly, Obama may be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. His approval rating is already under 50%--not good at this or any point in a presidency. If the GOP can regroup, put up a reasonable candidate (I can't name him/her-but it's not Sarah Palin) and this candidate runs a good campaign, they've got a better than even chance of beating Obama.

How can Obama turn this around? Get his approval rating back up over 60%.

Can he do this? Signs point to no... he's pissing off WAY too many people on the left AND right.

comment #15

televisiontears says ...

rayciscon, I appreciate the thoughtful analysis (no sarcasm), but it's way too soon to even think about 2012. Obama's only an eighth of the way into the term. There's no way you can predict what will happen in the next 3 1/2 years.

comment #16

the400blows says ...

Call it "policing" or "regulating" but someone had to do it after all the "anarchy" or "lack-of-regulation" from the Bush Administration that produced a recession and the "Madoff Scandal". Voight is an idiot.

comment #17

austin111 says ...

I used to like Voight but no more. I will not pay a visit to any movie in which he appears, even if it receives great reviews. I just won't. He's turned into a real racist thug. Ditto for Gary Sinese, another right wing nut job it appears. They have a right to their opinions but they are the cause of civil war, not anyone else. By giving encouragement to the right and those who lug guns around. Despicable.

comment #18

Rod32303 says ...

I love this country, and you'd be surprised how many abroad suddenly do too. Some always have.

I have no problem with people who have ideological differences with me. Truly. I am a liberal democrat. There are many conservative republicans. All of us have our own agendas and causes and beliefs.

But anyone who dismisses the racism/bigoted aspect of our current climate is just not being truthful. I am not saying that you are racist if you differ from our president, but when was the last time you saw anyone have George W or BIll Clinton or George Herbert or Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter drawn with Hitler mustaches? When was the last time people paraded loaded weapons to a presidential appearance? Every town meeting I've seen, almost all the folk there? White. Raging. Screaming. And I am a black man who pays his taxes and has great health care and works two jobs to make ends meet. I welcome healthy debate about all kinds of subjects. BUT THE MAN HAS BEEN IN OFFICE EIGHT MONTHS. And all of this recent mess about a bill that hasn't even been truly finalized (in some cases written) or voted upon. I still read bullshit about Revered Wright (anyone see the whole clip, by the way? Bill Moyers showed it, where Wright tells that he was paraphrasing an upset white Republican) or about his middle name, or about how he isn't a citizen.

So yes, people can have concern about the decisions being made.

Yes of course you can be concerned that agendas and promises haven't been addressed in the timely fashion YOU wish them to be addressed.

But you can't just deflect the racist aspect of any of this. Even an "oh those nutjobs" kind of dismissal is dangerous. Fear is always a motherfucker and always at the heart of some crazy shit.

comment #19

Rod32303 says ...

Oh, and Jon Voight lost his motherfucking mind back in 2002 when he cried (for ratings) about Angelina on Inside Edition. Of all of them, he chose INSIDE EDITION.

I was good with his looney ass then.

comment #20

Travis Crabtree says ...

Where's that Joe Buck?! Who's gonna clean up this crap?!

comment #21

televisiontears says ...

Rod, no one's pretending that there's no racial overtones to some of the President's "disapproval". Like I said above, there's a shit ton of crazies out there who think what color your skin happens to be can make you an inferior or superior person. And I don't deny that even rational folks may have some subconscious xenophobic fear that acts as a base for their feelings about Obama's policies and intentions. As a white man, I can only try to understand the hateful emotions and awful stereotypes you probably encounter constantly.

All this said, I think it's dangerous when people like DeafBrown decry any doubts or opposition as racial in nature. Not only does it distract from a constructive dialogue, but it filters everything through a racial lens, and that can lead ugly and regressive places. Again, I don't understand what it's like to have darker skin, but I imagine after spending your life feeling like you're seen as an "other", you can see racism around every corner, perhaps even when it's not there. I hope I'm not out of line, and I apologize if I am. I only think that crying racism at every turn only leads to more racial tension.

Also, no one had signs of W. with a Hitler moustache? Did you spend the last eight years at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean? I literally stopped going to formal protests because of these idiots and their Swastikas and Hitler moustaches. They were fucking everywhere.

comment #22

televisiontears says ...

And when I say "a shit ton of crazies", I'm not saying these are all fringe lunatics. I'm saying if someone's a racist, they are crazy by definition. It's a socially accepted mental illness, and the only reason it's not considered a mental illness is because it's socially accepted.

comment #23

televisiontears says ...

One more thing, Rod. As long as we're on the subject, can I ask you a serious question related to my comment #13? It seems like African-Americans are more likely to be homophobic than whites. Is this just a stereotype, or do you think there's some truth to it?

comment #24

Travis Crabtree says ...

"I ain't a for-real cowboy, but I am one hell of a stud!"

comment #25

sumo-pop says ...

Does anyone really give a shit what Jon Voight says? He was a shitty husband, a shitty father, a one time great actor who's way over the cliff now,

comment #26

MovieBob says ...

There are so few GENUINE racial-bigots left that continuing to mis-use "racist" as a synonym for such only serves to pull more of it's teeth out.

I imagine that at least HALF of the fear/anger at Obama is tied to race... but "only" incidentally and most of the scared/angry people don't even realize it. By which I mean these are not people who "hate" blacks or think Obama is inferior or any sort of genuine bigotry. They aren't even really "conservative" anymore than most so-called liberals are "liberal" - they are, like MOST people, narrowly focused on whatever is best for them, their surroundings, etc.

There is NOTHING "radical" about Obama. He's a lock-step, point-by-point political liberal. The things he supports are the same things liberals have supported for most of the 20th century. NOTHING he has proposed is new, game-changing, shocking, whatever. His to-do-list was old when LBJ was using it.

Clinton and Carter were "for" the same things Obama is, at first. BUT they didn't "scare" the above-mentioned "angry folks" because they were, yes, white BUT also folksy, Southern and gray-haired. When Bill Clinton talked about "the poor," his Arkansas drawl carried with it an implication that "the poor" on his mind were rural working-class 'reg'ler folks.' "Well, gee, I ain't too big on that there gubmint spendin'... but if I can get some subsidies for the factory work'd sure feel more secure." When Carter talked of moral-obligation, his aw-shucks Born Again bona fides took the edge off for the churchgoing types: "Well, I reckon that's what Jesus would do if HE was a'taxin'."

Obama, on the other hand, is - yes - black... BUT also Northern, urban, globally-inclined, doing a piss-poor job at concealing an age-appropriate disinclination toward religion and young. And that combination makes it impossible for the "angry folks" to ignore that those raised-taxes and expanded-programs will be going not JUST back to them but also to the inner city, to the "anchor babies" of illegals, etc. In other words, it reminds them of what it "really" is - redistribution of wealth. WHICH IS ALSO NOT A RADICAL POSITION! And they don't like that. Hence, what your seeing.

comment #27

Josh Massey says ...

"...but when was the last time you saw anyone have George W or BIll Clinton or George Herbert or Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter drawn with Hitler mustaches?"

Dude. Are you serious?

comment #28

Josh Massey says ...

"the birthers and crazy right wing nuts are PRETENDING to protest Obama's healthcare plan, when really, they cannot stand the IDEA of having a BLACK PRESIDENT!!!"

Are you trying to be a parody?

comment #29

Nate West says ...

The Republican Party has become a regional political party, representing, in the main, the interests of Southern and a few Western white people. It's these hysterical white people who show up at townhall meetings, shouting and moaning and crying for "their America to come back." Were they worried about "their America," and their freedoms when Bush was torturing prisoners of war in illegal prisons? No. Were they worried about the eroding Constitution when Bush was illegally spying on their emails and telephone calls? No.

It's taken the prospect of health care for people in need (i.e., "non-whites") to get them riled up and blathering. Don't kid yourself. The Civil War never ended. Nixon and his progeny have been exploiting racial fears for over 40 years.

comment #30

BurmaShave says ...

Massey, I'm about as little of a DeafPunk fan as anyone, but in that quote she was entirely on point. When old ladies cry and scream "I want my country back", do you really think they're realling just wailing against progessive health care?

comment #31

Travis Crabtree says ...

What's funny isn't so much what people say here but the absolute certainty in which they say it.

Tell us more, oh learned ones!

comment #32

Jonah says ...

Travis. You were never right about anything on here. But you stopped being relevant weeks ago when instead of presenting an opposing viewpoint, you simply started to insult others and post meaningless crap.

Massey does the same thing. Instead of bringing up opposing points, he posts stuff like:

"Are you trying to be a parody?"

"Dude. Are you serious?"

The conservative minds at work, folks.

I have to defend Voights right to speak out because I defended the liberal actors all those years that they were called traitors.

But the guy is clearly out of his mind, a racist, and a scared old man whose family hates him and whose career is basically over.

Fucking pathetic, but he has the right to say it. Even though the conservatives are basically yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. They know the violent racists are about to boil over and start acting out.

Sooner or later they'll get the violence they are begging for.

comment #33

BurmaShave says ...

*really just wailing, rather. A little tipsy.

comment #34

Travis Crabtree says ...

You're not really worth it, Jonah. Really. Good for a chuckle, though.

comment #35

Jonah says ...

Travis

That's what any coward would say. Or somebody who has nothing to add to a conversation so he hides behind the insult.

If you didn't think I was worth it you wouldn't respond to me all the time.

comment #36

DeeZee says ...

"if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default."

Because an illegal war is totally constitutional.

Mowkeka: "Barack Obama is a one-termer."

You're confusing him with Palin.

tears: "that everyone who has doubts about the plan is a racist?"

They didn't have doubts about Bush...

"That's like saying everyone who supports his policies only do so because he's black."

No, we're supporting his policies, because we're experiencing what it's like to be black with this economy.

"Also, no one had signs of W. with a Hitler moustache? Did you spend the last eight years at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?"

Yes, but his family actually profited off the Holocaust, so it's a legit label in his case...

ray: "1988: Bush the elder vs. Mike Dukakis - The country was tired of the GOP after 8 years of rule, so they were looking for another option. What do the Dems give us? An uber-lefty from Mass. People might be tired of Bush, but there's NO WAY they're going to put in Dukakis."

Dukakis lost because Bush I played the race card, back when the country still swallowed the propaganda that black criminals are more dangerous than the white criminals running banks like Lincoln Savings and Loan.

"Bush was inoffensive enough to bring in the win."

Too bad he didn't bring in the win, since it was rigged, and Gore got more votes.

"but John Kerry (uber-lib from Mass. sound familiar) runs the worst campaign in recent history and enough people vote for GWB to bring forth his reelection."

It had nothing to do with Kerry. Bush II played the homophobia card.

"Unless something happens quickly, Obama may be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. His approval rating is already under 50%--not good at this or any point in a presidency."

Bush II's approval was pretty low, too, until he ignored the 9/11 warnings.

"If the GOP can regroup, put up a reasonable candidate (I can't name him/her-but it's not Sarah Palin) and this candidate runs a good campaign, they've got a better than even chance of beating Obama."

Even if they can regroup, they're going to have to do more than just call themselves "compassionate conservatives" this time around. They're going to owe the public a fucking apology for Bush II's illegal terms and try to prove that they're different from him and all the gun-nuts this time, "honest".

Rod: "but when was the last time you saw anyone have George W or BIll Clinton or George Herbert or Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter drawn with Hitler mustaches?"

Actually, I knew some idiots who compared Clinton to Hitler, just because there was a possibility he might stop more Columbines from happening.

Bob: "Clinton and Carter were "for" the same things Obama is, at first. BUT they didn't "scare" the above-mentioned "angry folks" because they were, yes, white BUT also folksy, Southern and gray-haired."

Actually, Clinton's term also brought out the gun nuts. But in his case, they could play the states' rights and New World Order cards as the reason to rally against him, which is how they got away with ruining his chance to reform health care. And lets not forget about the Turner Diaries, since McVeigh was one of the book's biggest fans. The only difference is that the American public was too distracted by the Shah, Qadaffi, Gorbachev, and O.J. to care. It's a little tougher to play the xenophobe/commie/terrorist/bad celebrity card now, though, since "the other" is now in charge .

"redistribution of wealth. WHICH IS ALSO NOT A RADICAL POSITION! And they don't like that. "

No, they just don't like redistribution of wealth to minorities. Forcing the middle-class and poor to subsidize rich white felons is fine and dandy.

comment #37

Travis Crabtree says ...

Allow myself to elaborate myself. Look, Jonah, it's like this.

What's the point, really?

Within two (2) sentences you say that I was "never right about anything", and then chased that by saying that I "stopped being relevant weeks ago". Well, which it it?

I'm sure you're a nice enough guy but I really don't have time to bat back and forth with someone as reactionary as you.

I mean honestly, what's the point? Am I going to suddenly say something that would cause you to say, "wow, not that you mention it Travis, that Milton Friedman really was on to something!" or, "gosh Travis, since you put it that way, perhaps I should re-consider Goldwater's stance on free-market captialism"?

You're going to continue to shout out excerpts from "People's History of the United States" and call anyone who isn't down with Noam Chomsky a fascist so again, I ask.....what's the point?

And as far as Massey is concerned... what he was referring to when he asked "Dude, are you serious?" was so laughably ridiculous that the person who said it, (DeafBrown etc), should be happy they even got that much of a response.

Finally, a word of advice for televisiontears.... you're crazy for coming in here and wasting time using logic and reason to express your points, man. This is third-string professional wrestling.... scream freshman-year bromides about shoving it to the Man and Faux Noise and Rethuglicans if you want to fit in.

Of course all of that could just be the Paracetamol talking.

comment #38

Travis Crabtree says ...

Goddamit you never let me down DeeZee.

Epic, my friend. Simply epic.

comment #39

Travis Crabtree says ...

DeeZee says...

"Goddamit you never let me down DeeZee."

Like the way the U.S. let down the rebels in East Timor?

comment #40

sumo-pop says ...

Amazing how hard Crabtree works to prove his critics right. Of course, he probably loves the idea of having critics. Feeds the ego ya know.

comment #41

astrophore says ...

If you are interested in the political ramblings of washed-up actors from the 1970s, I would also check out James Coco's screed against immigration reform or Valerie Perrine's musings on monetary policy.

comment #42

Josh Massey says ...

Do I really have to go into more detail to prove the absurdity of Rod's claim? Will a link suffice?

comment #43

Jonah says ...

Nice Travis. Totally predictable response.

comment #44

Travis Crabtree says ...

"Nice Travis. Totally predictable response."

The conservative mind at work, folks.

(that's all you got?)

I have short changed you, Johah. For that I am sorry. I'll spend the rest of the day composing a long, well-thought-out, foot-noted response to your musings on politics because I'd hate to not give proper thought and credence to some faceless, single-named internet douchebag (you) who has his head so far up Noam Chomsky's ass he's can't see a world beyond that of his liberal arts college's sociology roundtable.

Seacrest out!

comment #45

Jonah says ...

You make so many wrong assumptions it's staggering.

But that's the narrow minded, paint them as the enemy, mindset of the conservative. If they aren't blue eyed, blonde haired, white skinned, and either straight or buried deep in the closet you guys have no use for them.

It's a mindset that's working pretty well for you guys, no?

comment #46

The Winchester says ...

Jesus H. Christ on ice and Mary in the penalty box, will you two just fuck already!?!?

comment #47

Travis Crabtree says ...

The Winchester rules!

(even if you were capping on me)

comment #48

televisiontears says ...

The Winchester FTW!

comment #49

Rod32303 says ...

I could Google search YOU, Josh Massey, and probably find some nitwit with a Mac computer and photoshop software who would make your face similar to Adolf's...but my claim was ridiculously ill-phrased and deserved to be slapped down. I guess my real point was that I don't remember seeing any of these banners or posters at RALLIES against Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or Carter (or Ford for that matter). Ford and Reagan had to deal with gun crazies, but the other four? Not so much, and certainly we didn't get the brazen, half cocked, very proud idiots parading their assault weapons at speaking engagements from those (white) presidents.

Maybe everyone who posts on here has legitimate issues with what is happening in our current government climate. But militias weren't on the rise with the other (white) presidents.

televisiontears, would love to let you know my feelings on your question, but I would rather say that to you personally, as I am done with this strand. Not sure how to contact you.

comment #50

Jonah says ...

What makes you think we haven't, Winchester?

comment #51

Yuval says ...

"Am I going to suddenly say something that would cause you to say, "wow, not that you mention it Travis, that Milton Friedman really was on to something!" or, "gosh Travis, since you put it that way, perhaps I should re-consider Goldwater's stance on free-market captialism"?"
No one would expect you to say anything like that since you have never expressed an opinion that is based on reason and fact (or present someone else's opinion that is based on reason and fact). Up until this point, you've only been a watch-dog on these political posts, waiting for the first abusive term used against republicans to say how disappointed you are with the level of discussion.

comment #52

Rod32303 says ...

Voight is still missing brain matter. Or tissue. Or a fucking clue.