TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Curious Case of Angelina Jolie's Father
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

The Curious Case of Angelina Jolie's Father

We all know the famous actress Angelina Jolie, who also happens to be married to Brad Pitt.

But did you know who her father is? It's the actor Jon Voight--one of the most outspoken and fanatical anti-Obama right-wingers, an honorable guest at a recent Republican fundraiser, who, cheered by Newt Gingrich, spewed hate and vitriol about the current administration and called Obama "a false prophet" in a chilling right-wing tirade, mentioned (for its nearly-criminal lunacy) in today's New York Times by op-ed columnist Frank Rich:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/o.../14rich.html?em

There hasn't been this much hate in the country in a long time. And it's remarkable that one of its biggest inciters, besides Bill O'Reilly and the usual suspects, seems to be this man, who, amazingly, started out as a liberal back in the 60s, at the dawn of his acting career--and then inexplicably changed into a fanatical right-winger.

The NYT article by Frank Rich is very much worth reading. He points out there's a lot of danger in the "silent enabling" of hate by right-wing people who would be considered relatively mainstream, as opposed to their more extremist and openly xenophobic peers; the former legitimize and excuse the actions of the latter. And how ironic that, among such silent enablers, is this man!

So he's a conservative Republican. This is a country where you can find a plethora of ideas and cultures, and this does not exclude celebrities. I may not agree with his current political views, but at least we can understand where it stems from. He used to be a "liberal hippy" back in the day, definatly opposed to the Vietnam war.
Wikipedia states the following:
In a July 28, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Times, he wrote that he regrets his youthful anti-war activism, calling it the result of "Marxist propaganda." He pointed in particular to the massive human rights abuses in Vietnam and in Cambodia after the American withdrawal. Voight has said about his political transformation that:

We were traumatized in the Sixties and all of that behavior�the dancing in circles, the smoking pot and saying "all we need is love"�it was because we couldn't identify evil; we couldn't believe in evil�we didn't want to believe in evil so we just hid from it. It was a very disturbing time... overwhelmingly, it was a very bizarre, selfish and hedonistic philosophy that wasn't very helpful. It attacked the family�the attack on the family was very severe because not only was there this idea of [indiscriminate love] and that would solve the world's problems, which gave rise to teen pregnancy, but also this idea not to trust anyone over 30. This was from people who were over 30 and bombed out of their minds with every kind of drug they could put into their system. Then there was the romanticization of the drugs�there were people coming out with [pseudo] scientific evidence that [drugs] increase your enlightenment�it was devastating. Today, I find that people look back at that time in a romantic way and that's as dangerous as anything is. It wasn't a romantic time. It was a time of great distortion."

CHRles, and what is today? Everything that happened in the 1960's is happening now, and more of it. Frankly, young men were tired of being sent to their deaths at the command of the old men, and for what? So Vietnam could be ruled by a corrupt puppet state? It wasn't all about flower power dude, it was a very serious movement of people who were tired of watching their country kill multitudes of people everyday on the news.. and then watching body bags arriving back home. The problem with the American right, is their dangerous dependence on militarism disguised as patriotism, in pursuit of more power.

Re: The Curious Case of Angelina Jolie's Father

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd There hasn't been this much hate in the country in a long time. And it's remarkable that one of its biggest inciters, besides Bill O'Reilly and the usual suspects, seems to be this man, who, amazingly, started out as a liberal back in the 60s, at the dawn of his acting career--and then inexplicably changed into a fanatical right-winger. The NYT article by Frank Rich is very much worth reading. He points out there's a lot of danger in the "silent enabling" of hate by right-wing people who would be considered relatively mainstream, as opposed to their more extremist and openly xenophobic peers; the former legitimize and excuse the actions of the latter. And how ironic that, among such silent enablers, is this man!

I can't believe I just read that. Silent enabling? That's rich. If you want to look for deep seeded hatred in this country, look no further than the Democrat party, the left wing especially, and the left wing media. How convenient you chose to ignore some of the most glaring examples.

Paul Krugman (and Mary Alice Carter of the Wash. Post) the other day blaming O'Reilly and conservatives for the death of abortion doctor George Tiller and for the Holocaust museum shooting... claiming they incited the violence. Krugman failed to mention the museum shooter had a violent past dating to 1981, hated conservatives, neocons, the Bush family, Fox News, John McCain, was a 9/11 truther, and was planning to kill the "Jewish" editors of the conservative publication "The Weekly Standard". That actually sounds more like the profile of someone on the Left than the Right. Using Krugman's own logic, you'd have to assume his extremely harsh criticisms of the Bush policies for the last 5+ years are revving up the next terrorist attack, and incited the death of the Army recruiter by the Muslim conver upset over U.S. policies, right? Last month four ex-cons were arrested when they were alleged to be plotting to blow up synagogues in the name of Islam. Where is the investigation into the hatred that guided them in that direction? How about earlier this month in New York City at the Israel Day Parade? Anti-semites holding banners saying "Close Guantanamo Bay and Re-open Auschwitz." This all occurred with no denouncement from the media or anyone. That's not inciting hatred? In May a student at Wesleyan University was shot and killed by a man apparently bent on killing Jews... funny how acts of domestic militant Islamist hatred and terrorism happen, and there's no concern for any of the rhetoric that might be circling around in groups that would have inspired those guys. The media's purposeful ignoring of such events reinforces the hateful behavior that leads to them. But NO NO NO... lets focus on all that "right-wing inspired" hatred.

In summation: Krugmanis saying anti-abortion rhetoric lead to the inciting of a nutjob which lead to the murder of a doctor. But anti-war rhetoric leading to the inciting of a nutjob which lead to the murder of an Army soldier is different? Rhetoric did not pull the trigger, some fucked up psychopath did. Think Krugman will be held accountable for the same responsibilities he is trying to impose on others? Hell no.

And, this is all from the main stream media BEFORE the information was uncovered about the museum shooter's past:

quote:

LAUER: Clearly Obama's election has fueled the right-wing extremist movement. MATTHEWS: This is a political action by a far right extremist COOPER: The rise of hate groups in the United States of right-wing extremists. OLBERMANN: Right-wing religious based domestic terrorism. BROWN: Right-wing extremism. WALSH: There is a rising climate of right-wing hate, a lot of it directed at Obama.

That's not a knee-jerk media inciting hatred? (I'm still waiting for them to apologize) How about the hate spewed in Obama's church for 20 years (that he claims he never witnissed)? Just the other day Jeremiah Wright claimed "Them Jews" won't let him talk to Obama. How about the feigned outrage at the AIG bonuses that the administration knew about (and aided in their construction of... Chris Dodd) months before hand? They knowingly incided class warfare and hatred of those execs who had people giving them death threats and showing up on their lawns.

Have you forgotten the absolute vile hatred spewed at Bush the last 8 years? Books were written about assassinating him! Have you ignored the non-stop dismantling and destruction of Sara Palin and her family? Last week she's at a baseball game with her 14 year old daughter for a charity event and Letterman goes below the belt about her getting knocked up by A-rod. "Come on The17sss... it's just a joke". Yeah... and I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama's daughter was on the receiving end of that joke rather than Palin's. When Obama said "families are off limits", they listened to him about his own... but those crazy unhinged Republicans deserve as much hate as they can get, right? I nominate this thread as the most pathetic ever created in the PDD.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton CHRles, and what is today? Everything that happened in the 1960's is happening now, and more of it. Frankly, young men were tired of being sent to their deaths at the command of the old men, and for what?

and who's pursuing more power over the electorate, economy, and private sector now than ever in history?

BTW- Young men have the choice not to enlist. The military wasn't voluntary in the 60's.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and who's pursuing more power over the electorate, economy, and private sector now than ever in history? BTW- Young men have the choice not to enlist. The military wasn't voluntary in the 60's.

More power over the electorate? You mean like, people actually voting for the guy? The economy...you damn well know the government concentrated on "too big to fail" companies. And you can just as easily do business as you did 2 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton More power over the electorate? You mean like, people actually voting for the guy? The economy...you damn well know the government concentrated on "too big to fail" companies. And you can just as easily do business as you did 2 years ago.

More power over people who vote... yes. Power is being centralized in Washington more than ever.

Yeah I can still do business as I did 2 years ago, but the outlook is bleak. I actually have to focus on my overseas stuff now, as domestically it may dry up soon... corporate taxes are not low and people don't want to spend their money on services unless it's a dire emergency.

I don't which post in this thread is most migraine-inducing. Sheesh.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't which post in this thread is most migraine-inducing. Sheesh.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't which post in this thread is most migraine-inducing. Sheesh.

i particularly love hearing about media, one of the biggest of big businesses, described as "left wing media". because i too think the media hates itself so much that it wants to deconstruct the state and usher in socialism, which would obviously be truly awesome for all the privately-run and profitable media empires.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i particularly love hearing about media, one of the biggest of big businesses, described as "left wing media". because i too think the media hates itself so much that it wants to deconstruct the state and usher in socialism, which would obviously be truly awesome for all the privately-run and profitable media empires.

You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how fucked up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.newsbusters.org/

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how fucked up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.newsbusters.org/

no, i just have to be so far right that everything looks left to me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, i just have to be so far right that everything looks left to me.

ding ding ding!

The "liberal media bias" may exist in isolated outlets or papers, but it's hardly an endemic calculated ideology. Many of the biggest outlets in the country are decidedly conservative (Wall Street Journal, Fox News Channel, Clear Channel, Radio America, The New York Post, Washington Times, hundreds of local small-market papers, etc.). Notice how the New York Times and/or MSNBC often stand in for media writ large whenever claims of liberal bias are levied.

well said lebez. couldnt agree more. the idea that these massive corporations are really closet commies makes me laugh. we get the same here in OZ where our state tv channels (ABC & SBS) are accused of such bias, yet they're the only news channels that anyone with brains would ever bother watching.

big business news has about as much "liberal bias" as microsoft or rio tinto.

"Liberal media bias" really smacks of a conspiracy no smaller than the 9/11 "cover-up"!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "Liberal media bias" really smacks of a conspiracy no smaller than the 9/11 "cover-up"!

uh, yeah dude... to even suggest there's a liberal media bias is akin to being a 9/11 truther. LOL! Fox News isn't network news by the way... it's cable news that you have to pay for. I'm talking mainly about NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox's network channels nationally and locally. The majority of newspapers are liberal institutions as well, especially the largest ones. It's not a conspiricy at all.

I guess the study from George Washington University's "Center for Media and Public Affairs" in April that shows over 50% of network news is devoted to Obama (virtually all of it positive) means nothing.

quote:

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama�s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama�s.

So the three broadcast network evening news shows have basically devoted on average about half of their entire newscasts to Obama. And there's more:

quote:

CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush�s presidency.

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm

You see that? More coverage from one network than Bush and Clinton got from 3 combined. Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?

Or read this Vanity Fair article on the matter---> http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...currentPage=all

Or take a look at a Pew media research poll of the first 100 days---> http://journalism.org/analysis_repo..._first_100_days

Or, how about the fact that on June 24th, ABC WILL BE TURNING OVER IT'S PROGRAMMING TO OBAMA FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE to help him pitch his healthcare plan infomercial style, and rejected the request for opposing viewpoints, or bipartisan discussion (which hilariously Obama said he welcomed)? Is this the work of an unbiased media? I'll stop here becuase I could spend all day coming up with more examples. --- http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm You see that? More coverage from one network than Bush and Clinton got from 3 combined. Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?

Erm, maybe that's an Obama bias, but I hardly think shouting from the mountaintops that Obama gets more coverage than Clinton did is indicative of a liberal bias.

Add to the fact that in the first six months of Bush's presidency, diddly-squat happened, and I think you have yourself an answer.

quote:

I'll stop here becuase I could spend all day coming up with more examples. --- http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

You haven't actually said anything other than that media outlets have a propensity to cover the actions of the President in a time of economic crisis. All I can say is "duh."

I love how American conservativism drums up this whole self-reliance and personal responsibility thing, yet largely calls the media "left wing" or "biased" - as though people cannot come to their own decisions and are extremely susceptible to mass control. If you've no faith in people's abilities to choose for themselves, then just what business do you have tooting your horn about the entrepreneurial imperative that makes this country so great etc, etc. ?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I love how American conservativism drums up this whole self-reliance and personal responsibility thing, yet largely calls the media "left wing" or "biased" - as though people cannot come to their own decisions and are extremely susceptible to mass control. If you've no faith in people's abilities to choose for themselves, then just what business do you have tooting your horn about the entrepreneurial imperative that makes this country so great etc, etc. ?

I think the self reliance of conservatism is rooted in the idea of individual liberty... and the belief that freedom includes a person's freedom to make good and bad choices for themselves, not have Big Brother holding their hand and deciding what's best for them. I have plenty of faith in people- when they are left alone by government and allowed to succeed or fail on their own merit. You gotta agree that a growing population of this country are not properly educated and informed (look at the return on our public school investment)... and when people are not adequately informed/educated then yes, it constrains the mind from understanding that they are the masters of their own destiny, not the State. It gets easier and easier to take entitlements and government handouts than work hard for success. And with the ever expanding nanny state perpetuated by liberal policies and a supportive agenda driven media, the American entrepreneurial spirit is diminshed little by little each day.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You haven't actually said anything other than that media outlets have a propensity to cover the actions of the President in a time of economic crisis. All I can say is "duh."

wow... that's all that's happening? You think the media's coverage of Obama is equally positive and negative as it was with Bush? You can't think it's even remotely close. The Drudge report of ABC News and the government uniting as one is not the most recent and pure example of the media bias?

quote:

The network plans a primetime special � �Prescription for America� � originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

?

This thread needs more Angelina pics..

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss wow... that's all that's happening? You think the media's coverage of Obama is equally positive and negative as it was with Bush? You can't think it's even remotely close.

Actually, I do. Prior to 2003, Bush was as widely heralded by the media as Obama. Coverage typically shadows public opinion - when a president is popular, they're more likely to receive positive coverage. I don't see anything implicitly nefarious in that, especially since it does cut both ways. Are you inferring that right after 9/11 you saw legions of reporters filing negative stories about Bush? If anything, we saw the talking heads repeat the adage that it was all Clinton's fault for not taking bin Laden seriously - it wasn't until the debacle of the lead-up to Iraq that people started to seriously question Bush's leadership skills.

quote:

The Drudge report of ABC News and the government uniting as one is not the most recent and pure example of the media bias?

First of all, I don't trust Drudge. And second of all, how is this any different than a press conference? Bush didn't like holding those; Obama clearly does.

Are you saying that ABC should say no to a potential monopoly on viewers that evening, all in the pursuit of the fairness doctrine? I thought you hated that. You have me so confused as to where you actually stand on things.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how fucked up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.mediamatters.org/

Fixed.

Or here's another one:

quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The17sss You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how fucked up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.fair.org

Yeah, playing this "librul media" game sure is fun!

In fact, you might find some interesting information on there, like that darn Pew study you cited:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906150022

You can also go there to find some interesting tidbits about that CMPA study you cited, like this from the study:

quote:

The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies, according to a new study by researchers at George Mason and Chapman Universities. But the study also finds that Mr. Obama's positive media image hasn't precluded heavy criticism of his policies. [...] While Mr. Obama's personal qualities and leadership abilities have drawn mostly praise from the mainstream media, his policies have not fared so well. On the broadcast networks fewer than two out of five evaluative soundbites (39%) praised his policies and proposals. ABC's policy coverage was relatively balanced (48% positive), while source and reporter comments ran over two to one negative at both CBS (32% positive) and NBC (31% positive). TV news coverage of the president's economic policies, which focused mainly on the economic stimulus and the various proposed and enacted industry bailouts, garnered support from only 37% of evaluative soundbites. He fared better on domestic issues other than the economy, where praise for his health care proposals and new stem cell research policy brought balanced coverage overall (50% positive). But only one out of four comments (24%) praised his foreign policy decisions, including the war on terror. Negative Example: "The Obama administration is paying too much money to the wrong people." - Economist, CBS, March 20 The New York Times policy coverage, while less positive than its personal coverage of Mr. Obama, was about evenly divided between praise and criticism (48% positive). Although similar to the broadcast networks in its treatment of economic policy (40% positive), the Times portrayed other domestic policy areas relatively favorably (60% positive), and its 39% positive coverage of foreign policy domains was still more favorable than the networks' 24% positive coverage. Positive Example: Mr. Obama's actions "reaffirmed American values and are a ray of light after eight long, dark years." - ACLU executive, New York Times, Jan. 22 By contrast, Fox News coverage was even more negative toward Mr. Obama's policies than the Times was positive. Only one out of twelve evaluative soundbites (8%) praised any of the president's policies, including six percent positive judgments on the economic matters, seven percent on other domestic issues, and 17% on foreign affairs. [emphases added] http://mediamatters.org/research/200904280025

This is also an interesting perspective when compared to Bush's first couple of months in office:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904280014

Curse that darn librul media thingy!


Besides, one only needs a gigantic brain fart of Bush's first term, i.e. his first 3 or so years for one to believe the media was so vindictive, so vicious, so, uhh, librul, and wanted his head hoisted on top of a steak. I remember it quite well - Bush had the media, that stupid lapdog media in his back pocket, and could pull their strings at any given moment. The name of the game with the media does not have any political leanings. Rather, it has everything to do with $. And the best way to get $ for the media is access. Getting access to a President is the best means of getting high ratings (and therefore more $). It was damn true with Bush, just as much as it is with Obama.

One has to be a bit selective in memory and evidence to depict the media as "librul". The same argument could easily be made that the same media is conservative.

Re: Re: The Curious Case of Angelina Jolie's Father

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss . If you want to look for deep seeded hatred in this country, look no further than the Democrat party, the left wing especially, and the left wing media.

Absolutely hysterical coming from someone who quotes Rush Limbaugh in their signature.

What deep seeded hatred exactly is the democratic party pushing right now?

Media or not, that Michael Moore fella was a helluva guy. I fail to see how comments made by someone like Jon Voigt are any more or less spiteful or meaningful that that fat bucket of lard, whatever extreme they come from. Unless you want to start getting into moral equivalence debates...

I'm more concerned that PETA is going to go after Obama given the brutal nature with which he killed that innocent fly in his interview with John Harwood today. I mean did you see the ferocity and velocity with which Obama ruthlessly ended that poor insect's life? Harsh man...harsh.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.