"Our government is yet again marching us towards a war of choice in the Middle East and our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008. We fear the worst."
ADDED: We were just talking about this 2 days ago: "Where's Bruce Springsteen? He helped Obama get elected. Shouldn't he weigh in on the Syria question?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
I think this Buzzfeed post may have had some impact, though the squirming and excuses here are amusing and/or appalling:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326
Seriously? They're willing to let Obama kill people in Syria because hey don't want to appear to be "anti-black"?
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326
Hollywood celebs support bombing Syria because "they don't want to feel anti-black".
What does that even mean?
Fourteen progressive bullshitters MIA? Am I supposed to be shocked? Next I will be informed that there is gambling at Ric's place. It's 1,2,3 what are we fighting for? Play it again Sam.
These hostages will be rescued by the next Republican President! If we ever have another Republican President.
“The world has come together and said ‘no’ to this war – and we must stand with them.”
@Danny Glover, you were wrong about the world coming together to say "no" to war back then, but you would be absolutely right if you said the same thing now about Syria.
And you, at least, would not be "anti-black" to speak up.
What about Mick "Sweet Neocon" Jagger?
James Taylor...Bob Weir/Phil Lesh of the Dead...
And the biggest biggie—Bob Dylan...who endorsed Obama just before the 2012 election and told concert goers not to be fooled by the media...
And, worst of all, Scarlett Johannsen...
The Hypocrisy 14, not to mention "principled".
The "anti-war when it is convenient for Democrats" celebs deserve to be mocked as vigorously as the members of the "sexual harassment feminist lynchmob" were for falling on their swords to shield Bill Clinton from consequences from his sexual pecadillos.
Speaking of the militant feminists,anyone else enjoy the wall of protection they threw up for Huma and Anthony, following their Clinton playbook?? Basically, Huma is a victim and her Victimhood means she should be entitled to at least a Senate seat. And while Weiner is deplorable, the "worst mistake" would be to ashcan a devoted equal rights and abortion supporter..
First time I've ever agreed with anything political Ed Asner has said, "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama... I voted for him, but I'm not proud. He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he's a corporatist, he's not my president... "A lot of people have lost hope -- with the betrayals, the NSA spying ... People aren't getting active because 'Who gives a shit?' is essentially the bottom line."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326
"What does that even mean?"
It means they are racists. They react to Obama based upon the color of his skin. By definition, they are racists.
Read what these dumbells say:
The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
— Sheryl Crow
DAMN! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?
"Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.”
— Ed Asner
LIKE HITLER, RIGHT? MUSSOLINI? DEEP TAN, THAT GUY.
“I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars.”
— Sean Penn
HOW ABOUT LOSING THEM?
So why would anyone want to hear more from them?
But when there's a Republican president who decides that there's a need for military action, that's the time to remind these bozos to reprise their anti-war statements of 2013.
But you see, Obama isn't going to war, he's just going to give the Syrians a spanking. and trust me it's going to hurt him a lot more than it hurts them.
I do, however, think that using poison gas is some kind of quantum leap in war atrocities. What is surprising is not their lack of support of Obama but their lack of condemnation of Assad. And I'm not just referring to Hollywood celebrities. The whole damn world.....Ponder the rage that making prisoners at Abu Ghraib wear underwear on their heads inspired. And compare that to the indignation inspired by Assad's gassing of a few hundred children.......The thinking, feeling people of the world who rejoiced at Obama's election are not signing on to any kind of punitive action against Assad. What does a third world dictator have to do and how hesitant and ineffectual does an American President have to be in order to gain the support of thinking, feeling people in a confrontation?
Why is making celebrities reveal themselves to be complete hypocrites a bad thing? This is one of the noted benefits of Obama acting like a hawk.
Another benefit is that Obama acting like a hawk makes Obama the senator and John Kerry and all the democrats attacks on George Bush look like the partisan attacks that they were.
So good. Lets have more of Obama going it alone and alienating his base who still don't want to say too much lest they be viewed as racists. Obama is hoisted on his own petard. The liberals in their silence are now hoisted on theirs.
And if at the end of the day it also leads to Obama taking on one of our enemies forcefully, well I got all my wishes answered in one go.
Godfather quoting Sean Penn wrote:
“I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars.”
— Sean Penn
HOW ABOUT LOSING THEM?
Also, strange how this lesson only applies to America. If Assad wins his war against the rebels and stays in power, I'd think he'd put that on his win column. If he was able to not get bombed by us, I think he'd view it as a win for his side and a blow to the Great Satan (though he might not use that terminology)
We can never win wars but our enemy can always win wars. And often wars against us.
Mike Farrell, former Mash star said what he thought the response to Syria should be:
"This administration ought to insist that the international community charge [Assad] with a war crime and prosecute him, and in so doing Obama would be following the law instead of flaunting the law,"
Of course Russia has veto power in the UN and is on the security counsel. So any notion of charging Syria with war crimes for using the same chemical weapons on the populace that Syria bought from Russia would be nipped in the bud.
Meanwhile, that means that Russia and Syria would be the only ones able to flaunt the law. The very people that used the chemical weapons which Farrel admits are war crimes. International Law would be shown to have a defect which prevents action for the very things that the International community is supposed to stand up against.
And if Syria can get away with it, and you can't do anything about it why get mad if the US goes it alone and drops chemical weapons even on Syria. If the international community can't enforce the one, why is it a problem when the international community can't enforce the other.
THis is like when Libya sits on the human rights counsel at the UN. just stop already. The absurdity becomes farcical.
William wrote:
Ponder the rage that making prisoners at Abu Ghraib wear underwear on their heads inspired. And compare that to the indignation inspired by Assad's gassing of a few hundred children.......The thinking, feeling people of the world who rejoiced at Obama's election are not signing on to any kind of punitive action against Assad.
So true. the left was outraged that we used white phosphorous. That was considered a war crime to them. But chemical weapons from the Assad regime?
His 400 acre estate ripped the backbone from his back?
Don't forget to buy the official Bruce Springsteen doo-rag when passing through the lobby. A steal at only $40.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा