Jon Voight: Barack Obama Will Weaken America

god bless you jared, i didn’t think there was anything other then the lefts point of view. You can just see all the hate on this post, that’s all the left can do is hate hate hate, god bless you and god bless Jon Voight..

This man is unbalanced and needs to keep his opinions to himself. I see why Angie cut ties with him. He is one crazy dude.

I agree with Mr. Voight 101%!!!

Open your eyes people before its not too late!

Emily @ 07/28/2008 at 10:31 pm

Why do you feel the need to make stuff up about Jolie? This thread is about jon foolish Voights opinions.

Wow it it’s weird but Voight was involved in the civil rights movement.
Oh well he has a right to his opinion.

Wow, so many of you people have totally swallowed the Obama Kool-Aid. I can’t believe you are congratulating Angelina for cutting herself off from her father — first of all, we don’t know why she did so, and secondly, you actually think that it is OK to cut yourself off from a family member because of politics? That’s sick.

I also find it interesting that you are questioning Voight’s sanity, saying he’s an “ignorant moron,” and other awful things about him because he dares to speak his mind. Many of you have even chastised him for having a political stance, reminding us that “he’s just an actor.” Do you feel the same when Sheryl Crow or Oprah Winfrey or Jennifer Aniston do the same? After all, they’re just entertainers, too. If you think it’s OK for them to say how they feel, but not Jon Voight, then you are prejudiced.

Emily @ 07/28/2008 at 10:31 pm Oh please - Angelina DOES NOT know politics.- she’s a showpiece - that’s it? When she spoke at the UN they asked her if she saw any examples of genocide when she was in Dufar. She said she didn’t know what that meant, but that she would check in to it. Later, she said she checked and that according to her, there was no genocide going on. Guess what - The International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is perhaps the biggest news out of Africa this year. The Sudanese president is the first sitting head of state charged with genocide (7/16/08)Actors SHOULD STAY OUT OF POLITICS!
_____________________________

B*tch, shut the f*ck UP, with your JEALOUS hater IGNORANT asss, you know DAMN well, Angelina Jolie, more than any notable person out there has brought worldwide attention to the GENOCIDE and atrocities of Darfur, and called them out long before anyone else in the mainstream media — her first trip was in 2001, she went back in 2003, 2004, and most recently in 2007. She’s worked her asss off, traveling to where the horror ears, listening to the refugees and victims, telling their stories over and over and over again - and writing op-ed pieces ABOUT THE GENOCIDE like the one below which ran in the Wash Post, you jealous HATIN’ fool!!
It’s one thing to battle you simple minded fans of that washed up TV hack, you empathize with to the point you’ll slander and LIE on good people — but the rationale behind it, honestly BAFFLES the f*c k out of me. I can only assume, like all pathetic losers, you know one when you see one - and thus, a woman that puts you to SHAME, you feel you have to attack at every turn. Well, Jolie’s honest kick-asss fan base will always be here to knock the sh*t out of jealous catty LYING b*tches at EVERY turn. So here you go mofo - read it and weep, and then TRY to learn something. Namely, a sense of DECENCY you sick sad catty b*tches.

Justice for Darfur
By Angelina JolieWednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A19 Washington Post
BAHAI, Chad — Here, at this refugee camp on the border of Sudan, nothing separates us from Darfur but a small stretch of desert and a line on a map. All the same, it’s a line I can’t cross. As a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I have traveled into Darfur before, and I had hoped to return. But the UNHCR has told me that this camp, Oure Cassoni, is as close as I can get.
Sticking to this side of the Sudanese border is supposed to keep me safe. By every measure — killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages — the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni.
Attacks on aid workers are rising, another reason I was told to stay out of Darfur. By drawing attention to their heroic work — their efforts to keep refugees alive, to keep camps like this one from being consumed by chaos and fear — I would put them at greater risk.
I’ve seen how aid workers and nongovernmental organizations make a difference to people struggling for survival. I can see on workers’ faces the toll their efforts have taken. Sitting among them, I’m amazed by their bravery and resilience. But humanitarian relief alone will never be enough.
Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice.
Accountability is a powerful force. It has the potential to change behavior — to check aggression by those who are used to acting with impunity. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has said that genocide is not a crime of passion; it is a calculated offense. He’s right. When crimes against humanity are punished consistently and severely, the killers’ calculus will change.
On Monday I asked a group of refugees about their needs. Better tents, said one; better access to medical facilities, said another. Then a teenage boy raised his hand and said, with powerful simplicity, “Nous voulons une épreuve.” We want a trial. He is why I am encouraged by the ICC’s announcement yesterday that it will prosecute a former Sudanese minister of state and a Janjaweed leader on charges of crimes against humanity.
Some critics of the ICC have said indictments could make the situation worse. The threat of prosecution gives the accused a reason to keep fighting, they argue. Sudanese officials have echoed this argument, saying that the ICC’s involvement, and the implication of their own eventual prosecution, is why they have refused to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.
It is not clear, though, why we should take Khartoum at its word. And the notion that the threat of ICC indictments has somehow exacerbated the problem doesn’t make sense, given the history of the conflict. Khartoum’s claims aside, would we in America ever accept the logic that we shouldn’t prosecute murderers because the threat of prosecution might provoke them to continue killing?
When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week.
In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad.
It wasn’t until June 2005 that the ICC began to investigate. By then the campaign of violence was well underway.
As the prosecutions unfold, I hope the international community will intervene, right away, to protect the people of Darfur and prevent further violence. The refugees don’t need more resolutions or statements of concern. They need follow-through on past promises of action.
There has been a groundswell of public support for action. People may disagree on how to intervene — airstrikes, sending troops, sanctions, divestment — but we all should agree that the slaughter must be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.
In my five years with UNHCR, I have visited more than 20 refugee camps in Sierra Leone, Congo, Kosovo and elsewhere. I have met families uprooted by conflict and lobbied governments to help them. Years later, I have found myself at the same camps, hearing the same stories and seeing the same lack of clean water, medicine, security and hope.
It has become clear to me that there will be no enduring peace without justice. History shows that there will be another Darfur, another exodus, in a vicious cycle of bloodshed and retribution. But an international court finally exists. It will be as strong as the support we give it. This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity.
What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That’s what we should deliver.
The writer is a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Why do the BHO supporters attack Angie’s dad because you don’t agree with his POV? He votes for McCain and you vote for BHO. That’s all.

As far as I know Angie didn’t cut her father out of her life because of his political standpoint. Anyway, their relationship is reportedly on the mend now.

Orchid @ 07/29/2008 at 2:21 am
that according to the Muslims, children of a Muslim man are Muslims, in their eyes. So, the question is, was his father a Muslim? Doesn’t matter if he was a non-practicing Muslim. Was his father a Muslim?
***********************************************************************

Orchid, I don’t care if his father is a Muslim or a Holy Roller, Obama is an adult and he can practice any religion he wants to. If he says he’s not a Muslim, he’s not a Muslim. If he belongs to a Christian denomination, then he is a Christian. End of story.

I don’t actually have an opinion on which nominee would be a better president for the US. I also believe it is the job of a US president to place American interests in the forefront when making decisions regarding foreign policy. However, it is clear that the US is a member of the world community and it is very often therefore in the best interests of the US to be a good neighbour. After all, unlike an individual, it isn’t possible for any country, even the US to change their neighbourhood!! This is also, I believe the over all guiding policy of US foreign policy.

What I find totally laughable about Jon Voight’s rant is that he talks about how young men are infected by their elders and their teachers. The first thought that came to my mind was “oh, like he really believes it given how he cheated and left his wife and was largely an absentee father.”

ON a less personal note, I don’t agree with his statements at all. Just look at Japan and Germany and then also look at Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Eastern Bloc Countries, and so on. Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, Germans were engaged in 2 major world wars against their neighbours - surely their people were taught to hate. The Japanese were in conflict with the China for most of the 1930s (Japan invaded China ad its territories in 1932, long before the start of the Second World war). You’d think there were many angry young men and women who were taught to hate the brits, the jews, the chinese the koreans and so on. Yet, when WWII ended, people do see things differently and can change.

Similarly, look at China or Vietnam. YOung Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodians were taught to hate on America and the decadent West. Some of these young men and women are from my own generation - I’ve met them, talked to them, worked with them. I know one man who was in his teenage years, the leader of the RED GUARDS in China during the cultural revolution and who actually denounced his own father. And you know something?? Many of them have, including this chinese ex red guard, are Americans or Australians or Brits or Canadians and proudly so.

What does this mean?

It means people grow and change. It means that intelligent people reflect on what they have been taught and decide whether the teachings are good or relevant in their lives. Those values are rejected or embraced as appropriate. Just look at your own lives. If we adopted the values of our mothers and our mothers mothers, then the number of divorces initiated by women would be far smaller then it is today. Clearly, many women saw fit to reject the values of our mothers and grandmothers as our own circumstances changed.

What JOn Voight’s op-ed in the Washington Times (which is a right wing paper and NOT Washington POST) show is that he has rather extreme views about the Black Movement - which when you consider the segregation of the times including how laws against interracial marriages between blacks and whites were finally removed only in 1968, might well have resulted in some radicals such as Louis Farrakhan etc developing. (I still remember reading about busing and segregated schools and that happened in the 1970s for heavens sakes).

So to me, its not that Jon Voight doesn’t support Obama policies, be it on taxes or Iraq that matters. It’s all this warbling about Obama’s ALLEGED influences that’s nasty.

And yes you do get a glimpse of what Angelina, James and Marcheline had to suffer. No wonder James talked about how his mother was abused.

Jon Voight is a stupid idiot.
John McCain is an old idiot as well and he will loose.

Louvers @ 07/28/2008 at 8:21 pm Angelina is smart enough to know that the MSM is very corrupt in it’s presentation of BHO. Jon Voight is right on in his statements and the youth of America should listen to John McCain himself speak and not the filtered down version the media feeds you.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Clint Eastwood is one of our most famous Republicans. Did you talk politics with him on the set?
ANGELINA JOLIE: Actually, we don’t disagree as much as you’d think. I think people assume I’m a Democrat. But I’m registered independent and I’m still undecided. So I’m looking at McCain as well as Obama. Clint can teach me about things domestically and I’m more aware of some things internationally. So it was less a debate and more things we found interesting. But for the first few weeks I was just too nervous to get into any deep conversation!
____________

How ignorant!
Your comment posting this interview is as good as saying ALL Republicans or ALL Democrats are bad people!
Sometimes the person’s own humanity, cleverness, critical thinking can rise above tags and perceptions!

ace tomato: so you’d rather have everyone work really hard in a profit-over-people society, individually care for themselves, and that’s how we’re going to make it as the UNITED states?
it’s amazing to me how americans can be so blinded to their own idiocracy. sure communism will never work. but nationalized healthcare works in MANY countries worldwide and they’re happier, healthier, and live longer.
by the way, the government is paying for dumb mortgage decisions, with our tax dollars. why do you want us to pay for that, but not healthcare for all? you justify it, i’m sure, by saying that not everyone deserves healthcare because they don’t have jobs. well, i don’t own a house, why am i paying for others to live in one?