Log in

View Full Version : 5 progressive liberal celebrities recently burned by The Obama Administration



TrotskistMarx
5th May 2012, 07:14
5 progressive liberal celebrities recently burned by The Obama Administration

Five in one week...

You've probably heard about a couple of the run-ins the following celebrities experienced. It's not just the ire of celebrities that catches media attention, but the fact that it's liberal celebrities angry at Obama, and quite a few of them recently.

Yeah, yeah, celebrities schmelebrities – but what is it about the Administration that has liberal celebrities so outspoken about the country's head they once wholeheartedly supported?

And how is this "public servant" handling it?

John Cusack & Imperialism

Last Tuesday, a sad, disillusioned John Cusack implied that Obama has crossed the Rubicon. He was actually talking about his new film The Raven on CBS's Good Morning when casually asked about the race.

That's when Cusack candidly expressed his disappointment.

From The Daily Caller:
'I don’t think the executive branch — I think that they’ve kind of continued that imperial presidency of the Bush administration with these claims to executive privilege,' Cusack concluded. 'I thought that speech about the assassination of American citizens, you know, in the name of [the War on] Terror was, I thought, very, very troubling.'

He goes on to explain that it goes beyond "left or right" and practically describes himself as a civil libertarian.

Even with those signature puppy dog eyes, Cusack's countenance cast a deeper sadness and disappointment for his and his loved ones' futures.

Jon Lovitz & Taxes

SNL alum Jon Lovitz wasn't acting! when he called Obama a “----ing a-hole...for saying the rich don't pay their taxes.” He and Kevin Smith co-host a show called “The ABC's of SNL.”

From Huffington Post:
This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don't pay their taxes is f*cking bullsh*t. And I voted for the guy, and I'm a Democrat. What a f*cking a**hole. The rich don't pay their taxes? Let me tell you something, right. First they say to you, you're dead broke, 'the United States of America, you can do anything you want, go for it.' So then you go for it and then you make it, and everyone's like 'f*ck you.' If I make a dollar and out of every dollar I'm taxed at 50, half, at 50 cents, I have to give, isn't that like enough?' asked Lovitz. He continued, 'It's half. HALF?!' You can listen to the show here for free, but the quotes sum up his feelings about Obama's alleged plan to further tax the rich.

Speaking of banking on taxing the rich to save the economy, Tony Robbins has created a staggering video of how not only will that plan not keep the country afloat for a year, but it will never even chisel a portion of the national debt of over $15 trillion.

Susan Sarandon & Privacy

Susan Sarandon is probably known more for her outspoken liberal activism than her film credits. So doesn't it surprise you that she, of all people, would be barred from entering the White House under Obama's watch? Or should it even?

After exercising a FOIA request she also had to find out her phone had been tapped. So why was she wired and denied security clearance?

Sarandon herself hasn't added much reaction except a little confusion, and the government is keeping very quiet about its reasons for flagging her. A couple of attorneys vaguely speculated that she is "extremist" and Obama doesn't want to shake hands with that before election time.

One article cited controversies over Sarandon referring to Pope Benedict as a "Nazi," calling for troops to come home, and for supporting Occupy Wall Street. This clearly makes her a threat to national security. One of the attorneys, Michael Wilde, said "But, wire taps do not necessarily have to be indicative of someone that is a serious security threat, especially in the Patriot Act era." So commonplace and accepted now. Don't you feel heard?

It would appear that Obama abandons his former liberal support when it suits his election goals. And he is not giving up oversea wars anytime soon.

Matt Damon & Leadership

Bourne Identity star Matt Damon got ballsy when he said that Obama didn't have any “balls.”

Elle Magazine recounted Damon's comments last year that Obama "'misinterpreted his mandate' by rolling over to banks and extending Bush-era tax cuts." Along with referencing Occupy Wall Street's need for a leader, he said:

I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician,’  -- You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.
Obama retorted:

I've even let down my key core constituency: movie stars. Just the other day, Matt Damon – I love Matt Damon, love the guy – Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance. Well, Matt, I just saw The Adjustment Bureau, so right back atcha, buddy.

Perhaps the hardest bite to swallow at last Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association Dinner were Obama's flippant jokes about grave subjects, complete with a high-five to wingman Jimmy Kimmel.

Some of the comic cover-up included comments about: continuing the precedents of Bush, the GSA scandal, winking as he mentioned his birthplace, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Congress' laziness, and having a secret agenda for right-wing conspiracy theorists which was mainly jokes about waging war on Christmas and re-passing health care reform.

Both he and Kimmel made plentiful light of the recent indiscretions of Secret Service agents in South America. Kimmel worked in jabs at Occupy efforts, North Korea, marijuana crackdowns, and one about Obama not sticking to his guns, but he could just ask Eric Holder for some. Obama repeatedly mentioned what he would do in his second term - is he only jesting? It wouldn't be the first reference.

The President worked in a backhanded congratulations to Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington for her Pulitzer prize, saying "You deserve it Arianna. There is no one else out there linking to the kinds of hard hitting journalism that HufPo is linking to every single day...and you don’t pay them. It’s a great business model." She actually laughed about it, but found his exploitation of Bin Laden's assassination for his campaign "despicable."

So, who cares? Well, it could be an indication that even those who previously felt insulated within the soft embrace and slick veneer of the Hollywood celebrity lifestyle are coming unhinged. And perhaps what has them even more frustrated is that their liberal sympathy is a love increasingly unrequited.

An unapologetic Barack Obama seems to be talking out of turn as he brazenly disregards their tantrums like his snap back at Damon, careless jokes at the WHCD, or how he continues to try to get America to laugh along with him. The above and countless other citizens have justifiable, serious concerns like the true identity of our leader, provoked tensions in the Middle East, dying soldiers, police brutality on peaceful protesters, drone murders overseas and drones here in the states, assassination of Americans under NDAA, and Executive Orders seizing full control during peace time -- just to name a few. Understandably, the WHCD is a roast -- but are these issues that easy to place in a comical context?

But he does; he thinks jokes about killing Disney's Jonas Brothers with predator drones are funny:

That was at the WHCD two years ago, and the Jonas brothers were perturbed by the reference. Obama needs to work on the material -- maybe some sensitivity training?

Do you notice more liberals becoming disillusioned and feeling betrayed? This article, written from a socialist-leaning viewpoint, finds that liberals' defense of Obama can't withstand scrutiny -- especially of broken promises, saying Obama is "Bush’s spiritual successor on practically all the issues we care about."

So, what does it mean? Is this a good sign that the system is turning inward on itself, showing signs of breaking solidarity and a liberal awakening to deception? Or is it all for show, as the left-right step continues its perennial march? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

SOURCE: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/5-liberal-celebrities-recently-burned.html



.

Raúl Duke
5th May 2012, 22:24
but what is it about the Administration that has liberal celebrities so outspoken about the country's head they once wholeheartedly supported?Simple:

Obama ran on a platform for "hope," "change," and basically giving the impression towards sweeping reforms and such. Did he do much? No.

There's also the fact that he's extending certain things that a lot of liberals found particularly odious during the Bush administration. What's funny is that some of these liberals go on and still support him, but these few celebrities (except for the SNL guy, that's just pure classism) are not dupes and see that the Obama administration has "betrayed" liberals/progressives. The article mentions it.

In fact, I feel vindicated because I had a feeling (back in 2008, during the first election) that Obama's election would result in 2 things: Besides that there will be no change it will disillusion people and stir more apathy towards mainstream politics (this was my most 'optimistic,' in the leftist sense, prediction and for the most part it's true) and in a way you can see this with the rise of Occupy. Second will be the possibility that liberals will continue to support Obama and his policies, even policies that correspond with Bush's odious policies; thus creating a push to "legitimize" these policies. This was my cynical prediction, and to some extent it became true but much much less (and they failed to be "legitimized") so than what my cynical self thought and I'm glad.

Bostana
5th May 2012, 22:36
Never heard of any of 'em

Anarcho-Brocialist
5th May 2012, 22:44
Who cares? Celebs don't matter nothing in the real world. The men and women who work 2 jobs and still don't make enough to live comfortably is who any rational person would side with. Not one of those actors mentioned they were pissed at Obama because of the continued oppression and exploitation of the working class.

These liberals throw money at a problem (giving charity) and think it'll fix them. Doesn't matter what you do to help because at the end of the day you support the system of oppression and exploitation.

I may not be famous, nor rich, but here's what I think of Obama... SHIT!

gorillafuck
5th May 2012, 23:02
Obama has been much more of a hardass lately.

tZ64KQCY7ro

I think he's realizing that the american public doesn't really want to see his former public demeanor which was a bit soft and had an always respectful attitude to it. now he's taking more jabs and a more aggressive approach in the public sphere.

Jimmie Higgins
6th May 2012, 01:30
Who cares? Celebs don't matter nothing in the real world.Sure they do. They can't make a worker's revolution, sure :lol:.

But liberal celebrities are somewhat of a gauge of what's going on in society. Also their strange role does give them access to more publicity than most people. So if liberal celebs are cowering behind Obama, it does give us a snapshot of maybe where liberal thinking is, if celebs are outspokenly showing discontent with Obama's policies and lies, then it shows that there may be a little more anger and combativeness among average liberals (yes, celebs aren't "average" in social position, but they also aren't necessarily tied to political power they way people in the information media or people behind the scenes in film production are).

Besides why wold the right be so angry at progressive actors? THey don't get upset at Clooney or Bono the way they do Jane Fonda (Bono and Clooney are presented as "annoying" and "tarnishing their role as entertainers" or just partisan for the Democrats - in Clooney's case). Whereas Sean Penn or Jane Fonda or someone more independant of the logic of the two parties are called "insane" and so on. The right isn't really worried about Fonda or Penn, their real target is anyone else who is critical of imperialism or racism or whatever - because if celebrities are shamed into shutting-up, a normal person also feels that chilling effect.

Philosopher Jay
6th May 2012, 03:08
When poor people become rich, they tend to re-evaluate their lives and the world and tend to become more conservative. Wealthy celebrities making millions of dollars year in and year out are not necessarily a good guide for workers to follow. They can afford the hit the American working class will take if Romney and a Republican Congress is elected, the average worker, not really.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
6th May 2012, 05:44
The problem is that the celebrities are still blaming Obama as a person. This has nothing to do with Obama as an individual person ... we can judge his morality when the historians write the biography of him and more US government records are released. But socialist change is not about judging the moral features of various leaders. As long as the celebrities blame Obama and not the system *as such* they will just look for a liberal quasi-leftist who they think fits their notion of a progressive "great man", and that person will let them down just as much as Obama did. This is because the power players in the system will do their very best to attack any reforms which actually change anything for the poor and working class and redirect the energy of the ruling class towards their own interests.

Thus, their anger at Obama is based on their mistaken conception of history, which is devoid of socio-economic analysis (particularly of class and global income inequalities)

honest john's firing squad
6th May 2012, 10:22
obama is shitting on a few liberals cry me a fucking river

Dire Helix
6th May 2012, 11:36
progressive liberalOxymoron

Raúl Duke
6th May 2012, 16:56
The problem is that the celebrities are still blaming Obama as a person. This has nothing to do with Obama as an individual person ... we can judge his morality when the historians write the biography of him and more US government records are released.

A lot of disheartened liberals and progressives are doing this, so they could put a spin that all they need is to vote an honest progressive in.

A lot of people who went into Occupy (from what I could gather from my experience in Florida) where at one point or another liberals/progressive voters. Their first route away from voting is to feel disappointing over their "change" candidate, later they may begin to re-examine whether voting, from a systematic point of view, even changes anything (many thus become cynical of mainstream politics, but quite a numerous and vocal number continue marching on for Ron Paul :rolleyes: ); Occupy somewhat facilitated this easily due to its rhetoric that implies that the government is "bought" and unrepresentative no matter what party you vote for.

gorillafuck
6th May 2012, 17:11
Oxymoronprogressivism is a center-left political movement in the US, and liberal in the US means center-left (at least by American standards)

Misanthrope
6th May 2012, 17:27
Oxymoron

eh progressive /= revolutionary