Morgan Freeman: Obama Made Racism Worse, Tea Party Will Do 'Whatever [It] Can To Get This Black Man

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
to freeman: proof or it didnt happen

I dont think he was able to get any proof,mostly because he was bum-drunk in that video....anybody noticed?

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by neo96

 

Why? Because he's an actor? Or because he's an actor that said something you don't like? Remember Ronald Reagan was an actor.

No, it's the part about using his fame - gained as an actor - to push a political agenda - which has nothing to do with acting.

I don't recall Reagan trying to play off of his "Bonzo movies" to further his political career - because people would have just laughed. If Reagan ever mentioned those, it was in a self-deprecating way - to make fun of himself - which takes a sense of humor.

I've seen maybe a couple movies where Freeman actually played a black president, and did a good job. So, more than once, I've found myself wishing obama would have turned out more like the characters Freeman played instead of the reality we got. The role that sticks in my mind is about the ateroid hitting the earth, where Freeman as president calming goes on TV to explain what happening. Never once did he blame the previous administration for the asteroid.

Quite unlike the way obama is dealing with the "economic asteroid" that is currently hitting this country and the world.

Destroy the country for the past 60 years, then give it to the black man when it's crumbling and the foundation is weak.


Pretty cool.

On another note, I'm really surprised to hear this from Freeman. I thought he was more enlightened on race thanks to this clip:



It appears Morgan abandoned that wisdom in favor of racist, skin color based politics. Calling an entire group of people racist (because they're labeled "mostly white" by the MSM) based on skin color, is pretty racist in of itself. Being white doesnt make you a racist by default like some of these race baiters would have you believe.

reply to post by centurion1211

No, it's the part about using his fame - gained as an actor - to push a political agenda - which has nothing to do with acting.

I wasn't going to get into this thread - but this one comment was enough to hook me :-)

what!!?

First the words 'political agenda'...in a billion words or less, please - explain what this means

Then explain who is qualified to have one, who is then permitted to pursue it...

Actors are people and citizens. If you resent the fact that they have the whole X-factor thing working for them - just say so :-)

They are entitled to their opinions - and their platform - like it or not. As are writers (of all kinds - from Shakespeare to your average 21st century blogger), artists, musicians, actors - politicians

Let's not forget - politicians get center stage most of the time - and for what? Their desire to lead? How is a politicians opinion worth any more than all the rest of our opinions? It's our opinions and our choices that will either elect them or boot them out.

In theory :-)

They were citizens first remember - they weren't born or bred for their roles - they is just us with campaign funding and signatures - and air time

Proof is in the pudding and all: we are what we do - not what we say we'll do - less even than what we just think. Opinions are a dime a dozen - and many actors have put their money where their mouths are. As have countless ordinary citizens without names or position...

So, what is it you're saying exactly? Butchers can only speak to butchering, bakers to baking - candlestick-makers only and specifically to the art of melting wax?

:-)

Who is allowed to speak in a democracy - if not everybody?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by centurion1211

 

No, it's the part about using his fame - gained as an actor - to push a political agenda - which has nothing to do with acting.

I wasn't going to get into this thread - but this one comment was enough to hook me :-)

what!!?

First the words 'political agenda'...in a billion words or less, please - explain what this means

Then explain who is qualified to have one, who is then permitted to pursue it...

Actors are people and citizens. If you resent the fact that they have the whole X-factor thing working for them - just say so :-)

They are entitled to their opinions - and their platform - like it or not. As are writers (of all kinds - from Shakespeare to your average 21st century blogger), artists, musicians, actors - politicians

It's their fame as an actor that they are using to push their political agenda.

Hint #1: If Freeman wasn't a famous actor, we wouldn't even be discussing what he said.

Hint #2: Still don't get it? Then you try saying the same thing and see if any of the MSM picks it up.

Yes, he is a citizen like all the rest of (well, most of) us. But saying things when you are famous makes some people take those words as an automatic truth - when they're not an automatic truth. The famous people are well aware of the media coverage they'll get when they make their statements, so pretending that they are just "Joe average citizen" (only when you agree with them) is quite disingenuous - and I think you really know that, too.

If you can't understand those concepts, then can't help you.

Morgan Freeman need to sit his A** down somewhere Obama didn't make racisim worse or better.Its always been there in people hearts its just that they are not leaving it behind closed doors or behind fake smiles.

THEY LETTIN' IT ALL HANG OUT.Saying how they TRULY FEEL.

Its always been there and it won't go away, EVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People just don't know what to do with themselves anymore...either they are being OVERLY OFFENSIVE OR TOO SENSETIVE OR POLITICALLY CORRECT.

reply to post by centurion1211

wow – not one roly-poly-eyes-of-disdain – but three...you must really be annoyed

:-)

It's their fame as an actor that they are using to push their political agenda.

already established – this is what we’re discussing

Hint #1: If Freeman wasn't a famous actor, we wouldn't even be discussing what he said.

first - you haven’t defined political agenda – or who is qualified to have one – or who is allowed to pursue it...but moving past all that – you can’t prove what you just said

He might go ahead and give us his opinion if he weren’t a famous actor – we probably wouldn’t be hearing it however, that’s all

I get that your beef is with him being in a position where he can have what he’s saying be heard by more people than the average person :-)

so?

Hint #2: Still don't get it? Then you try saying the same thing and see if any of the MSM picks it up.

The MSM will ‘pick up’ what Lady Gaga ordered last Thursday at Arby’s

What you’re really annoyed at is that he isn’t average-Joe-citizen enough for you – you think the only people who should be allowed to speak in public and have their positions heard are politicians and regular folk

or - my second guess is that you just don't like what he said - and that people heard it :-)

nobody cares about us regular folk centurion1211 – they only care about the mouthy show offs in the entertainment industry...is that it?

Hint: yup – life is just like that sometimes Comrade :-)

It is definitely not always very Even-Steven – is it?

He’s still entitled to his opinion – and the fact that he’s in a position to get his opinion heard is meaningless. It is, after all just his opinion

Still don’t get it?

What are you afraid of – that somehow Morgan Freeman's opinion will collapse the very structure that supports the very bestest country in the whole free world?

If he has that kind of influence and power – maybe we should be voting for him

:-)

It's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.

I am sure that there are more than a few in the TEA Party that want Obama out of office simply because of his race. I think that it's not a minority in the TEA Party that have that view. But not everyone in the TEA Party is a racist, and some just want Obama out because he's a Democrat which they feel is worse than him being black.

I think that the real minority in the TEA Party are those that want Obama out of office because they disagree with his policies, and don't like the way that the country is going under his administration. I believe personally that this is the real minority in the TEA Party.

But again, it's Freeman's opinion, like it or not, he's entitled to it, and those that say he should just stick to acting, are forgetting that one of the best parts of being a citizen of this great country is the fact that you can have an opinion. You might not agree with it, but, he, in the end is entitled to that opinion.

reply to post by wayouttheredude




Maybe Freeman was right? The Tea Party and GOP will do whatever they can to get "this" black man, so they can get A New Black Man into office that actually has some leadership experience, actually has a plan to fix the tax code and economy, and is actually black! LOL!!

How does one reconcile the fact that the Tea Party has no problem endorsing another black man? Where is the racism in that regard? Is it at all possible that everyone opposing Obama has done it based on his failed policies and broken campaign promises? Is it possible it was never racism from the start?

Even though I supported Ron Paul for the Florida Straw Poll, I really just can't help but smile at Herman Cain's landslide victory!!

How will the Democrats and Liberals demonize the Tea Party now? With no racism to debate, what will they do?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by centurion1211

 

wow – not one roly-poly-eyes-of-disdain – but three...you must really be annoyed

:-)

It's their fame as an actor that they are using to push their political agenda.

already established – this is what we’re discussing

Hint #1: If Freeman wasn't a famous actor, we wouldn't even be discussing what he said.

first - you haven’t defined political agenda – or who is qualified to have one – or who is allowed to pursue it...but moving past all that – you can’t prove what you just said

If you really need a definition of what a political agenda is, then Google is your friend.

This is quite obviously a deflection attempt.

It's sad that you have to think about it as "get that black man out of office" instead of "get that corrupt, lying, gun running, corporate shilling, treasonous bastard out of office"

reply to post by centurion1211


:-)

If you really need a definition of what a political agenda is, then Google is your friend.
This is quite obviously a deflection attempt.

Right back atcha centurion1211

Everyone has an agenda centurion - if we have to be that direct about it - and apparently, we do

If you're not willing to toss around ideas or points of view - if you don't want to have this discussion, entirely up to you of course. But - it becomes pretty obvious after a little bit and it's not at all subtle

When one group of people begins making noise about how another group of individuals - or even specific individuals - have no business voicing their opinions out loud and in public, well...

agenda is the first word that comes to mind - don't you think?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by wayouttheredude

 

I know liberals that are racist. Do I think that all liberals are racist? No.
I like Morgan Freeman as an actor, but don't have much respect for him now, as a person.

Would you like him better if you knew he was against "Black History Month"?

He knows the truth and while the Tea Party uses racism as a tool to motivate a segment of it's base, so does the Democratic Party. Hard to digest from an idealougues perspective, but true all the same.

Pres. Obama has made racism "worse" in this country, not because pres. Obama is racist or has a "Black Agenda", but because his mere status as President in this partisan and fierce political time makes the issue of race a tool for both parties.

The Tea Party/GOP is not as racist as they are portrayed, but they do appeal to racism in their rhetoric. It is a useful tool to motivate a segment of their base.

The Tea Party/GOP is not as racist as they are portrayed, but the Democratic Party will exagerate their racism at every turn in order to motivate their far left, liberal base that are overly sensitive to the issue.

President Obama's race has thus made racism worse in this country by making it a topic that is magnified by political parties for political purposes...much more magnified than it exists within the actual populace of this nation.

IMO racism is as bad as it has always been, or its in fact better ( meaning less prevalent).
What's different is the insight into how people really feel, with the advent of so much social media and technology and peoples desire to express themself, it's now easier to see the heart on someone's sleeve.

Obama's presidency allows a virtual window into some peoples inner thoughts EXPOSING racists at a higher rate than before. Let people show themselves for their true natures and they can then be dealt with more appropriaetly.

But I don't think that having a black president generates or contributes to an increasing pool of new "racists"

And as for The Tea Party....all i gotta say is " A House Divided..."

Obama +4 more years unless the Reps and Tea party unite...Bet!

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by centurion1211

 

:-)

If you really need a definition of what a political agenda is, then Google is your friend.
This is quite obviously a deflection attempt.

If you're not willing to toss around ideas or points of view - if you don't want to have this discussion, entirely up to you of course. But - it becomes pretty obvious after a little bit and it's not at all subtle

and

Me "not willing to toss around ideas or points of view"?

That's rich!

Somehow I doubt even my greatest "foes" here on ATS would agree with you on that bit of naive foolishness.

But have you looked up the definition of political agenda you said you wanted yet?

Anyway, carry on. But watch those deflection attempts, will ya?

reply to post by centurion1211

Me "not willing to toss around ideas or points of view"?

That's rich!

Somehow I doubt even my greatest "foes" here on ATS would agree with you on that bit of naive foolishness

You have foes Centurion? Get outta town... :-)

(Also - you really haven't addressed anything I've said or replied to anything I've asked...just sayin')

But have you looked up the definition of political agenda you said you wanted yet?

was kinda hoping for your definition - from the start. I even explained why - kinda sorta

now, would that be deflection on your part - or just dodging?

Anyway, carry on. But watch those deflection attempts, will ya?

:-)

you're a funny guy Centurion

Originally posted by irsuccubus

This guy is "James Amadi". He is a Nigerian email scammer. His photo was part of a scambait. I remember the user that posted this on another site about 7 years ago. The scambaiter was banned from the site. The text at the bottom says "Church of the Free Safety". I saved the Amadi photos, and could post more, for proof.

The scambaiter was contacted by Amadi, and was told he had money waiting for him in Nigeria. The scambaiter claimed to be a pastor of the "Church of the Free Safety" and said he could only give money to church members. The scambaiter made bogus letterhead (complete with a NFL goal post and football) and emailed it to Amadi. He emailed Amadi photos of KKK meetings and said it was the "church orientation". Amadi was required to wear "church attire" and hold a sign saying what the sign says. We didn't feel that method was appropriate, so the scambaiter was banned.

Anyway, that's the history on this photo. I don't know where you got it from. I hope this clears up any confusion on this photo.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Me "not willing to toss around ideas or points of view"?

That's rich!

Somehow I doubt even my greatest "foes" here on ATS would agree with you on that bit of naive foolishness

You have foes Centurion? Get outta town... :-)

(Also - you really haven't addressed anything I've said or replied to anything I've asked...just sayin')

But have you looked up the definition of political agenda you said you wanted yet?

was kinda hoping for your definition - from the start. I even explained why - kinda sorta

now, would that be deflection on your part - or just dodging?

Anyway, carry on. But watch those deflection attempts, will ya?

:-)

you're a funny guy Centurion

edit on 9/26/2011 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

Funny? More like foolish on my part for even trying to engage someone in debate who is either unwilling or unable to follow the conversation. No one here has to look up information for anyone else that is freely available. Repeatedly asking someone to do that for you IS the deflection. I haven't addressed your questions for the SIMPLE reason that they don't have anything to do with the OP.

Anyway, wanted to say nice avatar ...