Two actors, two very different messages

In the country that gave us Hollywood, it won’t come as a surprise that actors weigh in on the upcoming Presidential election. And I don’t even mean Clint Eastwood.

First, Chuck Norris (plus wife). We haven’t heard from him in a long time. After watching this video, you may wish it had remained so.

“Our country may be lost forever” and they “… watch our country go the way of socialism or something much worse“. Which country are they in? If that wasn’t the decoratively applied star-spangled banner in their dressing room, one could think they have moved to North Korea or Venezuela. Mr and Mrs Norris, have you ever been to a socialist country? Did you notice the 1,000 differences with America? No, but you came up with something else that involved the number 1,000 because you warn us: “We will defend for our children this last best hope for man on earth or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Mr and Mrs Norris, are you fucking serious?? “A thousand years of darkness” if President Obama is re-elected? And yet, even with that dreadful threat on the horizon, you still only tell people to vote against President Obama, but can’t bring it over yourselves to call for a vote for Mitt Romney. You must be really convinced that Mitt Romney is the best candidate the Republican Party has.

Let’s see who will step up for the Democrats: First, Democrats had Scarlett Johansson, Kerry Washington and Eva Longoria speak at their convention, whom you may prefer over Mr Eastwood or you may not. That’s a matter of taste.

The direct competition against Chuck Norris is Samuel L Jackson:

I probably don’t even need to tell you which of these two videos I like much more.


About Andreas Moser

Travelling the world and writing about it. I have degrees in law and philosophy, but I'd much rather be a journalist, a spy or a hobo.
This entry was posted in Elections, Films, Politics, USA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Two actors, two very different messages

  1. Simeon Blatchley says:

    Obviously the political professionalism has gone down the tubes, as well as your ability to see the facts. Your best argument against the Norris’ is their metaphor, and that you think you know what socialism is. It’s apparent you don’t. Sure, Obama is not as extreme as North Korea and friends, but his ideologies are the same. So here’s what happens, people watch the WTFU video, and think “Oh, Romney must be horrible”, and then base their entire “opinion” on the so called “facts” given in that video. And now we know why there are still actually people who think Obama is even a viable option for presidency. Because all most people do, is regurgitate what they hear.

    • Which one of the laws signed by President Obama is socialist? And is Congress also socialist for having passed these laws before? And is the Supreme Court socialist for upholding these laws? Or does it even make you a socialist for living in such a country?

    • Simeon Blatchley says:

      I didn’t say the laws were outright socialist, what I said was that his ideology and in some cases policy, directly reflects that of a socialist mindset. The fact that Congress *has* passed some of these laws/bills/etc. proves that the majority of those people have a mindset equivalent to that of Obama’s. The Supreme Courts job is to uphold those laws (although most of the Justices are corrupt), so the argument is not applicable there. And as for the last statement, that’s not even a logical point or argument. Just because someone lives somewhere doesn’t mean that their belief system automatically becomes that of the “land” so to speak. It doesn’t take a Ph.D to see through the façade of Obama.

    • My questions remains: WHICH of the policies implemented in the United States is socialist?

    • Simeon also completely misrepresents the role of the Supreme Court. It is NOT the role of the Supreme Court to uphold laws. If that was its role, why have it all? Wouldn’t it be enough if Congress passed these laws?
      The role of the Supreme Court is to hold the laws accountable to the benchmark and framework set by the constitution. It upholds the constitution, not the laws.

    • Also, I haven’t heard of any Supreme Court Justice being corrupt as of late, nor has anybody else. You seem to be privy to some insider information which will qualify you for a few Pulitzer Prizes. Please feel free to pass it on to me for publication if you are afraid for your own life.

  2. I didn’t have any great love of Chuck Norris before his endorsement. He managed to shift my opinion of him from “meh” to “nay”. Swing and a miss!
    Love the Sam Jackson ad. Then again, when he gets nuts, he gets entertaining. There’s a weird little movie called “The Man” (if I recall correctly) with him and Eugene Levy. Hilarious!

  3. RADIUS says:

    In my opinion, the entire block of Obama-haters, starting from the TEA-party through celebrities like Clint Eastwood/Chuck Norris up the extreme websites such as “americanswhohateobama(dot)com” have only one useful aspect: They can clearly demonstrate the entire world that the “Freedom Of Speech” paragraph in the US bill of right protects even the most stupid and hate-spiting opinions who empty their intellectual garbage bin on Barak Obamas doorsteps.

  4. Pingback: My predictions for the US Presidential Election 2012 | The Happy Hermit

Please leave your comments, questions, suggestions:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s