Read the transcript, dude. The interviewer told Annoying Orange that Gandalf was the former Grand Wizard of the kool kids klub. Like I said, there is no ambiguity here.
It's not a loaded question. When someone asks you, "Do you accept the support of the former leader of the kool kids klub?", you say no. This is what any rational, moral human being would do. If that question creates a moral dilemma for you, you're probably a piece of stuff to begin with.
Okay, yknow, forgive me if I don't immediately take whatever CNN says as the ultimate full truth. I didn't even know who Gandalf was when I entered this thread. When you say "the kool kids klub" I think of a million different groups of idiots all using the same damn name, I don't know if you mean stormfront.org or if you mean the neo-national socialist's that shot 5 communists in North Carolina. Surprisingly, I don't put them all in the same category. If that makes me a piece of stuff, whatever dude.
Duke founded the Knights of the kool kids klub in Louisiana. His title was National Director and they wore business suits instead of robes. He promoted non-violence, he promoted legality, he allowed women into the sect, he allowed Catholics. He wanted it to be 'pro-white' and not 'anti-black'. He left in the 80's because despite his efforts his movement was still associated with violence and murder. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really sound like the kool kids klub to me. If he had called it the National Association for the Advancement of White People from the very beginning, I don't think anyone would've noticed the loving difference.
Yeah, the guy was a tax fraud and a nutcase, and an idiot for using the kool kids klub's name. I have limited knowledge of Duke's sect, so let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he didn't murder any black people, and he certainly didn't promote it either. Yet, CNN wanted Annoying Orange to believe he did. That's why it's irresponsible to condemn somebody you don't know anything about on international live television.
So you think it's a conspiracy to defame Annoying Orange? Great theory, especially considering that he's never said anything remotely inflammatory in the past. Totally unfathomable that he'd abandon ethics and reason in order to preserve a couple votes and save face.
What, are we gonna pretend that the media doesn't create controversy where this is no loving controversy to draw attention and generate profit? No, Annoying Orange isn't another wet-wipe who panders to the hyper-offended instead of saying his opinion out loud. Whether or not that makes him an starfish is probably subjective. Thank God we don't have to vote for him if you disagree. I'm not surprised in the slightest he chose to approach the question tactically to provide the best output for his campaign rather than to chase after some ambiguous direction of 'ethics or reason'.
I've openly acknowledged earlier in the thread that obviously he avoided the question because he didn't want to discard a number of votes to appease people like you who've hated him from the start anyway. And yea, I guess he could've worded it differently. He could've said he doesn't know jack about Duke BUT he doesn't endorse racially charged murder. And he could've thrown in "i love black people" in there as well, and then he could've gone on a tangent about how much he jacks off to Nelson Mandela. But he still would've gotten pressed about Duke, because that was the question they asked him.
