Clint Eastwood mocks GOP; antics go unnoticed by squares

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TWD

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
I can't find anything even close to what Jacks said. I'm going to guess he was just mistaken. Anyways Debbie is always a good laugh.

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzylMpPC3PQ[/m]

I think almost every speech from both parties have been good. However, I don't think any of them really move the needle. Bill was certainly exhaustive, but what took him all night to do will probably just be rebutted in about ten minutes by Ryan. Nobody is going to remember these speeches no matter how good they are.
 
Capt.Toilet

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
Crotale said:
I just watched Clinton give part of his major stump speech for Obama. It was a damned powerful speech, even if it was chock full of holes and sorta-truths. The one item that stuck out for me was when Bubba said that Super Barack created 4.7 million new jobs and Congressional Republicans zero new jobs. Hmm, and here I thought Romney was Obama's opponent in the race for the White House.
Click to expand...

Create 4.7 million but how many have been lost since. The water bucket is only half full here people.

Numbers make them look good, but truths will kick them in the nuts.
 
Crotale

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
congress isn't relevant because of Paul Ryan.

congress is relevant because congressional Republicans publicly stated that their goal as elected representatives was to deny Obama a 2nd term; above all else. they would rather see the economy in ruin than lose an election. this is their platform. they say this with pride, and then they turn around to yell at the president for not cleaning up the financial mess (that they created) fast enough.

congress is relevant because it is a physical embodiment of the hypocrisy that Romney represents.
Click to expand...

Do you know why the GOP leaders made their claims? Right after Obama was sworn into office, Nancy, Harry and he announced to the Congressional Republicans that the Democrats won and that means the GOP has no power or voice in Washington. Since the Dems already owned Congress for two years at that point, the only reasonable explanation would be that the Dems wanted to make sure the GOP "knew their place." Did you think it was going to sit well with the GOP knowing their only authorized actions would be to vote on the Democrats' agenda? Do you honestly believe the Dems when they claim to be bipartisan?

Hypocrisy that Romney represents? How about the Democrats' hypocrisy? Then Candidate Obama, in 2008, stated that if he got elected, his administration would cut the budget deficit by 50%, yet, that has not happened. He also claimed that Bush 43 was unpatriotic for increasing our national debt by over $4T in eight years, yet, now President Obama has increased the national debt by over $5T in less than four years. Last night, Bill Clinton said that since no president, including himself, could have pulled us an further out of the economic hole we are in means that we can't hold Obama responsible for the state of our economy (even though Obama promised he would reduce the deficit and not ring up huge debt).
 
Last edited:
Hermskii

Hermskii

www.Hermskii.com
Apr 13, 2003
875
3
18
56
Houston
Hermskii.com
I though Clinton did a great job of firing up the dems but he was full of crap most of the way through it. I look forward to seeing Biden and Obama tonight. There is no way they can 1-up Clinton's speech. We'll see.

Yes, Romney and Ryan can counter argue and slice up what Clinton said in about 10 minutes but in a way it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because he already said it. Most of the dems being unwilling (or unable ) to pay attention long enough to discern actual facts have already decided and likely already had already decided before he spoke. LOL + pathetic!

I expect a big bump from this DNC for Obama. Yes, I just said that "BUT" I also expect everything to go downhill soon after for the dems. I wish Dems and Republicans could live on separate continents. I know the conservative Republicans would in a heartbeat if they could but the dems would start freaking out wondering who would take care of them and wondering who's money would they take to give to themselves. I keep hearing this "we are all in this together" crap from the dems but they only want the working class to pay for everything. A difference here being republicans don't want your tax money. We want to keep our money and we want you to keep yours. The difference being you dems want to keep your money and ours. Sad = pathetic again!

I'll tell you what. I'll pay for me and my family and you dems pay for you and yours. I like that idea and you don't which proves what I said above to be right.

Hey TWD: Take it easy on Jack. Crotale is already all over him. Brizz is kicking him too. Even Capt. Toilet is questioning the truths the dems have spoken in the last few days. part of the facts being contorted here is the way the question's answers are quantified. Until both sides only answer the questions using only the same factors, they will continue to seem to be lying when if fact they are possibly only telling half truths.

Any discussion here about why the government has bought all of these hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo? predicted civil unrest seems to be the #1 guess so far. I'm guessing that is based on Obama winning again.
 
Zxanphorian

Zxanphorian

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jul 1, 2002
4,480
0
36
34
PA USA
Visit site
Hermskii said:
Any discussion here about why the government has bought all of these hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo? predicted civil unrest seems to be the #1 guess so far. I'm guessing that is based on Obama winning again.
Click to expand...

I'm not going comment on the other parts of the post. You had a good thing going when we were discussing the election outcomes and the reasons why, but now you are back into your lunatic phase. :(

Anyway, time to set the record straight with the ammunition 'scandal.' The groups, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Social Security Administration, did indeed buy hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo.

But it isn't because of civil unrest, or to arm NOAA's National Weather Service meteorologists to the gills to go to war against climate change skeptics, like the Conservatives say. They bought the rounds to train the law enforcement parts of the organizations, such as the Office of Law Enforcement of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which deals with things like illegal fisheries, who could be armed to the gills. These folks in the law enforcement are merely specialized police officers. When you get down to it, each officer only gets a few hundred rounds of ammo, which most of it is used on the firing range.

But NO! They bought hollow point rounds! The rounds that do the most tissue damage, so they must be up to no good! Conservatives counter. The reason why they bought hollow points is to decrease collateral damage from a round that completely penetrates the target, and to only to rightfully stop the criminals from disregarding the law and the safety of the country.

So this issue is not an issue at all, and a distraction from the real issues meant to perpetuate a grand conspiracy of Obama and the big bad government trying to take over the country by force. In fact, these purchase were common practice for quite a while now, so why is it such a pressing issue now?
 
Last edited:
Jacks:Revenge

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
TWD said:
I'm talking about your claim that the video was from a rehearsal. Stop trying to change the subject.
Click to expand...
it's not changing the subject, wise ass.
I didn't know what you were referring to.

either way the point remains.
just look at the footage again.

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg[/m]

it's 5 PM on CSPAN.
that's not primetime, that's not a major network. there's hardly any people there, the place is half empty. the DNC announced a small change to the foreign policy language of the platform and a handful of people boo'ed.

the RNC video shows the primetime major network coverage of Boenher announcing their entire platform (not just a minor change) to the full delegation followed by many loud boo's and people yelling "NO!"

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd28_zXZF-Y[/m]

Crotale said:
Since the Dems already owned Congress for two years at that point, the only reasonable explanation would be that the Dems wanted to make sure the GOP "knew their place." Did you think it was going to sit well with the GOP knowing their only authorized actions would be to vote on the Democrats' agenda?
Click to expand...
rule #1 of propaganda: repeat a lie often enough, and ignorant clowns (like yourself) will begin to believe that it's true.
like the majority myth.

the Democrats never owned Congress.
did you forget Ted Kennedy? how about Obama's vacated seat? how about the fact that 60 votes is not a majority?

http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

President Obama has increased the national debt by over $5T in less than four years.
Click to expand...
do you have any idea how the debt works?
do you know what interest is?
do you know how borrowing and lending works?

just because the debt keeps climbing does not mean that Obama is responsible for every dollar of it.

image.jpg

the wars (that Bush started and didn't pay for), the tax cuts (that Bush enacted and didn't pay for), and the bank bailouts (that Bush enacted) account for the vast majority of our debt.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
hal

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
FuLLBLeeD

FuLLBLeeD

fart
Jan 23, 2008
946
1
18
Kansas
awwsmack.org
Hermskii said:
Any discussion here about why the government has bought all of these hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo? predicted civil unrest seems to be the #1 guess so far. I'm guessing that is based on Obama winning again.
Click to expand...

You did a pretty good job of not saying something fucking retarded until this part, so good on you for ALMOST making a decent post.

edit: That's not to say the post was retarded because everything you say is, it was just more rational and coherent than usual until this part.
 
Zxanphorian

Zxanphorian

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jul 1, 2002
4,480
0
36
34
PA USA
Visit site
hal said:
Look... it's got both of them mostly telling falsehoods between 30-40% of the time. Clearly there's no winner here.
Click to expand...

The point Luv_Studd was making is that Obama's has a right-skewed distribution, with true on the left and pants on fire to the right. Romney's is more normally distributed on half-true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom