Clint Eastwood mocks GOP; antics go unnoticed by squares

I think republicans love using Obama as a scapegoat, from everything to our terrible economy (thanks G.W.) to the 9/11 attacks. The vast majority of his supposed "wrongdoings" are things this administration hasn't even touched.

DarkED said:

I think republicans love using Obama as a scapegoat, from everything to our terrible economy (thanks G.W.) to the 9/11 attacks. The vast majority of his supposed "wrongdoings" are things this administration hasn't even touched.

Click to expand...

I will agree this administration didn't start all the mess, but they haven't made it better either.

Bush threw us in the hole, and Obama dug it deeper.

"At one point, Eastwood said he "never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to be president," apparently unaware that Romney holds a law degree."

I just thought it was sad. The man used to be great and his speech is such a rambling, awkward piece of nonsense that he just comes off as senile.

dragonfliet said:

I just thought it was sad. The man used to be great and his speech is such a rambling, awkward piece of nonsense that he just comes off as senile.

Click to expand...

Well Eastwood is 82, so you have to give him some slack, and considering there was no tele-prompting or speech-writing.

That being said, I think he did a great disservice to himself by going onto the stage and repeated the same old lines that the GOP uses to pander to people. He is a great actor and director, and still remains one of my favorites, but he definitely isn't home on the political stage.

This is the point where you ask yourself: "why are liberals so concerned with what Clint Eastwood says?"

yeah, no one's concerned Sherlock

we just realize how embarrassing it is for Clint and the GOP.
it's a perfect summary of your party...

...senile old white man berates invisible version of Obama.

Ahh! So liberals are particularly interested in taking about Clint Eastwood because they think it makes the Republican party look bad. Have fun with that. I for one want as many people as possible to see Eastwood saying "if someone isn't doing the job you have to let them go".

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/01/new-florida-poll-shows-vindication-of-eastwood-strategy/

TWD said:

This is the point where you ask yourself: "why are liberals so concerned with what Clint Eastwood says?"

Click to expand...

Same could be said about if the Democrats invited Bill Maher or Michael Moore or some other celebrity to speak at their convention. Conservatives would have a field day.

The point is that choosing the different convention speakers at the most important party-sanctioned event isn't taken lightly. It is calculated, in that it shows who they are and who they want to pander to.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/clint-eastwood-gets-cut-from-romney-rnc-video/

Turns out that the GOP is another group that is concerned with what he said. This just proves that it was indeed a huge mistake!

TWD said:

Ahh! So liberals are particularly interested in taking about Clint Eastwood because they think it makes the Republican party look bad. Have fun with that. I for one want as many people as possible to see Eastwood saying "if someone isn't doing the job you have to let them go".

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/01/new-florida-poll-shows-vindication-of-eastwood-strategy/

Click to expand...

You know what they say when you try to assume a trend with just one political poll.

Anyway, this is nothing new, and constitutes the "convention bump" in ratings that we see political season after political season.

TWD said:

"if someone isn't doing the job you have to let them go".

Click to expand...

yes...
right...

because Obama hasn't spent the last 4 years
- reducing the impact of the recession
- saving the automobile industry
- drawing down the war in Iraq
- finalizing the 2014 draw down for Afghanistan
- attempting to address consumer protection and healthcare reform (which no recent President has touched)
- putting an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell
- trying to put an end to the shame of Gitmo
- putting an end to CIA torture tactics
- increasing our investment in alternative/American energy
- increasing our investment in medical science (that was suppressed by Bush)
- shooting Osama bin Laden in the fucking forehead (fulfilling Bush' broken promise)
- killing hundreds of known terrorist officers and figureheads with efficient, cost effective drone strikes

clearly he isn't doing his job and must be let go.
thank god for rambling, stuttering, not funny, confused, and sad old Clint Eastwood. thank god he was there to point that out for us. otherwise I definitely never would have noticed.

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing.
Clint making a fool of his previously bad ass persona, or TWD gulping down the kool-aid by the bucket full; grasping at any straw he can use to justify voting for Romney / Ryan.

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:

yes...
right...

because Obama hasn't spent the last 4 years
- reducing the impact of the recession
- saving the automobile industry
- drawing down the war in Iraq
- finalizing the 2014 draw down for Afghanistan
- attempting to address consumer protection and healthcare reform (which no recent President has touched)
- putting an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell
- trying to put an end to the shame of Gitmo
- putting an end to CIA torture tactics
- increasing our investment in alternative/American energy
- increasing our investment in medical science (that was suppressed by Bush)
- shooting Osama bin Laden in the fucking forehead (fulfilling Bush' broken promise)
- killing hundreds of known terrorist officers and figureheads with efficient, cost effective drone strikes

clearly he isn't doing his job and must be let go.
thank god for rambling, stuttering, not funny, confused, and sad old Clint Eastwood. thank god he was there to point that out for us. otherwise I definitely never would have noticed.

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing.
Clint making a fool of his previously bad ass persona, or TWD gulping down the kool-aid by the bucket full; grasping at any straw he can use to justify voting for Romney / Ryan.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Obama, economic recovery isn't on that list. Is the life of the every day American better than it was 4 years ago? I'd say not, and this morning we learned that not even David Axelrod has enough spin to try and argue otherwise. The only funny thing here is watching the last few holdouts try to rationalize what is clearly a failed presidency. When the best you can do is say "lessened the impact", and focus on Clint Eastwood, you know your candidate has a problem.

TWD said:

Unfortunately for Obama, economic recovery isn't on that list. Is the life of the every day American better than it was 4 years ago? I'd say not

Click to expand...

if you think ANY president could have gotten us out of a hole in 4 years that it took 10+ years to dig, you're an idiot.

every economist who doesn't work for Fox News has acknowledged that the Obama stimulus did much to suppress the depths of the recession. most of them agree that it actually didn't go far enough since at least 40% of it was tax cuts thanks GOP holdouts.

if the economic recovery failed it was at least 40% the fault of the Republicans in Congress. not to mention that it was Republican party ideology that got us into this mess in the first place. 2 massive wars? Bush started but didn't pay for. tax cuts for the rich that none of them needed and didn't trickle down? Bush started but didn't pay for. bank bailouts? Bush policy. I could go on...

a failed presidency.

Click to expand...

if this is your definition of a failed presidency:

- reducing the impact of the recession
- saving the automobile industry
- drawing down the war in Iraq
- finalizing the 2014 draw down for Afghanistan
- attempting to address consumer protection and healthcare reform (which no recent President has touched)
- putting an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell
- trying to put an end to the shame of Gitmo
- putting an end to CIA torture tactics
- increasing our investment in alternative/American energy
- increasing our investment in medical science (that was suppressed by Bush)
- shooting Osama bin Laden in the fucking forehead (fulfilling Bush' broken promise)
- killing hundreds of known terrorist officers and figureheads with efficient, cost effective drone strikes

then I'd love to see what you might consider a successful one.
you're delusional. and it's pretty hilarious.

hal said:

Some of those things are certainly true though not all of them are remarkable reasons to re-elect someone with whom you have philosophical differences. I'd outright disagree with some that you gave President Obama credit for... saving the automobile industry, for example. Reducing the impact of the recession (kinda hard to measure what could have been, right?)

Click to expand...

the point (and why TWD is delusional) is this:
if you could ascribe that list to a Republican president then the people who go around calling it a failed presidency would be dancing in the streets and trying to rub it in the face of every Democrat they came across.

if a GOP administration had saved General Motors, killed bin Laden, avoided depression, passed healthcare and consumer protection reform, increased our supply of domestic energy, revitalized the State Department, revitalized medical science research, and brought the combat troops home from Iraq they'd be calling it the greatest presidency of the last 40 years.

but because Obama did it, all of these things are apparently failures.
it's so absurd it's comical.

It has nothing to with whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. It has to do with the fact that this has been the most anemic recovery ever. The few successes he may have had pale in comparison to the failure of an economy that he has presided over. We've dug deeper holes before (Jimmy Carter anyone?) and we didn't have this much trouble getting things going again. Obama has failed even by his own standards, but I don't need to show you all that chart again. Maybe the stimulus did help. What I've learned about economics tells me that it's almost impossible to know for sure. What I do know is that sound economic policy would have led to a real recovery. Instead we spent the entire term demonizing business, and I believe we might even be looking at a double dip as Bernanke is the only thing really holding the markets up.

It's not because he's a Democrat. If Clinton had won I don't think we'd be in this situation. It's not that he's black or because we think he's a bad person. This is just how liberals try to rationalize away why they can't understand what everyone else already knows. He's just a bad president.

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRGgrOJs9EA[/M]

Meanwhile...

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc[/m]

And the economy be damned in order to do so.

TWD said:

Ahh! So liberals are particularly interested in taking about Clint Eastwood because they think it makes the Republican party look bad. Have fun with that. I for one want as many people as possible to see Eastwood saying "if someone isn't doing the job you have to let them go".

Click to expand...

It's pretty rough when nearly 200 people are working hard to undo, block and halt everything you do at work.

It won't matter in November, you angry racist white fat guys are so outnumbered it's just ridiculous. All the voter frauding and blocking in the world isn't going to stop the sheer mass of poor to average americans who are still totally fed up with your party's selfish wanna be, financial Darwinist horse manure.