Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Watching Clint Eastwood performing at the "open mic comedy jam" which the RNC has become.

Equal parts sad and painful...

Just finished watching Romney.

This is a bad person. Good to his family, I'm dead sure. Bad for everyone else's, no question.

Best part of Romney's speech was when he stated that the poor. old and infirm would be cared for in his America and the whole hall went silent.

Not a single person applauded (you could hear a pin drop, very awkward) at this even though they had all applauded the five or six points he made prior and the one afterwards.

Good times...

I don't know... I love Clint Eastwood, and as someone who voted for Obama previously and has been leaning towards doing so again, I DISliked Romney much less than previously in this speech. I think, overall, that he did pretty well.

Not that you guys were necessarily commenting about that, but I couldn't find another place to put the comment

I only tuned in just before Romney's speech, but the person we were really disappointed in was Rubio. My in-laws are Cuban and were excited for him to be speaking... but I thought he was extremely negative and really fell flat...

Maybe he's a bit worried about the hurricane that went through his state?

Celebrity activists who are liberal = progressive activists

Celebrity activists who are conservatives = senile and off their meds

 Harriticus wrote:
Celebrity activists who are liberal = progressive activists

Celebrity activists who are conservatives = senile and off their meds

That sums it up nicely.

No it doesn't.

Every liberal who contributed to the Ellen Barkin thread said that Ellen Barkin was a dumb nutjob who no one should pay any attention to.

You are writing false things. Stop speaking falsehoods, please.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, but the second point does stand that conservative celebrities are constantly berated.

So are liberal celebrities. And both kinds are made fun of by people with integrity when they say dumb or indefensible things.

There is no sarcasm font, and no smiley orkmoticon, so I have to assume he was being (depressingly) sincere.

Lolwut, I was being sarcastic. People swoon over "progressives" like Clooney and even Penn, who supports softcore dictators. Yet Eastwood dares to align with the Republican nominee and people throw a hissy.

That's not sarcasm, then. You are saying you think there's a double standard- that liberal celebrities who express a political opinion are only praised, but conservative ones are only booed.

That's silly, and untrue. Both are cheered by their supporters, and booed by their detractors. Which is fair and right.

If you're claiming that liberals refused to criticize liberal celebrities, then the Ellen Barkin thread is right there (it's down to page 2), within the last few days, proving you wrong.

If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.

 Harriticus wrote:
Lolwut, I was being sarcastic. People swoon over "progressives" like Clooney and even Penn, who supports softcore dictators. Yet Eastwood dares to align with the Republican nominee and people throw a hissy.

I think you missed the part where he was talking to an empty chair... and responding to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:
If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.

Why do you care how media treats them? Most people I know roll their eyes and say what ever.

Most liberals I know think Sean Penn is a self-important douche so I'm not sure where 'they all praise him' comes from, and I know a lot of liberals (including the entertainment industry) who like Kelsey Grammar.

To think that celebrities that skew more Democratic get no criticism and conservatives only get criticism makes me think someone may only be watching one 'news' channel.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Just finished watching Romney.

This is a bad person. Good to his family, I'm dead sure. Bad for everyone else's, no question.

why? i want to know exactly why you think he is a bad person.
is it because he loves america? no
is it because he wants to cut government spending so my generation and the next arent hopeless? no
is it because he wants to give businesses a tax break so they can afford to hire more people? no
is it because he wants to make America independent of foreign oil and create jobs here producing our own (also keeping money here instead of sending it to other countries)? i dont think so.
is it because his VP candidate supports our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms?
you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)
now please, back up your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't know... I love Clint Eastwood, and as someone who voted for Obama previously and has been leaning towards doing so again, I DISliked Romney much less than previously in this speech. I think, overall, that he did pretty well.

Not that you guys were necessarily commenting about that, but I couldn't find another place to put the comment

I only tuned in just before Romney's speech, but the person we were really disappointed in was Rubio. My in-laws are Cuban and were excited for him to be speaking... but I thought he was extremely negative and really fell flat...

i disagree, while some of what Rubio said was negative, he was saying those things to inspire people to vote for Romney, which i feel he did exceptionally well. nothing he said was false.

you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)

You haven't proven anything. You've accepted some platitudes, a mildly appealing but misleading version of a personal history, a pack of distortions and a few outright lies at face value. That's just being uncritical and letting yourself be taken advantage of.

The parts of Romney's speech where he talked about his personal history and his family were pretty decent. Though some of it (like the implication that he worried and sweated about his family's livelihood resting on Bain succeeding) were not really honest.

His policy stuff and most of his attacks on the President were the same standard talking points, full of falsehood and deception, that he's been putting out since the primaries. He did an okay job as Governor of MA; but it's clear that he's willingly abandoned a lot of his centrist principles for political advantage to curry the Tea Party vote.

 Harriticus wrote:
Celebrity activists who are liberal = progressive activists

Celebrity activists who are conservatives = senile and off their meds

It's not so much the fact that he is supporting the conservatives, and more the fact that he had a conversation with a chair.
That part is probably where the senility/meds comments came from.

Does anyone see this election cycle as another round of the "lesser of two evils" kind of voting?

I voted McCain last time because Hope and Change and everything else entailed by President Obama was less substantial than McCain's platform.

This time I may just vote for the prez out of spite of the Republican platform:

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Just look at some of the things in there. Most of it sounds okay, but read deeper and find the nuggets of insanity or social backwardness that make this platform unsustainable for many people to support.

If and when a liberal celebrity spends 25 minutes on the stage during a live broadcast at the Democratic convention carrying on a conversation with a chair for twenty five minutes and pretending that an invisible president is swearing and talking back to them I will be the first to say they are bat gak crazy as well.

I have no issue with conservative celebs being conservative per se if they so choose provided they are talking intelligently and rationally about the issues at hand.

Eastwood however looked like a nutjob doing a routine at The Improv.

He didnt do Romney any favors. Romney's own speech is being overshadowed by the display of off-message craziness that Eastwood stumbled through...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No it doesn't.

Every liberal who contributed to the Ellen Barkin thread said that Ellen Barkin was a dumb nutjob who no one should pay any attention to.

You are writing false things. Stop speaking falsehoods, please.

Agreed.

I have no problem citing crazy when I see it. Barkin is crazy ( and I said so in that thread). Penn isnt far behind her.

Amaya (amoungst others)has taken on the role of being obtuse on principle as of late, jumping to blindly oppose anything certain people post, so no surprises here really...

Mannahnin wrote:The parts of Romney's speech where he talked about his personal history and his family were pretty decent. Though some of it (like the implication that he worried and sweated about his family's livelihood resting on Bain succeeding) were not really honest.

His policy stuff and most of his attacks on the President were the same standard talking points, full of falsehood and deception, that he's been putting out since the primaries. He did an okay job as Governor of MA; but it's clear that he's willingly abandoned a lot of his centrist principles for political advantage to curry the Tea Party vote.

This is kind of where I'm at, Mann. I actually like his performance as governor of MA. But his rhetoric has moved to the right by a lot, as unfortunately both party's have to to win their primaries. He seems to be banking on the base and not on independents.

Which is a bummer, because if he would say/do things that were more central, he could earn my vote...

However, as to negativity and twisting the facts, unfortunately even Not being in a swing state, I've seen an equal number of ads from the Obama campaign that are doing so. Which is a bummer...

Finally, I watched a little bit of MSNBC coverage of the convention after it was over last night, and I have to say, I dislike them as much as Fox News but on the other end of the spectrum. Rachel Maddow was just tearing into Clint Eastwood... and people totally just glossed over the other speakers.

I would've much rather heard some decent coverage of what the heck Rubio's speech was supposed to accomplish, or any of the more "substantive" speakers... rather than what I'm guessing was supposed to be kind of a funny thing and maybe went awry.

Clint Eastwood can do no wrong in my book, though . I respect the man for his work as an actor, and much like many liberal-leaning actors whose politics I don't agree with (myself being a more center-politics person, and leaning towards the increasing popularity of social-liberalism and fiscal-conservatism) I ignore his politics for the sake of the fact that he is Clint. Fething. Eastwood

So, yeah... hopefully NPR on the way to work this morning will remain somewhat neutral in their coverage, as I have been pleasantly surprised by their being so thus far!

You could probably listen to The Economist's coverage for MOSTLY neutral coverage.

The occasional deep nose romney ass kissing aside.

I'm not even IN your country, but let me respond to your extemely poor response...

jordanis wrote:why? i want to know exactly why you think he is a bad person.
is it because he loves america? no

He loves one vision of America. There are plenty of visions of America, both within and outside your nation.

is it because he wants to cut government spending so my generation and the next arent hopeless? no

Really? He is not doing it for any other reason? You really believe that the money saved is going to land up in your pocket at any time in the future?

is it because he wants to give businesses a tax break so they can afford to hire more people? no

When business save money, they don't hire more staff. They pay more money in dividends. IF they hire more staff, it is only so that the dividends can be even higher.

is it because he wants to make America independent of foreign oil and create jobs here producing our own (also keeping money here instead of sending it to other countries)? i dont think so.

Most American oil interests are overseas. If you think that is going to change, you are very naive.

is it because his VP candidate supports our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms?

That is what you choose to comment on regarding Paul Ryan? Really? That is probably the least offensive thing about the guy.

you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)
now please, back up your argument.

You have not proven a single thing. You have provided some opinions, yes, but I would argue that the miniscule amount of logical argument you have given to back them up is extremely weak. You have subsequently provided no evidence to back up your arguments, let alone prove them.

Your posting is extremely naive. Now, I'm not going to go all anti-Romney, so I am not going to provide any opinions or evidence of my own to try and counter yours, but please, if you want to go around saying you have proven something, at least try and come up with 1) Opinions backed up with logical argument, preferably followed by 2) Evidence to back up your arguments.

People may still disagree with you, but at least they'll respect your ability to make a valid choice, instead of making you look brainwashed.

Clint Eastwood is hardly a "conservative" in the same sense as many attending the RNC. He is fiscally conservative but very liberal socially. He is pro gay marriage, pro abortion I believe and definitely believes in global climate change which many on the far rigjt deny. He is an old school Republican, not a Tea Party pub, and it shows. As crazy as his speech might have been (apparently he had a GOP approved speech he threw out right before going on stage, so this was mostly adlib) if you read the transcript he never once actually says hr endorses Romney or any of the GOP platform (both of which were explicit requirements for speeches or so Ive read).

Clint Eastwood doesn't really fit with the far right conservative base that makes up so much of the Republican party lately. Maybe he and folks like McCain should ressurect Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party. I'd join in an instant.

It was fething embarrassing. The auld bloke could hardly get his words out.. you know how when you visit your grandparents and they go "Ah would you like a cup of tea Ian, Richard.. Jonathan... Paul.... (insert every single male member of my immediate family) Matthew?... Yes.."

He shouldn't have been given a speaking part, the guys in his eighties and he just looked a tit.

I feel kinda sorry for the bloke... Age makes fools of us all. My granny always says "never get old" I think ill take her advice.

Okay... you gotta admit... this was funny!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/eastwooding

 whembly wrote:
Okay... you gotta admit... this was funny!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/eastwooding

I laughed really loudly at this one!

I'm an Eastwood fan, and I respect the fact that an 80 year got up and did a speech viewed by millions.
In response to an earlier post, Eastwood is old school Republican of the Charlton Heston mould i.e what the Democrats used to be.
To another earlier poster, why do the Republicans always get away with the myth that they cut government spending? Reagan and both members of the Bush dynasty spent money like there was no tomorrow.
And finally, I'm no fan of Obama, but if anything represents the American dream, it's a man of humble origins becoming POTUS, not a multi-millionaire.

I thought it was pretty uncomfortable to watch and not the way I want to remember Clint Eastwood. Not the ideology of his speech---just the manner in which it was given.

Sometimes I question if the republicans actually want to win this election or if (hopefully) they want to shake off a bit of stupid.

And every president/congress raises Government spending. We're stupid like that.