• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ok, so that Clint Eastwood thing didn't work out very well...

American said:
I don't know, but he did expose your debate skills.
Click to expand...

Specifically how?

Once again you simply see fit to attack me because I am THE ENEMY and make some snide drive-by remark without any substantiation, any evidence or any substantive analysis.
 
haymarket said:
So you think Eastwood helped both himself and Romney by pronouncing the President of the USA as CRAZY - not once but twice?
Click to expand...
I think Clint Eastwood is an actor and is 82 years old. I think he was there to provide an entertainment element and not to articulate the party platform. I think that most people who were watching realize this and are not nearly as "offended" as you seem to think they should be.

I also think you are trying to get way more mileage out of this than is really there...
 
Clinton Eastwood was a real hit and it very wise to put him on.
 
Thorgasm said:
I'm embarrassed for Eastwood.
Click to expand...


Why be embarrassed for him? He's 82 freaking years old, and says what he wants to say, without bowing to the expectations of those around him. I personally find it refreshing, but then I like old people with balls and grit.
 
TurtleDude said:
The obama slurpers are upset-Clint was funny and far sharper at 82 than the brain dead Obama toadies in hollywood who support Obama so they can pretend to be "enlightened" and not feel bad about having more affairs than acting roles
Click to expand...

Well, from what I am reading from Dutch media (not that biased too much) seem to find that it was a bit awkward with that empty chair.

Maybe it is most like he was a crazy uncle or granddad talking to himself at a party or in an old age home.

Don't get me wrong, I like the actor and movie maker Eastwood but I would have wanted either a friend of Romney who held s passionate speech exiting the voters about Romney because he could not do that even if it was to win a presidential election, or someone with actual answers instead of endless ramblings without any substance or details.

Like the several comments have said that I have read, there are no specifics from this ticket whatsoever. How is he going to create all those jobs. How he is going to protect women who got pregnant after rape or incest when his own congress might want to make that the law of the land.

My opinion, Romney strong on platitudes weak on substance.
 
Last night my coffee table had some snide remarks for me. Needless to say, I read that asshole the riot act.
 
Some of the people who are dissing Eastwood are taking stereotypes about old people and portraying these things as a negative. Personally I like old people. I like it when some old fart says something that makes other people a bit uncomfortable. Sometimes I wish I had the balls to do the same thing. As for the rambling, stumbling over lines, etc. I find that endearing and entertaining. Certainly NOTHING TO BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT! For those of you Left-wing Partisans who are saying that Eastwood was an embarrassment, you need to stop being so condescending to the elderly. Being old is NOTHING TO BE EMBARRASSED about!!! What, would you rather just have old people, locked away in a nursing home somewhere so you don't have to think about them?!?

I'm not voting for Romney. He's a liar and he puts money ahead of people. But I respect Clint Eastwood getting up there and sharing his wisdom and humor with the rest of the world, and I'd personally like to see if the DNC has the cajones to allow an elderly -American to get up on stage and have a go at it.
 
Debra said:
Ha! Me either, too funny, I actually felt kinda sorry for Clint, for Romney the shame is everyone will be talking about Clint tomorrow not mitts speech .
Click to expand...

"Everyone" being the media, I presume. That's probably a good thing. If the media is focused on Eastwood, it'll let Romney's powerful message resonate with the tens of millions who heard it. Sly like fox, I say.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I think Clint Eastwood is an actor and is 82 years old. I think he was there to provide an entertainment element and not to articulate the party platform. I think that most people who were watching realize this and are not nearly as "offended" as you seem to think they should be.

I also think you are trying to get way more mileage out of this than is really there...
Click to expand...

In the profession of politics, one rule is that you DO NOT hand a live microphone to somebody outside of the business who can potentially hurt you unless you know exactly what they are going to say and their remarks have already bee scripted or approved in advance. When you do take that chance you roll the dice. Sometimes you win - sometimes you lose.

What you fail to understand is that the Eastwood CRAZY remarks can now be taken and placed within ad or commercial and the worst possible perspective will be used to frame them.

His age will not matter.
His profession will not matter.
His entertainment value will not matter.
His support for the party and its platform will not matter.

All that will matter is that the GOP took a choice prime spot on their shining hour and gave it to somebody who then called the President of the USA crazy - not once but twice.

That is what will be seen over and over and over again in he campaign.

It matters now how many are offended this very hour. It matters how many will be offended over the next few weeks.

Eastwood and the people behind his appearance and his remarks just gave a very powerful weapon to the Democrats. Lets see if they have the guts to use it.
 
Peter King said:
Like the several comments have said that I have read, there are no specifics from this ticket whatsoever. How is he going to create all those jobs. How he is going to protect women who got pregnant after rape or incest when his own congress might want to make that the law of the land.

My opinion, Romney strong on platitudes weak on substance.
Click to expand...

He's running on his strength of being one of the most successful businessmen in the world. As opposed to, you know, a community organizer and lawyer.
 
MaggieD said:
"Everyone" being the media, I presume. That's probably a good thing. If the media is focused on Eastwood, it'll let Romney's powerful message resonate with the tens of millions who heard it. Sly like fox, I say.
Click to expand...

Actually not Maggie. If Eastwood even takes half the media TV time from Romney and his speech, that is a bad thing for Mittens. Mitt Romney should be the only story today coming out of the GOP convention and that is simply not the case.

What should have been the clear message is now muddied and dilluted. There is no way that is good for Mittens.
 
haymarket said:
Actually not Maggie. If Eastwood even takes half the media TV time from Romney and his speech, that is a bad thing for Mittens. Mitt Romney should be the only story today coming out of the GOP convention and that is simply not the case.

What should have been the clear message is now muddied and dilluted. There is no way that is good for Mittens.
Click to expand...

Mittens isn't really too much better than Kenyan. Or Dims. Or Hussein. Ya' think?
 
EdWagemann said:
Some of the people who are dissing Eastwood are taking stereotypes about old people and portraying these things as a negative. Personally I like old people. I like it when some old fart says something that makes other people a bit uncomfortable. Sometimes I wish I had the balls to do the same thing. As for the rambling, stumbling over lines, etc. I find that endearing and entertaining. Certainly NOTHING TO BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT! For those of you Left-wing Partisans who are saying that Eastwood was an embarrassment, you need to stop being so condescending to the elderly. Being old is NOTHING TO BE EMBARRASSED about!!! What, would you rather just have old people, locked away in a nursing home somewhere so you don't have to think about them?!?
Click to expand...

It is NOT about his age.

It is NOT about his stumbling over lines.

It is about his declaring the President of the USA as CRAZY - not once but twice.
 
haymarket said:
What you fail to understand is that the Eastwood CRAZY remarks can now be taken and placed within ad or commercial and the worst possible perspective will be used to frame them.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Why would Eastwood's words sway voters towards Obama/away from Romney?
 
haymarket said:
It is NOT about his age.

It is NOT about his stumbling over lines.

It is about his declaring the President of the USA as CRAZY - not once but twice.
Click to expand...

:rofl -- That was only after the President of the United States told Romney to go **** himself. :rofl
 
avusbluem5 said:
What was the Romney camp thinking, letting an 82 year old actor ad lib at 10:00pm on the last day of the convention. This will eat into what should have been a Friday news day dominated by Romney coverage... Now it will be split 50/50 with Eastwood coverage.

It shows a severe lack of judgement by the team Romney selected to manage the convention, which reflects badly on Romney's judgement. Seriously, someone should have put a stop to that idea, or at least moved Clint to the 4:30pm slot.

I imagine Romney's team had delusions of something simillar to the Super Bowl Half time spot Eastwood narrated... but that was a professionally written and produced piece, and probably took Eastwood 50 takes to get right.

It's was just astonishing what happened tonight.
Click to expand...

I caught some of all the speeches - his was the only one worth listening to.

Everyone else was on the brown-nosing dick-sucking bus :shrug: I got sick of hearing them praise him like he was a god - his name spilled out of everyone's mouth like some sort of litany.

It was rather nauseating. . . and that's why I spend most of my time reading transcripts of speeches rather than watching them.
 
haymarket said:
It is NOT about his age.

It is NOT about his stumbling over lines.

It is about his declaring the President of the USA as CRAZY - not once but twice.
Click to expand...

So you have a problems with free speech?
The Left-wing Partisan hacks are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here...
This was an awkwardly entertaining little bit...no big deal...let's just move on...MUCH MORE important things to focus our time and energy on.
 
EdWagemann said:
So you have a problems with free speech?
The Left-wing Partisan hacks are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here...
This was an awkwardly entertaining little bit...no big deal...let's just move on...MUCH MORE important things to focus our time and energy on.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? I have already stated that I welcome his comments in poltics and defend his right to make them.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let us say that next week at the Democratic Convention a very famous person is given the prime spot on the prime night for maximum TV coverage and they announce to the world that Mitt Romney is mentally ill. Not once do they say this but twice.

What reaction then ensues from the right?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
In the profession of politics, one rule is that you DO NOT hand a live microphone to somebody outside of the business who can potentially hurt you unless you know exactly what they are going to say and their remarks have already bee scripted or approved in advance. When you do take that chance you roll the dice. Sometimes you win - sometimes you lose.

What you fail to understand is that the Eastwood CRAZY remarks can now be taken and placed within ad or commercial and the worst possible perspective will be used to frame them.

His age will not matter.
His profession will not matter.
His entertainment value will not matter.
His support for the party and its platform will not matter.

All that will matter is that the GOP took a choice prime spot on their shining hour and gave it to somebody who then called the President of the USA crazy - not once but twice.

That is what will be seen over and over and over again in he campaign.

It matters now how many are offended this very hour. It matters how many will be offended over the next few weeks.

Eastwood and the people behind his appearance and his remarks just gave a very powerful weapon to the Democrats. Lets see if they have the guts to use it.
Click to expand...
So then...

You are saying that it would behoove the Democrats to take Clint Eastwood's remarks about the President being "crazy" and put them into some sort of an attack ad?

-You want to take the remarks of an old man
-one of the most respected actors of all time
-one of the most beloved figures in America today
-An Icon, and more importantly, an icon to millions of elderly Americans

You want to take these remarks and use them to vilify Republicans, but more importantly, smear and denigrate Clint Eastwood in an election where the senior vote will most likely determine the outcome?

Well I say.... Go ahead. Make my day!
 
haymarket said:
Why would you say that? I have already stated that I welcome his comments in poltics and defend his right to make them.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let us say that next week at the Democratic Convention a very famous person is given the prime spot on the prime night for maximum TV coverage and they announce to the world that Mitt Romney is mentally ill. Not once do they say this but twice.

What reaction then ensues from the right?
Click to expand...

The same reaction I have now: "How cute. But who cares. Lets move on to the real issues."
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So then...

You are saying that it would behoove the Democrats to take Clint Eastwood's remarks about the President being "crazy" and put them into some sort of an attack ad?

-You want to take the remarks of an old man
-one of the most respected actors of all time
-one of the most beloved figures in America today
-An Icon, and more importantly, an icon to millions of elderly Americans

You want to take these remarks and use them to vilify Republicans, but more importantly, smear and denigrate Clint Eastwood in an election where the senior vote will most likely determine the outcome?

Well I say.... Go ahead. Make my day!
Click to expand...

His age has nothing to do with it. Quit hiding behind that silly idea.

I have repeatedly stated that I have the highest admiration for the professional work of Clint Eastwood. I have even made a special trip to dine at his restaurant and enjoyed the Clint stories the staff told us. I have tons of his movies on the shelf. I even like his badass political personna despite not being a libertarian or a conservative.

Calling the President of the USA CRAZY - not once but twice is going way way way over the line.

That is what matters and that is what people are going to notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom