Did anyone just watch Clint Eastwood's speech?

[nazdrowie]

Are you 12?
(and it's not spelled like that anyway)

 i know, i know 

...it was a poor attempt at the lulz

@ myself.

 

[sole vintage]

 

[deuce king]

son was looking flabby n sick
talked out his ***

Indeed. By far the worst political speech of all-time, and by far one of if not the worst conventions of all-time. Also, the Republican party is so bad and out of touch that they have white people holding up signs saying "Hispanics for Romney". Just goes to show how low some Republicans will stoop.

 

[jesusshuttlesworth34]

That s*** was worse than the ending of Gran Turino!

 

[3stheluckynumbe]

I think republicans are gonna push Rubio next. He's Hispanic but looks white washed....

 

[scarsorscabs]

I voted for Obama in 08 is the new I have black friends.

You're corny dude. I can only speak for myself because I said that in this thread but my only reasoning was to make it clear that my comments have nothing to do with political leanings...and they especially don't have to do with race.

OK

Can we just laugh about the sillyness of the speech instead of having the same debate for the millionth time?

I was just giving a response to comments like:

Also how excited the crowd was for that train wreck shows how unappealing this group is.

Republicans remind me of those people that are at those church shows with pastors preaching nonsense

And even:

His speech was great

#TeamRomney

That people will rally around something, no matter how awful it is, as long as the general purpose fits their beliefs. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing, you tried to tell me what I said was FALSE, that Democrats wouldn't have had the same reaction and I believe you're absolutely incorrect. Nothing wrong with debating, if you're even tuned into and have an opinion on anything political, you should be prepared for that.

It might be a little much but to me that speech is an example of what's wrong with these campaigns.

 

[dyyhard]

#eastwooding

 

[boys noize]

You're corny dude. I can only speak for myself because I said that in this thread but my only reasoning was to make it clear that my comments have nothing to do with political leanings...and they especially don't have to do with race.
I was just giving a response to comments like:
And even:
That people will rally around something, no matter how awful it is, as long as the general purpose fits their beliefs. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing, you tried to tell me what I said was FALSE, that Democrats wouldn't have had the same reaction and I believe you're absolutely incorrect. Nothing wrong with debating, if you're even tuned into and have an opinion on anything political, you should be prepared for that.
It might be a little much but to me that speech is an example of what's wrong with these campaigns.

I think you're wrong. As far as I can remember, I don't recall a time Democrats have rallied around someone saying something this outlandish and off-base.

If you know of any incident where this has happened, I'd be open to listening/reading about it.

 

[oh you mad]

Now only if I could get Ja Rule to break down Clint's speech.

 

[aircommandermarsfiend]

Let's be real, had that speech been made at the DNC, Democrats would've been enthralled and Republicans would laugh at him. People are so blinded by their political leanings.
I've voted in every election since I turned 18 and I'm leaning towards sitting this one out. I don't believe in either candidate and I voted for Obama in 08, believing in his many empty promises in part because we needed someone other than George W. You can call me what you want but I don't believe McCain would've had us in better shape either plus you can't tell me choosing Sarah Palin was anything but a desperate attempt to sway voters.
These candidates don't have the best interest of the majority in mind, they just want power by any means necessary, even if it includes putting a movie star with no redeeming value on stage to make some rah rah speech.

*Rock GIF* (I'm still voting for Obama because he seems like the lesser of two evils)

 

[trueprada]

he so irrelevant any way im just saying

 

[scarsorscabs]

You're corny dude. I can only speak for myself because I said that in this thread but my only reasoning was to make it clear that my comments have nothing to do with political leanings...and they especially don't have to do with race.
I was just giving a response to comments like:
And even:
That people will rally around something, no matter how awful it is, as long as the general purpose fits their beliefs. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing, you tried to tell me what I said was FALSE, that Democrats wouldn't have had the same reaction and I believe you're absolutely incorrect. Nothing wrong with debating, if you're even tuned into and have an opinion on anything political, you should be prepared for that.
It might be a little much but to me that speech is an example of what's wrong with these campaigns.

I think you're wrong. As far as I can remember, I don't recall a time Democrats have rallied around someone saying something this outlandish and off-base.

If you know of any incident where this has happened, I'd be open to listening/reading about it.

I'm not saying it has happened but if the situations were reversed and Eastwood was up there in 08 at the DNC talking about G W's failures and promises, talking to him in a chair, Democrats would've cheered him there too, to think otherwise is foolish. It's not even about content anymore, so much of what these candidates state in terms of statistics and pointing out their opposition's performance are factually untrue but that doesn't prevent people from giving standing ovations as long as it's what they want to hear.

 

[703 hwy]

Gotta watch this. Comments got me

 

[futuremd]

 

[boys noize]

I'm not saying it has happened but if the situations were reversed and Eastwood was up there in 08 at the DNC talking about G W's failures and promises, talking to him in a chair, Democrats would've cheered him there too, to think otherwise is foolish. It's not even about content anymore, so much of what these candidates state in terms of statistics and pointing out their opposition's performance are factually untrue but that doesn't prevent people from giving standing ovations as long as it's what they want to hear.

So you're not saying the Democrats have ever actually done something similar.... but you're saying IF they did, it'd be the same?

See, what I'm not getting is how you came to this conclusion. It's purely hypothetical. You're trying to equate these two parties as if they've done and said equally outlandish and off-base things. You see where I'm getting at? The GOP and associated conservative groups have a proven track record of flat out lying and making things up. I think to equate the two through hypothetical situations is unfair.

It's not about content? A lot of people are ridiculing Clint because of content. He was rambling and talking to an invisible chair. Come on.

And it's not just Clint. We haven't even touched on Paul Ryan and his acceptance speech. Even a columnist from Fox News (albeit their most progressive voice) called him out for flat out lying and making things up.

 

[retro23j]

 

[jd214]

No thanks.

 

[jesusshuttlesworth34]

How much was that guy paid to hold that sign up all night?

 

[scarsorscabs]

I'm not saying it has happened but if the situations were reversed and Eastwood was up there in 08 at the DNC talking about G W's failures and promises, talking to him in a chair, Democrats would've cheered him there too, to think otherwise is foolish. It's not even about content anymore, so much of what these candidates state in terms of statistics and pointing out their opposition's performance are factually untrue but that doesn't prevent people from giving standing ovations as long as it's what they want to hear.

So you're not saying the Democrats have ever actually done something similar.... but you're saying IF they did, it'd be the same?

See, what I'm not getting is how you came to this conclusion. It's purely hypothetical. You're trying to equate these two parties as if they've done and said equally outlandish and off-base things. You see where I'm getting at? The GOP and associated conservative groups have a proven track record of flat out lying and making things up. I think to equate the two through hypothetical situations is unfair.

It's not about content? A lot of people are ridiculing Clint because of content. He was rambling and talking to an invisible chair. Come on.

And it's not just Clint. We haven't even touched on Paul Ryan and his acceptance speech. Even a columnist from Fox News (albeit their most progressive voice) called him out for flat out lying and making things up.

Yes, it was hypothetical. I also said Republicans would be laughing at Democrats had the situation been reversed but that doesn't fit your argument. You REALLY don't think if, I don't know, George Clooney went up there and rambled on, he wouldn't have gotten cheered regardless? I was responding to people talking about how Republicans were so excited for that train wreck, equating it to church shows and pastors.

It's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing to me because both parties, especially those at these conventions will rally around anything, even if it's rambling and talking to an invisible chair as long as the idea is that the opposition is evil. You're right in that Paul Ryan's speech last week he was fact-checked and quite a bit of what he said was untrue. Same thing with Obama's speeches on his campaign in 08, if you don't want to believe that to be true, you're kidding yourself. Whether what they're saying to their followers is factually accurate doesn't matter, that's my point about content. People will rally behind what they WANT to believe.

I'm not a Republican, far from it...I've voted Democrat in every election but as I said I'm sitting this one out because I don't believe in either candidate and can't support them just because of their party affiliation. My point is that whether there's a rambling incoherent old man up there or someone else, the response will be the same at this conventions. I think Eastwood's speech was awful, I couldn't care less that it might impact Romney either way but it was a poor decision to have him up there unless you know he'll proceed a certain way and feel confident in his message.

From 2008, BOTH McCain and Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/speeches.facts/index.html

The first is specifically about Obama's acceptance speech in 2008 but the website currently has done the same for Ryan & Romney:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/fact-checking-obama/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-big-night/

 

[boys noize]

Yes, it was hypothetical. I also said Republicans would be laughing at Democrats had the situation been reversed but that doesn't fit your argument. You REALLY don't think if, I don't know, George Clooney went up there and rambled on, he wouldn't have gotten cheered regardless? I was responding to people talking about how Republicans were so excited for that train wreck, equating it to church shows and pastors.
It's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing to me because both parties, especially those at these conventions will rally around anything, even if it's rambling and talking to an invisible chair as long as the idea is that the opposition is evil. You're right in that Paul Ryan's speech last week he was fact-checked and quite a bit of what he said was untrue. Same thing with Obama's speeches on his campaign in 08, if you don't want to believe that to be true, you're kidding yourself. Whether what they're saying to their followers is factually accurate doesn't matter, that's my point about content. People will rally behind what they WANT to believe.
I'm not a Republican, far from it...I've voted Democrat in every election but as I said I'm sitting this one out because I don't believe in either candidate and can't support them just because of their party affiliation. My point is that whether there's a rambling incoherent old man up there or someone else, the response will be the same at this conventions. I think Eastwood's speech was awful, I couldn't care less that it might impact Romney either way but it was a poor decision to have him up there unless you know he'll proceed a certain way and feel confident in his message.
From 2008, BOTH McCain and Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/speeches.facts/index.html
The first is specifically about Obama's acceptance speech in 2008 but the website currently has done the same for Ryan & Romney:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/fact-checking-obama/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-big-night/

My problem was just that to equate the Dems as being equal was unfair. As far as I can see, the Republicans have the track record for actually saying/doing these outlandish things. While there may be Democrats who would cheer a George Clooney that rambled and talked to an invisible chair (this will never happen. George Clooney will never get old and senile. ) it hasn't actually happened.

I don't identify myself as a Democrat but I do, obviously, have liberal views. I get that both sides are not immune to saying things that might be factually untrue but, again as far as I can tell, one side definitely outweighs the other...

 

[scarsorscabs]

Yes, it was hypothetical. I also said Republicans would be laughing at Democrats had the situation been reversed but that doesn't fit your argument. You REALLY don't think if, I don't know, George Clooney went up there and rambled on, he wouldn't have gotten cheered regardless? I was responding to people talking about how Republicans were so excited for that train wreck, equating it to church shows and pastors.
It's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing to me because both parties, especially those at these conventions will rally around anything, even if it's rambling and talking to an invisible chair as long as the idea is that the opposition is evil. You're right in that Paul Ryan's speech last week he was fact-checked and quite a bit of what he said was untrue. Same thing with Obama's speeches on his campaign in 08, if you don't want to believe that to be true, you're kidding yourself. Whether what they're saying to their followers is factually accurate doesn't matter, that's my point about content. People will rally behind what they WANT to believe.
I'm not a Republican, far from it...I've voted Democrat in every election but as I said I'm sitting this one out because I don't believe in either candidate and can't support them just because of their party affiliation. My point is that whether there's a rambling incoherent old man up there or someone else, the response will be the same at this conventions. I think Eastwood's speech was awful, I couldn't care less that it might impact Romney either way but it was a poor decision to have him up there unless you know he'll proceed a certain way and feel confident in his message.
From 2008, BOTH McCain and Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/speeches.facts/index.html
The first is specifically about Obama's acceptance speech in 2008 but the website currently has done the same for Ryan & Romney:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/fact-checking-obama/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-big-night/

My problem was just that to equate the Dems as being equal was unfair. As far as I can see, the Republicans have the track record for actually saying/doing these outlandish things. While there may be Democrats who would cheer a George Clooney that rambled and talked to an invisible chair (this will never happen. George Clooney will never get old and senile. ) it hasn't actually happened.

I don't identify myself as a Democrat but I do, obviously, have liberal views. I get that both sides are not immune to saying things that might be factually untrue but, again as far as I can tell, one side definitely outweighs the other...

I am socially very liberal and tend towards the Democratic party but to say that it's just Republicans with the track record for outlandish or factually untrue things is ridiculous. It's more likely that you (and others, myself included in the past) focus on when Republicans get fact check and look foolish. Yes, this Eastwood thing is the first like it and it was REALLY bad but it can happen both ways. This whole process is just a big show.

 

[futuremd]

I'm not worried about who ever is on stage.

I'm worried about the audience. 

 

[mr marcus]

too bad my state always go red during the elections......i dont even think clinton has ever won NC.....but we stay having a democratic governor 

 .......NC weird as hell

 

[futuremd]

too bad my state always go red during the elections......i dont even think clinton has ever won NC.....but we stay having a democratic governor 

 .......NC weird as hell

Here is why:

 

[BloodxBone]

Elections have turned into a circus. Every 4 years, it comes into town.