facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Clint Eastwood riles GOP crowd tonight, ridicules Obama



Published: Thu, August 30, 2012 @ 10:36 p.m.

TAMPA, Fla. (STAFF/WIRE REPORT)

Clint Eastwood whipped up the crowd at the Republican National Convention ahead of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech.

The iconic star of “Dirty Harry” and the Oscar-winning director of “Unforgiven” and “Million Dollar Baby,” Eastwood criticized President Barack Obama for failing to turn the economy around and for wanting to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects.

Eastwood says Obama has failed to deliver on his promises and it’s time for Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, to take over.

He entertained the audience with a mock interview with Obama, posing questions and pretending that Obama had told Eastwood to shut up, and declaring finally, "We own this country."

Eastwood endorsed Romney earlier this month at a campaign event in Sun Valley, Idaho.


Comments

1georgejeanie(990 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

Go Mitt, let's get this country back on track. No work, no hand out. Union teachers not making the grade, goodbye, no more tenure. hold parents accountable for their children's mistakes. No more bailouts, that is what the bankruptcy courts are for. No more federal programs, people will stand on their own two feet, and no more hand outs.

Suggest removal:

2bobhogue(102 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

I thought Clint Eastwood made a sad and embarrassing performance. And I would say the same thing if he had done it at the DNC instead of the RNC.

Suggest removal:

3walter_sobchak(2095 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

UticaShale,
You have learned a lot about the area in a short time and you are very astute. The current Democratic Party is not the same party of my grandfather in the 1960's. That party was for the working man. This Deocratic Party is for government taxation and handouts.

Suggest removal:

4300(573 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

But where do the candidates stand on the issue of shrimp farming?

Suggest removal:

5southsidedave(5044 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

Man has to know his limitations...do you feel lucky punk?

Suggest removal:

676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

Walter: You are spot-on with this observation: "The current Democratic Party is not the same party of my grandfather in the 1960's".

I grew up with the notion that the Democratic Party is for the working people. The Republican Party is for the rich. Take another look. They have moved so far left of the values that we live by. Is this the direction that we want our country to go? We are a nation BY the people FOR the people.

My favorite line from the RNC came from Susana Martinez when she said "I'll be dammed, we're republicans!"

She said: I fear some of our leaders today have lost the courage to stand up. What we have now are politicians. They won't offer real plans, and only stand up when they want to blame someone else. And I don't say that just because a Democrat is in the White House, I was a Democrat for many years, so were my parents Before I ran for district attorney, two Republicans invited my husband and me to lunch, and I knew a party switch was exactly what they wanted. So, I told Chuck, ``We'll be polite, enjoy a free lunch, and then say good-bye.'' But we talked about issues -- they never used the words republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. We talked about many issues, like welfare, is it the way of life or hand up? Talked about size of government, how much should it tax families and small
businesses? And when we left that lunch, we got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and said, ``I'll be damned. we're Republicans.''

Here is the transcript of her entire speech in case you missed it as it is well worth reading and I heard that ABC news didn't even broadcast it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/...

Suggest removal:

7walter_sobchak(2095 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

76Ytown,
1976 was a great year and I absolutely agree with you about this speech. The Democrat Party you to stand for the ordinary working stiff who just wanted an even hand at the table. It is now the party of the slackers; the party of the Govt Teat! Barack Hussein Obama is a nacissistic Marxist who believes everything you earn should be turned over to the govt and divided up amongst the people.

When walter_sobchak speaks, people listen.

Suggest removal:

8300(573 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

I read Rand as high schooler, no need to read her again since I'm no longer moody and self-centered.

Though, I've always respected her atheism and contempt of christianity.

Suggest removal:

9300(573 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

It's not that I can't debate, it's that I don't think you really know what Rand espoused. And, I wasn't joking about it being high-school level reading, it is. It's written in simple English, and it has the maturity of a teenager.

I don't think we'd agree on much, but I don't think you're actually an adherent of Objectivism (I don't think you're truly a bad person). Since the Tea Party, there's been all these older folks who all of sudden discovered Rand (which I do wonder why it took them so long, she's been around since the 1940s). The problem is that they don't understand her philosophy.

On the other hand, if you're one who actually did read Rand while you were younger, and you still agree, then I feel sorry for you. Selfishness is the most important tenet of Objectivism. Rand was anti-Christian (which I actually like about her), she was also anti-charity believing that the weak should never be helped. Objectivism is very close to Nihilism. I hope you're not a Nihilist, and just don't really understand what you were reading. There's much more to Rand than small government.

Suggest removal:

10300(573 comments)posted 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm in the private sector, but I don't think that gives me any added leverage in my arguments.

You think of yourself as a "producer", but I'd argue that it's just a coping mechanism for you to deal with a personal insecurity issue. You wouldn't have relocated from Texas (I think it was) to Youngstown if you were doing all that well in things. You then compensate for that by patting yourself on the back, and self-referencing as a "producer".

Objectivism, which isn't really considered a true philosophy, is very near Nihilism. If you were better read (which is only your fault considering that the state paid for your education due to your military service), you'd know this.

Keep patting yourself on the back in self-congratulation, keep referring to yourself as a "producer", keep misunderstanding Rand. But remember, your position is below mine in terms of income (I don't have to work, I choose to), so you might want to rethink your understanding of hierarchy since you'd be below me.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes