Dirty Harry interviews the Invisible Obama

ArtSmart

weird, but mostly because he suggested Romney (and presumably Ryan) want American troops out of Afghanistan. like 'now' n stuff.

made me giggle a bit. The Republicans want out of a war? lol.

besides that, yeah, he's genuinely concerned about unemployment etc, but my goodness, promoting a venture capitalist, whose campaign money comes primarily from the super rich, so that he and his ilk can help the ordinary joe become employed???

surely he knows Romney's business model? and those who support him?

tsk tsk, Clint.

Biggins

Another big OOPS!

Apparently Clint Eastwood is a fan of talking about things that don't really exist.

At the Republican National Convention Thursday night, the man many know as “Dirty Harry” talked to an invisible President Obama. He also invented millions of unemployed people.

During his speech, Eastwood said he was crying for the 23 million unemployed Americans. The only problem: there are actually only 12.8 million unemployed Americans as of July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose job it is to keep track of that sort of thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/clint-eastwood-unemployment_n_1846779.html?1346429744

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Another big OOPS!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/clint-eastwood-unemployment_n_1846779.html?1346429744

Would I be right in assuming that only counts for people who are still receiving unemployment benefits of some sort?

Biggins

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Would I be right in assuming that only counts for people who are still receiving unemployment benefits of some sort?

For those registered as unemployed regardless of what payments they are getting.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JULY 2012

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the unemployment rate
was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking
places, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons (12.8 million) and the unemployment rate (8.3
percent) were essentially unchanged in July. Both measures have shown little movement
thus far in 2012. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Hispanics (10.3 percent) edged
down in July, while the rates for adult men (7.7 percent), adult women (7.5 percent),
teenagers (23.8 percent), whites (7.4 percent), and blacks (14.1 percent) showed little
or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in July (not seasonally
adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In July, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was
little changed at 5.2 million. These individuals accounted for 40.7 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.7 percent, and the employment-
population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little in July. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In July, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down from 2.8
million a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were
not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 852,000 discouraged workers in July, a decline
of 267,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in July had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons
such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

See also: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

For those registered as unemployed regardless of what payments they are getting.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

See also: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

So basically he included under-employed (i.e. forced to go part-time & "marginally" employed) in his numbers?

He's not totally wrong in that case.

Biggins

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So basically he included under-employed (i.e. forced to go part-time & "marginally" employed) in his numbers?

He's not totally wrong in that case.

The TOTAL of unemployed in America is 12 million.
There's no messing around with that figure in spin.
12 Million in America are registered as unemployed.

He stated "he was crying for the 23 million unemployed Americans"

There is NOT 23 million unemployed Americans. There is 12 million unemployed Americans.

Eastwood didn’t make a distinction between unemployed and underemployed Americans. He simply doubled the unemployment figure.

I suggest that if you think the number of 12 million registered unemployed is wrong, you take it up with the American government who releases the official figures.
I'm sure they will be delighted to know that all these years with their many staff, they have being all wrong and adding things up incorrectly.

Blackpitts

IvySlayer wrote: »

Romney is the biggest flip-flopper there is, how can anyone seriously even consider voting for him?

Obama took inspiration for his healthcare reform from romney's reform when he was governor of the Massachussets.
the saddest thing is that Romney is now fighting against that because his party told him so.
How people can trust someone like him then?

cristoir

un·em·ployed/ˌənimˈploid/
Adjective:
(of a person) Without a paid job but available to work

I'm pretty sure the underemployed would no fit that definition. By Eastwood's logic someone who is working 35 hours a week is "unemployed". When he (or his scriptwriters) where doing was lying no two ways about it.

Biggins

Blackpitts wrote: »

Obama took inspiration for his healthcare reform from romney's reform when he was governor of the Massachussets.
the saddest thing is that Romney is now fighting against that because his party told him so.
How people can trust someone like him then?

If a man can lie alone over 500 times in 30 weeks, how can any country, never mind its own people, trust anything that comes out of his mouth or from his office?

Min

I watched it live, he did it with no script, just came out and what was suppose to be a 5 minute segment, ended up being 12 minutes.

The sad thing about it is the truth, Obama is an invisible man, the change from Obama was theno change, elected on a slogan and added 5 to 6 trillion dollars to the US national debt, unemployment at 23 million and a government going nowhere, polls show Americand beleive their government is doing a poor job.
Obama is just another Bertie Ahern at the time the people of Ireland elected him, Obama is popular and could get re-elected but another four years of Obama and he will be as popular as the current Bertie Ahern.

Obama has not brought change one can believe in, he had to come out and distant himself from an ad that claimed Romney was responsible for the death of a woman, but wa svery slow to do so.
W can watch the Obama lies next week but they won't get the scrutiny they deserve because Obama is more liberal and a Democrat.

Clint just showed Obama was an invisible man because Obama lacks substance, just like his election slogan four years ago.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

...Clint just showed Obama was an invisible man because Obama lacks substance, just like his election slogan four years ago.

Obama has committed some wrong decisions and in some areas is (I feel) totally wrong.
Thats said, I take into account that the "change" he wanted to bring in, has severely hampered by mid-term elections which then the Republicans gained further control of the Senate and the House, which in effect severly stopped dead in its tracks, any further progress.

If one knows how USA politics work and the timing of electoral political events. you would see that in effect from the date of his election he (and ANY president before and after) had two years to get the ball rolling before mid-term elections kick in, throwing a possible spanner in the works - which is indeed what happened when the Republican's got a majority.

Obama had just under two years to try rectify the huge damage two terms of George Bush brought and the devastating home/abroad consequences.
Obama is no saint - but by god, he's no miracle worker either.

From the time of the mid-terms, the Republicans blocked near everything they could NOT for the sake of the country but just to get one-up on the Democrats - which in turn then they fully used to say "Well look at what Obama has done... Nothing!"
The Republican's didn't ask the people to look and see why Obama was hampered - hell, the Republicans don't want the people to look to close into the actual reasons - that would expose their very policy blocking antics - why change didn't come!

Its too easy just to spout off as some do "Obama did nothing or very little".
A person with brains though would if they have any kop-on, would look to see why and perhaps see the real other culprits also!

cristoir

Since when is providing healthcare coverage to millions of Americans, ending a war in Iraq, finding Bin Laden, liberating Libya without boots on the ground, saving the auto industry and ending discrimination in the military nothing?

You might not agree with some of those policies but you can say he has done nothing.

Logical Fallacy

smash wrote: »

I was actually pretty sad. That man was a hero to me until 5 mins ago!

Why? He has always been pretty vocal about his Republican leanings.

He can still direct a film like few other people.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

Obama has committed some wrong decisions and in some areas is (I feel) totally wrong.
Thats said, I take into account that the "change" he wanted to bring in, has severely hampered by mid-term elections which then the Republicans gained further control of the Senate and the House, which in effect severly stopped dead in its tracks, any further progress.

If one knows how USA politics work and the timing of electoral political events. you would see that in effect from the date of his election he (and ANY president before and after) had two years to get the ball rolling before mid-term elections kick in, throwing a possible spanner in the works - which is indeed what happened when the Republican's got a majority.

Obama had just under two years to try rectify the huge damage two terms of George Bush brought and the devastating home/abroad consequences.
Obama is no saint - but by god, he's no miracle worker either.

From the time of the mid-terms, the Republicans blocked near everything they could NOT for the sake of the country but just to get one-up on the Democrats - which in turn then they fully used to say "Well look at what Obama has done... Nothing!"
The Republican's didn't ask the people to look and see why Obama was hampered - hell, the Republicans don't want the people to look to close into the actual reasons - that would expose their very policy blocking antics - why change didn't come!

Its too easy just to spout off as some do "Obama did nothing or very little".
A person with brains though would if they have any kop-on, would look to see why and perhaps see the real other culprits also!

He had two years when the Democrats controlled the Senate, he dithered.

The Democrats have brought forward no budget, they have refused, interestingly the budget plan that has been put forward since 2009 is Paul Ryan's budget plan.
No budget and they spend well over 5,000,000,000,000. This is the only change I can see, a lot more debt which Obama can't blame the Republicans for.

The chair could have represented Democrats economics, totally invisible just spend money that isn't there or budgeted for.

From the Washington Times earlier this year.

April 29 will mark three years since Senate Democrats passed a budget. This dereliction of duty flagrantly violates the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
“On or before April 15 of each year, the Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year,” this statute states. Senate Democrats could not care less about this federal law.
This is a milestone in human sloth. While it has taken Majority “Leader” Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Democrats 36 months to conceive zero budgets, House Republicans have delivered two - one for each year they governed.
Nonetheless, Mr. Reid said on Feb. 3: “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done. We don’t need to do it.”
“This is the wrong time to vote on the floor,” senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, declared Tuesday. “I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.”
Floor votes would require senate Democrats to borrow and spend, which annoys taxpayers, or cut outlays, which aggravates liberal lobbyists and porcine government-employee unions. So, senate Democrats break the law and demand continuing resolutions, which spend on autopilot.

Read more: MURDOCK: Three years and no Senate budget - Washington Times

The Republicans didn't block, the Democrats are simply not doing their jobs, they have controlled the Senate for the entire Obama presidency.
They have controlled the House of Representatives for two of those years, all we get is excuses blaming the Republicans, when they should be looking closer to home.
Democrats refuse to bring in a budget.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

He had two years when the Democrats controlled the Senate, he dithered.

The Democrats have brought forward no budget, they have refused, interestingly the budget plan that has been put forward since 2009 is Paul Ryan's budget plan.
No budget and they spend well over 5,000,000,000,000. This is the only change I can see, a lot more debt which Obama can't blame the Republicans for.

The chair could have represented Democrats economics, totally invisible just spend money that isn't there or budgeted for.

From the Washington Times earlier this year.



The Republicans didn't block, the Democrats are simply not doing their jobs, they have controlled the Senate for the entire Obama presidency.
They have controlled the House of Representatives for two of those years, all we get is excuses blaming the Republicans, when they should be looking closer to home.
Democrats refuse to bring in a budget.

As I've already said, Obama is no saint - he did some things clearly wrong.
There is NO argument over that.

O' and if you read the links below he introduced - or tried to - a number of budgets!
Guess what - he was blocked!

Min wrote: »

The Republicans didn't block, the Democrats are simply not doing their jobs...

* GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative

* BLOCKADE: The GOP’s Unending Effort to Block Obama’s Nominees

It’s no secret that Republicans have done everything in their power to throw up road blocks for President Obama at every turn. And nowhere is their power to block the president greater than it is in the Senate, where Republicans have effectively imposed a blockade on the president’s nominees for dozens of seats on the federal judiciary.

* Senate GOP blocks Obama's 'Buffett rule' for minimum tax rate on millionaires

* GOP strategy: Block Obama, then blame him

* Senate Republicans block Obama's jobs package

* House GOP using new tactic to block Obama regulations

* Republicans block Obama's measure to curb job outsourcing

* Obama Infrastructure Plan: Senate GOP Blocks 47.58€ Billion Measure

* Republican Introduces Bill To Block Obama's Immigration Order

* GOP blocks Obama’s effort to end tax breaks for Big Oil

* GOP lawmakers' bills would block Obama deportation policy

* Senate Republicans block Obama nominee to head consumer finance agency

* Republicans Still Blocking Budget Deal

* Senate Republicans Block Obama Nominee to Lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

* Senate Republicans Block Obama Recess Appointments

* Republicans to block Obama’s green spending plan?

* Senate Republicans block another piece of Obama's jobs plan

* Great Republican idea: block Obama

* GOP lawmakers' bills would block Obama deportation policy

* REPUBLICAN INTRODUCES BILL TO BLOCK OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION ORDER


Yep - its totally all Obama's fault - the Republicans didn't block a thing!

Min

Biggins wrote: »

As I've already said, Obama is no saint - he did some things clearly wrong.
There is NO argument over that.

O' and if you read the links below he introduced - or tried to - a number of budgets!
Guess what - he was blocked!



* GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative

* BLOCKADE: The GOP’s Unending Effort to Block Obama’s Nominees


* Senate GOP blocks Obama's 'Buffett rule' for minimum tax rate on millionaires

* GOP strategy: Block Obama, then blame him

* Senate Republicans block Obama's jobs package

* House GOP using new tactic to block Obama regulations

* Republicans block Obama's measure to curb job outsourcing

* Obama Infrastructure Plan: Senate GOP Blocks 47.58€ Billion Measure

* Republican Introduces Bill To Block Obama's Immigration Order

* GOP blocks Obama’s effort to end tax breaks for Big Oil

* GOP lawmakers' bills would block Obama deportation policy

* Senate Republicans block Obama nominee to head consumer finance agency

* Republicans Still Blocking Budget Deal

* Senate Republicans Block Obama Nominee to Lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

* Senate Republicans Block Obama Recess Appointments

* Republicans to block Obama’s green spending plan?

* Senate Republicans block another piece of Obama's jobs plan

* Great Republican idea: block Obama

* GOP lawmakers' bills would block Obama deportation policy

* REPUBLICAN INTRODUCES BILL TO BLOCK OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION ORDER


Yep - its totally all Obama's fault - the Republicans didn't block a thing!

From your various links, I notice not all are Republican who block...

Every Republican opposed the president, as did Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who still aligns with the party.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to join Democrats in voting to keep the measure alive, arguing that it was a way to begin considering a badly needed, broad revamping of the entire tax code.
The lone defecting Democrat was Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who said making the rich pay a fair share of taxes should occur as part of an overall tax overhaul, "not as a political ploy meant to score points."

Not all Democrats agree with their own party.

Bill Clinton was able to get a deal done with Republicans, Bush senior and junior got budgets through working with democrats, as did Reagan.
Obama has failed to take control, and while he got his official nominee in Denver 4 years ago in front of fake Greek columns, he has allowed the country's spending to get out of control a bit like the Greeks.
The buck stops with the US president, afterall four years ago everything was Bush's fault, when Obama doesn't get the job done and it is upto him to offer leadership, one blames the Republicans.
Bush had to take responsibility for the rise in US debt during his reign of presidency where in his eight years the US debt rose by 4.8 trillion dollars, in three years of Obama the debt has risien by over 4.9 trillion dollars.
It is upto the president to take responsibility and to work with congress and if Obama is unable to work with congress then a new man is needed for the next term.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

From your various links, I notice not all are Republican who block...

Not all Democrats agree with their own party.

Bill Clinton was able to get a deal done with Republicans, Bush senior and junior got budgets through working with democrats, as did Reagan.
Obama has failed to take control, and while he got his official nominee in Denver 4 years ago in front of fake Greek columns, he has allowed the country's spending to get out of control a bit like the Greeks.
The buck stops with the US president, afterall four years ago everything was Bush's fault, when Obama doesn't get the job done and it is upto him to offer leadership, one blames the Republicans.
Bush had to take responsibility for the rise in US debt during his reign of presidency where in his eight years the US debt rose by 4.8 trillion dollars, in three years of Obama the debt has risien by over 4.9 trillion dollars.
It is upto the president to take responsibility and to work with congress and if Obama is unable to work with congress then a new man is needed for the next term.

1. So you admit that the Republicans have being doing huge blocking then?

2. Obama has done deals with Republicans. Hell, here he is defending one such deal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9oS35GbCWU

3. Obama has failed in many, many, many cases quiet simply because of the huge blocking being done out of spite and the Republicans not wishing to see their opposing party gain any credit for good work or the Democrats able to do the work in the first place!

4. If you cut the legs off a person ("Bob") - its pretty insulting to then tell others "Hey, Bob hasn't turned up. He's no use, he's crap - lets get rid of him!"
This stuff of "The buck stops with the US president" - it does but give him the bloody bucks - not block him at every turn possible for any budget - which he has tried to bring in please note!

5.

if Obama is unable to work with congress then a new man is needed for the next term.

It don't matter who is in the President chair under the heading of "Democrat" - the Republicans now want the White House back and they are using every tactic possible to ensure this.
...Even if it means the average American public paying the price in the mean time, in their pockets for all their blocking of loads of change Obama has tried to introduce!

ArtSmart

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/?intcmp=obnetwork

the above article from FOX NEWS amazes me. In fact I'm totally shocked.

wow sierra

Like most threads this one has gone totally off the topic of the OP - which isn't a problem at all.

I just want to comment on the actual Clint Eastwood v empty chair issue. For a start debating with a chair and putting silly schoolboy taunts into Obamas mouth - a bit like scoring a goal when there is no Keeper???

I thought Eastwoods contribution was shockingly poor. Only actual comment worthy of debate was the Unemployment issue - and he didn't give any examples of how the Republican would do it better. He called Guantanamo Gitmo - is that the current euphemism?? I assume that is because Guantanamo is so toxic he couldn't really defend it. Criticises Obamas support for War in Afghanistan v war in Iraq. In case he doesn't remember Afghanistan was where Osama and Al Qeada were largely based so directly related to 911 while Iraq was Bush settling a separate score. To suggest that it was wrong because it was militarily difficult is rich when you think of Iraq. Saying people associate actors with being "left of Lenin" is a sad attempt to associate the Democrats with Commies - McArthur anyone?

Pathetic style over substance rubbish.

I have no issue with Eastwood voting/campaigning for Republicans - but this was bottom feeding rubbish.

mathstalk

mikom wrote: »

Actors, please stay acting.
Singers, please stay singing.

Just shut your mouths when it comes to politics............ even if you were once the mayor of Carmel or whatever.

Hey now, actors and singers are people. Why should they shut their mouths?

Sure, their opinions may be malformed but that's the nature of democracy; letting the idiots have their say.

wow sierra

later12 wrote: »

I respect Clint Eastwood even more for this.

I wouldn't vote for Romney, but lets face it, the easy and the popular thing for any mainstream celebrity to do is go along with the popular youth/ media driven opinion and back the winning horse.

The fact that Eastwood doesn't do that, and knowingly backs the wrong horse because he feels Romney is the best man for the job (or the lesser evil, indeed) demonstrates why Clint Eastwood is a hero, not just a celebrity.

Clint Eastwood is not a typical conservative. He's not a typical liberal either. He does what he thinks is the honourable thing based on the situation that confront him and taking into account his own moral outlook, not the ideology that talks down to him. Therefore, he is a man.

Like I said before I have no issue with him voting or campaigning for Romney. Its the dreadful dreadful argument with a chair I have issue with.

grover_green

Colmustard wrote: »

Clint is a legend,

But he has gone down in my estimations since I seen that. I don't particularly feel Obama is great, but I think Romney is a potential lunatic if he is not one already.

romney is not human enough to be a lunatic , hes a rockafellar republican of the generic varierty , nothing more , his vice president pick however is an idealogue

as for clint , clint has always been a republican but of the libertarian variety , he opposes gun control and too much goverment invasion etc he was a supporter of the civil rights movement , he,s no bigot or reactionary

legend of the kind they dont make anymore

Mod:
Re-reg Banned

ArtSmart

grover_green wrote: »

romney is not human enough to be a lunatic , hes a rockafellar republican of the generic varierty , nothing more , his vice president pick however is an idealogue

as for clint , clint has always been a republican but of the libertarian variety , he opposes gun control and too much goverment invasion etc he was a supporter of the civil rights movement , he,s no bigot or reactionary

legend of the kind they dont make anymore

Mittens aint the prob. it's as you say(?) that scary, scary,scary nutter Ryan

Corkfeen

ArtSmart wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/?intcmp=obnetwork

the above article from FOX NEWS amazes me. In fact I'm totally shocked.

Just scanned through her previous articles, how the hell did fox ever let her write for them ?

mikom

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikom
Actors, please stay acting.
Singers, please stay singing.

Just shut your mouths when it comes to politics............ even if you were once the mayor of Carmel or whatever.

mathstalk wrote: »

Hey now, actors and singers are people. Why should they shut their mouths?

Sure, their opinions may be malformed but that's the nature of democracy; letting the idiots have their say.

Some are given loudhailers though.........

southsiderosie

Colmustard wrote: »

He also effectively ended welfare and made the minimum pay generation. But America did grow during his terms. But so did the division of wealth.

Reagan didn't effectively end welfare as we know it - that was Clinton.

Min wrote: »

He had two years when the Democrats controlled the Senate, he dithered.

Min wrote: »

The buck stops with the US president, afterall four years ago everything was Bush's fault, when Obama doesn't get the job done and it is upto him to offer leadership, one blames the Republicans.
Bush had to take responsibility for the rise in US debt during his reign of presidency where in his eight years the US debt rose by 4.8 trillion dollars, in three years of Obama the debt has risien by over 4.9 trillion dollars.
It is upto the president to take responsibility and to work with congress and if Obama is unable to work with congress then a new man is needed for the next term.

Sorry, but I don't think you quite understand how U.S. political institutions work. Because of Senate voting rules, you effectively need 60 votes in order to prevent legislation from being filibustered (i.e. killed on the floor). The health care bill was the last piece of major legislation to slip through (it passed 60-39) before the balance of the Senate tipped when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat.

In addition, US political institutions were designed to favor the legislature - the strong executive is a hangover from the W years. So the buck really does not stop with the President, it stops with the Congress - the President cannot simply pass whatever bills he likes willy-nilly, especially since under the US Constitution, the House controls the purse-strings.

Min wrote: »

Bill Clinton was able to get a deal done with Republicans, Bush senior and junior got budgets through working with democrats, as did Reagan.

The Republican party was completely different under Reagan, who used to drink with Tip O'Neill (the Democrat Speaker of the House). Today, Reagan would be driven out of his own party for being too liberal - the 2012 version of the GOP is controlled by ideologues who would rather drive the country over a cliff than come to any kind of compromise over policy.

Min wrote: »

Obama has failed to take control, and while he got his official nominee in Denver 4 years ago in front of fake Greek columns, he has allowed the country's spending to get out of control a bit like the Greeks.

I'll just end with this fun graph which speaks for itself.

Scanlas The 2nd

One of the best tactics for a presidential candidate is to preach change but when elected don't actually change much as actual
Change scares people.

JP Liz V1

Between this and his family's reality show on E what has happened to Clint

Son Of A Vidic

Yamanoto wrote: »

in the last few days the Romney campaign have done a pretty good job of humanising the man - allowing those close to him to give accounts of his warmth, humour and generosity...

All of which is absolute bullshít.

K3lso

smash wrote: »

I was actually pretty sad. That man was a hero to me until 5 mins ago!

Colmustard wrote: »

Clint is a legend,

But he has gone down in my estimations since I seen that. I don't particularly feel Obama is great, but I think Romney is a potential lunatic if he is not one already.

Clint is a libertarian. Obama is destroying America - the finance books are in the toilet and theres nothing insane about Romney - he's just another multi-millionaire getting money from Wall Street so that he can take care of them if he's elected (so the same as Obama). Business as usual in America.

The only right guy for the job was treated with such disrespect at the Convention, I'm surprised he continues to be a Republican - his name is Ron Paul.