Dirty Harry interviews the Invisible Obama

Biggins

K3lso wrote: »

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.

I disagree with some parts, agree on others but the one thing that really I disagree with is that Mitt Romney is the best choice.

Gawd no.
All the lies, the flip-flops, the edited past, the hidden tax secrets, the anti-female rights stance, the use of religion into politics, etc.

Hell no!

K3lso

Biggins wrote: »

I disagree with some parts, agree on others but the one thing that really I disagree with is that Mitt Romney is the best choice.

Gawd no.
All the lies, the flip-flops, the edited past, the hidden tax secrets, the anti-female rights stance, the use of religion into politics, etc.

Hell no!

I never said Mitt Romney was the best choice.

What I said is that he's a crook, a manipulator, an elite - therefore, no different than Obama. I'd rather a broomstick as my President.

Biggins

K3lso wrote: »

I never said Mitt Romney was the best choice.

What I said is that he's a crook, a manipulator, an elite - therefore, no different than Obama. I'd rather a broomstick as my President.

Never said YOU said he was the best choice.
Apologies if it came across that way.

When it comes to picking a top man - I'd prefer the lesser of two evils at least.
That for me, is Obama.

mikemac1

Gary Johnson ftw!

Nodster

So it's OK for Clint to talk to an empty chair? wait till I tell that to my couch!

K3lso

Biggins wrote: »

Never said YOU said he was the best choice.
Apologies if it came across that way.

When it comes to picking a top man - I'd prefer the lesser of two evils at least.
That for me, is Obama.

There will be three people on the ballot this year.

Barack Obama (Democrat)
Mitt Romney (Republican)
&
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)

Johnson won't win the Presidency, but I'm hoping that he get's at least 5% so that the other parties will have to address the insanity in both parties.

Biggins

K3lso wrote: »

...Johnson won't win the Presidency, but I'm hoping that he get's at least 5% so that the other parties will have to address the insanity in both parties.

Saly I doubt they might even acknowledge issues he might bring up.

They can easily ignore others based simply in the fact of the millions they can rake in and have thus to spend for use in TV ad's, print media adverts and other forms of ways of getting out other issues they wish to rather cover - that usually being 'knock the other person even if it means lying'.

Wompa1

Obamas biggest threat is the likes of me. Who voted for him last time but won't bother voting this time round. I think the Romney fans are a lot more passionate.

Yamanoto

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

All of which is absolute bullshít.

An expedient exercise no doubt (though hardly a trait unique to his campaign alone), but I'd imagine the sentiments expressed by those closest to the man are genuine enough.

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

Obamas biggest threat is the likes of me. Who voted for him last time but won't bother voting this time round. I think the Romney fans are a lot more passionate.

The Taliban are 'passionate' also - that still don't make them the best right thing to take over the running of a country!

Yamanoto

Biggins wrote: »

The Taliban are 'passionate' also - that still don't make them the best right thing to take over the running of a country!

Rickety enough analogy right there.

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

The Taliban are 'passionate' also - that still don't make them the best right thing to take over the running of a country!

Never said the Republicans are the best to take over the country. You need people to care enough to vote though and the people that want to vote for the Republicans will. People like me who would vote for Obama and did with glee last time, who may be a bit disillusioned this time around may not bother voting.

dublinman1990

I had watched that speech last night, I have to say without a doubt it was without a doubt, the most boring 11 minutes of my life. There was a lack of energy in the whole segment, which just made it unbearable.

There seems to be a overwhelming negative towards Clint because of his antics at the RNC.

Breakingnews.ie has reported there were 30,000 followers and counting created on a twitter account named @invisibleobama.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/eastwood-mocked-over-romney-endorsement-565084.html

That account has now jumped to total of 67,119 followers since being reported this morning.

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

Never said the Republicans are the best to take over the country. You need people to care enough to vote though and the people that want to vote for the Republicans will. People like me who would vote for Obama and did with glee last time, who may be a bit disillusioned this time around may not bother voting.

I can understand the disillusion given that all the change that was promised never came - party through his/his team fault and partly (mostly I think due to the mid-terms) due to the Republicans.

I think you should vote to be honest, and not just for 'throwing away a vote' reason - but if only to keep the Republicians well futher away from getting their hands on americas soldiers, its weapons and the nuclear 'football' (Nickname for the nuclear case), besides bringing more changes so that the rich get richer and the poor don't get screwed more.

Piste

Before Clint Eastwood I used to think you had to actually have an opponent to lose a debate. I was wrong.

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

I can under stand the disillusion given that all the change that was promised never came - party through his/his team fault and partly (mostly I think due to the mid-terms) due to the Republicans.

I think you should vote to be honest, and not just for 'throwing away a vote' reason - but if only to keep the Republicians well futher away from getting their hands on americas soldiers, its weapons and the nuclear 'football' (Nickname for the nuclear case), besides bringing more changes so that the rich get richer and the poor don't get screwed more.

I reckon if Obama gets a second term it's likely he will go to war with Iran. I also don't believe the Republicans would order use of a Nuclear weapon. They are human beings and I don't believe they are completely evil like many portray them. I wouldn't vote for Romney but I don't hate or distrust any one side more than the other.

Also having been over here for the build up. It seems like Obama resorted to the negative ads first and is running more of them. His fund raising has been pathetic too, he keeps releasing messages about being behind in the fund raising and encouraging more donations to catch up. He said he was against Super PACs, he's playing right into them. He had a fund raiser at George Clooneys mansion. He took less holiday time than Bush but he seemed to have more BS PR opportunities e.g. Tony Hawk on Fathers Day, Going on Jimmy Fallon etc. etc. His coming out in support of gay marriage is also cheap pandering, his daughters taught him his views were wrong, that's a load of crap.

Romney on the other hand has not had anything of substance to say regarding how he'd improve things. He promises 12 million jobs but won't say how. If he can promise that, he should say how so if it's such a good idea it can be implemented now and stop wasting time. He won't release his tax returns because he likely cooked the books. He's also one of the sleaziest looking and sounding motherfo's on the planet.

I'd rather not give my support to either

Piste

I'd say Romney is more likely to go to war with Iran than Obama- he's been cosying up to Netanyahu who's been looking for Iran's head on a plate but would need US backing to do anything about it, and he's been very critical of Obama's relationship with Israel during his presidency (ie Obama doesn't pander to the Zionist lobby). However IF war in Iran were to happen, Obama is best placed to do it as he will be a second term president with a more experienced staff and has spent the last four years overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as strikes on Libya and diplomatic relations with Syria and North Korea, as well as Iran itself. He has more experience with conflict situations so could probably handle any conflict with Iran better than Romney could.

Wompa1

Piste wrote: »

I'd say Romney is more likely to go to war with Iran than Obama- he's been cosying up to Netanyahu who's been looking for Iran's head on a plate but would need US backing to do anything about it, and he's been very critical of Obama's relationship with Israel during his presidency (ie Obama doesn't pander to the Zionist lobby). However IF war in Iran were to happen, Obama is best placed to do it as he will be a second term president with a more experienced staff and has spent the last four years overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as strikes on Libya and diplomatic relations with Syria and North Korea, as well as Iran itself. He has more experience with conflict situations so could probably handle any conflict with Iran better than Romney could.

There's no good way to handle a war that shouldn't happen. Both would go. The only guy that probably wouldn't is Paul and I'd say he's not going to run

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

I reckon if Obama gets a second term it's likely he will go to war with Iran. I also don't believe the Republicans would order use of a Nuclear weapon. They are human beings and I don't believe they are completely evil like many portray them. I wouldn't vote for Romney but I don't hate or distrust any one side more than the other.

Also having been over here for the build up. It seems like Obama resorted to the negative ads first and is running more of them. His fund raising has been pathetic too, he keeps releasing messages about being behind in the fund raising and encouraging more donations to catch up. He said he was against Super PACs, he's playing right into them. He had a fund raiser at George Clooneys mansion. He took less holiday time than Bush but he seemed to have more BS PR opportunities e.g. Tony Hawk on Fathers Day, Going on Jimmy Fallon etc. etc. His coming out in support of gay marriage is also cheap pandering, his daughters taught him his views were wrong, that's a load of crap.

Romney on the other hand has not had anything of substance to say regarding how he'd improve things. He promises 12 million jobs but won't say how. If he can promise that, he should say how so if it's such a good idea it can be implemented now and stop wasting time. He won't release his tax returns because he likely cooked the books. He's also one of the sleaziest looking and sounding motherfo's on the planet.

I'd rather not give my support to either

Thats all fair enough but consider this:

A Republican Dance of Treason?

We know now, though, that the very same day the world welcomed the new President into office, a small group of powerful men, bent on his destruction, secretly met to design a plan to create economic and political chaos in America for the coming four years, solely for the purpose of regaining the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012.

According to the Huffington Post, reviewing Robert Draper's book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside The House Of Representatives, this meeting at "The Caucus Room," an expensive, Washington watering hole, lasted four hours, and fourteen of the GOP's most important and cutthroat politicos attended.

The conspirators concluded not only would they attempt to win back power by any means necessary, but also they would oppose every policy initiative and every bill of any significance advanced by President Obama, (SEE POST 106) and, by implication, whether the policy or bill forwarded the interests of the American public or not.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Republican-Dance-of-Trea-by-John-Reed-120901-573.html

As we now know, this plan included voting against legislation written and introduced by the Republicans themselves, or formerly supported by Republicans and opposed by the Democrats. As we know now, this agreement included refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling, or, in other words, refusing to authorize payment for expenses the very same Congress had previously voted to incur, which nearly led to a worldwide depression far worse than the "Great Depression" of the 1930's and caused the partial downgrade of America's triple "A" bond status. This all occurred while troops were in the field and the Commander-In-Chief conducted two separate wars, and played a leading role in a third.

Who were these miscreants that washed their hands in the blood of the American people?

"According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

See here: Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

...And people wonder why change didn't come!!!

The Republicans set-out from DAY ONE to wreck anything that Obama would try and change!
...And thats all on record.

Why didn't change come?
The republicans want to keep the American people dumb and unaware of some VERY important facts - in the meantime they don't give a crap if the American public has to pay more (they hope they do!) and suffer more in many ways!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lgyGLeDeQ

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

Thats all fair enough but consider this:


http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Republican-Dance-of-Trea-by-John-Reed-120901-573.html



See here: Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

...And people wonder why change didn't come!!!

The Republicans set-out from DAY ONE to wreck anything that Obama would try and change!
...And thats all on record.

Why didn't change come?
The republicans want to keep the American people dumb and unaware of some VERY important facts - in the meantime they don't give a crap if the American public has to pay more (they hope they do!) and suffer more in many ways!

Why is any of that more credible than the likes of Fox News? If you believe one side you can find information to back up your side.That's politics.

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

Why is any of that more credible than the likes of Fox News? If you believe one side you can find information to back up your side.That's politics.

Don't take the Huffingtons Posts word for it or the writer of the book - GOOGLE IT - its well recorded!
O' and by the way - do you think for one second that if its all lies, any of the politicians would not have sued?
You know - in a country that just loves its lawyers?

Did you even bother to watch the news video?

*sigh*

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

Don't take the Huffingtons Posts word for it or the writer of the book - GOOGLE IT - its well recorded!
O' and by the way - do you think for one second that if its all lies, any of the politicians would not have sued?
You know - in a country that just loves its lawyers?

Did you even bother to watch the news video?

*sigh*

Yes I did. It's on MSNBC. The lefts version of Fox News. The Loch Ness Monster and 9/11 conspiracies are also well recorded. The Democrats had the most power for the first 2 years of Obamas reign. He said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay in 100 days of being instated. That's the time he could have done it, surely when he said that he had a solid plan to do it otherwise he wouldn't have given a solid deadline. He's full of crap

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

Yes I did. It's on MSNBC. The lefts version of Fox News. The Loch Ness Monster and 9/11 conspiracies are also well recorded. The Democrats had the most power for the first 2 years of Obamas reign. He said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay in 100 days of being instated. That's the time he could have done it, surely when he said that he had a solid plan to do it otherwise he wouldn't have given a solid deadline. He's full of crap

The diffrence is - not that you can tell it seems - that the meeting happened - and on the very day Obama was being signed in, its known exactly what the meeting was about and who attended.

Now you go argue with those facts or continue to spin it as fiction all you want.

asherbassad

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Zing!!

Oh that Obama... :pac:

Who gives a sh!t about Obama. He'll win this joke of an election because he's still useful to the banks. Eastwood would have done better going into geriatric porno movies. It would have been less embarrassing.

Make my day!!! That's as weak and pathetic as "Arnie" stating...."Nurses of Call-eee---fornia, you are TURMINATED, haha".

Gob****es.

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

The diffrence is - not that you can tell it seems - that the meeting happened - and on the very day Obama was being signed in, its known exactly what the meeting was about and who attended.

Now you go argue with those facts or continue to spin it as fiction all you want.

So a meeting occurred between Republicans to discuss the future of the party after the inauguration which was months after the election ended. Considering I'm sure all representatives would be required to attend that day, it would seem like a good day to hold a meeting. Did they discuss turning down everything Obama had planned. I doubt it. He did get some legislation passed which would give me the impression each piece was voted on based on it's merits.

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

So a meeting occurred between Republicans to discuss the future of the party after the inauguration which was months after the election ended....

Jeasus - you can't even read what put in front of you!

...secretly met to design a plan to create economic and political chaos in America for the coming four years...

...The conspirators concluded not only would they attempt to win back power by any means necessary, but also they would oppose every policy initiative and every bill of any significance advanced by President Obama

You cannot face up to the the much detail known facts that the Republicans could not handle that a Democratic black guy won the presidency so they plotted against him on Inauguration Day and if they brought down America in the process!

Continue on with the spin please...

Want a bit more truth?

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4946/123691327524278.jpg <--- Speaks for itself!

http://mountainsageblog.com/2012/09/01/republican-lies-and-obstructionism/

Did they discuss turning down everything Obama had planned?

YES - There's a WHOLE book about it and NOT ONCE has the writer been proved wrong!
NOT ONCE has it been challenged in court!
NOT ONCE has any of those that attended come out and said it was all untrue!


Well maybe you amazingly know different of course!

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

Jeasus - you can't even read what put in front of you!


You cannot face up to the the much detail known facts that the Republicans could not handle that a Democratic black guy won the presidency so they plotted against him on Inauguration Day and if they brought down America in the process!

Continue on with the spin please...

What? Believe what you want to believe. I read what you put in front of me. Can you guarantee that it's true? Do you have video or audio from the meeting? You hate the Republicans and will believe whatever negative story involving them it put in front of you. I don't trust the Republicans or the Democrats..or the media.

It's not spin in the interest of sticking up for Republicans and putting down Democrats. It's not for any gain. I registered as a Democrat in the state of NY. I now live in Arizona and have once again registered as a Democrat. Why in the hell would I put spin? My opinion is not spin. You seem to think what you present is a slam dunk that it happened the way they reported. Why would you believe it?

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

...You seem to think what you present is a slam dunk that it happened the way they reported. Why would you believe it?

...Because what the meeting was about - what happened afterwards when possible, came about!
Its VERY obvious - even the New York Times (well unless they are conveniently another biased paper of course!) stated the following about the Republicans actions in regards one such "Change" Obama tried to bring in:

The bill the Republicans shot down is not a panacea, but independent economists say it would have a significant and swift effect on the current stagnation. Macroeconomic Advisers, whose forecasts are often used by the Federal Reserve, said it could raise economic growth by 1.25 percentage points and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. Moody’s Analytics estimated new growth at 2 percentage points and 1.9 million jobs. Those economists say that Republican ideas for increasing growth would have no measurable effects in the next year.

The Republicans offer no actual economic plans, only tired slogans about cutting regulations and spending, and ending health care reform. The party seems content to run out the clock on Mr. Obama’s term while doing very little. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, accused Republicans of trying to “suffocate the economy” in hopes that the pain would work to their political advantage. They are doing little to refute that charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opinion/no-jobs-bill-and-no-ideas.html

And as one person in the paper wrote later:

There are two clear reasons Senate Republicans filibustered the president’s jobs bill: just 10 Republican senators are up for re-election in 2012, and the only goal Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, and his cronies have for 2012 is the defeat of President Obama, and too bad about the 14 million unemployed and countless millions of underemployed and those who have simply given up any hope of getting a job.

Truth be told, there are more than 20 million people who will continue suffering because of the Republican failure to pass the American Jobs Act.

Creating well-paying jobs is the only way to save the American economy. By creating 200,000 to 300,000 new jobs every month, we would increase the tax base and not even have to think about raising taxes on anyone in America.

People with jobs would be able to keep their homes, send their children to college, and once again buy goods and services. That would create more profits for American companies, adding revenues to the tax base and lowering the deficit.

What Senate Republicans have done is shameful, disgraceful and a major blow to the economic health of our nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opinion/why-republicans-killed-the-jobs-bill.html?_r=1

Now, its best to pull ones head out of the sand and start seeing a larger picture here!

Again I say, Obama is no saint (by god he's not) but also by god, the Republicans at every turn have tried to screw him and frankly, the people (that they say they care about!) at every possible chance - just so they can get back into the White House!

Think about that...

They are willing to DO ANYTHING (even if it means the American people have to suffer more than they have to) to get the White House!

Now ANY party that would behave like that for selfish reasons, does't deserve to look at the White House, never mind be in it!

Disgraceful and frankly indefensible!

davet82

its a well known fact that the president that spends the most money wins, romney is spending 5 times more than obama on his campaign (i think that was the figure)

so romney should win? idk

i always feel the world is a little safer with a democrat in office than a republican, they just seem a little less crazy and have a little more tact and knowledge that there is life outside the old U S of A

Also any truth in the rumors romney details of taxes and earning were not publish by the republican party because he has holdings in abortion clinics? I only caught the end of it on the radio last week

I love american politics its much more entertaining

Biggins

davet82 wrote: »

...any truth in the rumors romney details of taxes and earning were not publish by the republican party because he has holdings in abortion clinics? I only caught the end of it on the radio last week

Mitt Romney’s Abortion Business Made Him 39.65€M

Truth is stranger than fiction. You can’t make this stuff up because nobody would believe you. Mitt Romney’s business record is his chief qualification to be President, he says. Did you know that Mitt Romney’s business was the abortion business, from which he made 39.65€ Million burning aborted fetuses through his company Stericycle?

When Mitt Romney was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts on Jan. 2, 2003 he was Pro Choice. Mitt Romney was so pro choice that he was in the abortion business. Did Mitt Romney campaign when he ran for Governor that his chief qualification to be Governor of Massachusetts was that he was the owner of the largest aborted fetus incineration company in the United States of America? Mitt Romney’s Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare provided tax payer funding for abortions, which Obamacare does not. Mitt Romney introduced Romneycare to get the taxpayers to pay him personally as the owner of Stericylce to burn aborted fetuses.

http://www.nowpublic.com/health/mitt-romney-s-abortion-business-made-him-50m

* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2919302/posts

* http://hubreview.blogspot.ie/2012/08/update-romneys-tax-return-secrecy-tied.html

* http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

* http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/07/why-wont-romney-release-more-tax-returns.html