Clint Eastwood’s Superbowl Ad Makes Obama’s Day

Bythebay wrote:

<quoted text>
Certainly the GOPer leadership is guilty as charged; I do know some very nice republicans such as my neighbor who seems rather embarrassed about his party's going off the deep end!

Me too.

My friend and I agree that we are both Eisenhower conservatives.

I think Clinton was the last conservative president.

Considering the republican party of today, I see no choice but to support the progressive movement.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>You can consider murder and rape to be forplay or dinner wear, but that doesn't change the fact that those are not.
The americas are nice continents, the United States is a country.

Yeah, we know,'tard. We live here. Legally. As citizens. With Constitutional Rights. Not hiding behind poorly worded portions of Amendments, of which you have been reminded ad nauseum. I await your next post, chock full of juvenile word games <yawn>.

rwb wrote:

The $700B TARP program that was signed into law on 10/03/08, by George W Bush as President. In the Senate votes were: Ayes - 40 Democrats and 33 Republicans 1 Others = 74 Ayes. Nays - Democrats 9 and 15 Republicans 1 Others = 25 Nays. Abstained Votes - 1 - 1 Democrat 0 Republicans.
In the House the votes were: Ayes - 171 Democrats and 181 Republicans and 1 Others. Nays - 63 Democrats and 91 Republicans.
In January 2009, the second tranche came in releasing the additional monies. Votes were: Ayes - 98 Democrats & 172 Republicans. Nays - 151 Democrats & 4 Republicans and Abstained - 9 Democrats and 3 Republicans.
What do you see with this?

I see a truth that any "party-loyal" person will deny.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
I see a truth that any "party-loyal" person will deny.

That it was bi-partisan on both parties! And it started under a Republican President.

dont snow me wrote:

<quoted text>
what does, dumbrowski? TARP will be paid back and it was gleefully signed by two of your fellow nazis, Reid and Pelosi,

Reid and Pelosi weren't President, it was Bush's Treasury Secretary who started it

BandMaster wrote:

Hey Clint. F you, jackass.

Clint's da man. You, OTOH, are da punk. Understand? Well DO ya, punk?:)

Clint Eastwood is a left wing communist

boris wrote:

Clint Eastwood is a left wing communist

Actally, Eastwood is highly pissed at the Barack Husssein Obama bunch for "using" his ad.

seedtick wrote:

<quoted text>
Actally, Eastwood is highly pissed at the Barack Husssein Obama bunch for "using" his ad.

Actually, you made that up!

Following the fall out over the controversial Chrysler Super Bowl halftime ad, Clint Eastwood spoke exclusively with O’Reilly Factor producer Ron Mitchell…

"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain.”

“l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”

“I am not supporting any politician at this time.”

“Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad.”

“Anything they gave me for it went for charity.”

“If any Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Obama’s record is not nearly as dismal as the public perception would indicate, even the Brookings Institute, a conservative think tank agrees. As Brookings’ Thomas Mann puts it (summarizing his view):
During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others. Nevertheless, the political standing of both the president and congressional Democrats slipped steadily through much of this period. While some contests remain unresolved, the Democrats have lost at least six Senate seats, at least ten governorships, and more than sixty House seats, the most for a mid-term election since 1938. By any measure, this is a substantial and consequential expression of public discontent. What went wrong?

Besides the relentless bombardment of negativity by the opposition’s propaganda machinery, the most obvious is the unusual quantity and nature of problems that Obama inherited when he took the oath of office. Because economic downturns induced by financial crises differ fundamentally from ordinary cyclical recessions, recovery is slower and takes longer, generating sustained high unemployment. And because such crises destroy so much wealth, government must take costly steps to avert all-out disaster, expanding deficits and debt in ways that average citizens are bound to find alarming and hard to understand.
The simple fact is that no leader or governing party thrives politically in difficult economic times... Citizens today are understandably scared, sour, and deeply pessimistic about our economic future... The well-documented successes of the financial stabilization and stimulus initiatives are invisible to a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have been. The painfully slow recovery (from the global financial crisis and Great Recession) have led most Americans to believe these programs have failed and as a consequence they judge the president and Congress harshly.

Eastwood speaks out
http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/video....

Bythebay wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you made that up!
Following the fall out over the controversial Chrysler Super Bowl halftime ad, Clint Eastwood spoke exclusively with O’Reilly Factor producer Ron Mitchell…
"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain.”
“l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”
“I am not supporting any politician at this time.”
“Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad.”
“Anything they gave me for it went for charity.”
“If any Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Read exactly what he said. He did not make this ad for anyone. However, Barack Husssein Obama immediately jumped upon it and claimed it as his own. His handlers squeal with glee but are now silenced by this interview.
If anyone deserves to claim ownership to this it is the American people who will lose $1.3 billion in the Chrysler deal...no matter how it turns out. The UAW laughs all the way to the bank.

seedtick wrote:

<quoted text>
Read exactly what he said. He did not make this ad for anyone. However, Barack Husssein Obama immediately jumped upon it and claimed it as his own. His handlers squeal with glee but are now silenced by this interview.
If anyone deserves to claim ownership to this it is the American people who will lose $1.3 billion in the Chrysler deal...no matter how it turns out. The UAW laughs all the way to the bank.

Actually you made that up too!
Claiming that you know why Eastwood made that ad is patently absurd! But most of all
the $1.3 billion is pocket change compared to what the bailout will generate in terms of revenue, saved jobs and families and saved businesses manufacturing parts and other services! All you’re doing is repeat stupid right-wing talking points like a retarded parrot!

BandMaster wrote:

Hey Clint. F you, jackass.

Yeah, Clint. How DARE you talk in an upbeat way about American exceptionalism!

Don't you know that kind of talk isn't allowed until AFTER the November election?

We don't WANT to be rugged individualists, prevailing against all odds, showing the world just how it is done -- until AFTER Obama is a 1-term President.

THEN you may return to your positive ways of talking about America.

You should always know the Republican Party's limitations!(They are severe)

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you made that up too!
Claiming that you know why Eastwood made that ad is patently absurd! But most of all
the $1.3 billion is pocket change compared to what the bailout will generate in terms of revenue, saved jobs and families and saved businesses manufacturing parts and other services! All you’re doing is repeat stupid right-wing talking points like a retarded parrot!

Like I said, re-read what Eastwood said...and you wrote. If you see anything different you are just in denial for your hero, Barack Husssein Obama. Eastwood made the ad for no one, he made it to honor America.
Don't try to tell me how great the auto industry bailout was. Barack Husssein Obama took over GM. Under his direction, carried out by his appointed CEO, many lower tier suppliers lost their jobs. Many dealerships closed down. All of this meant job loss.
Today We The People are on the hook for between $11 billion to $15 billion worth of GM stock. To break even the government must sell at about $53 a share while each share is worth less than $30.
Then to top it all off Barack Husssein Obama actually gave our money to the UAW by allowing them to own about 1/3 of GM.

FD Up wrote:

<quoted text>
Another brain washed citizen, who thinks the Democrats really care about him. Communist had a term for people like you- useful idiots.

Yes I do and I am not brainwashed. the only communist around here is you. For you to spew that garbage you don't have a brain to wash, the head is full of straw.

seedtick wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, re-read what Eastwood said...and you wrote. If you see anything different you are just in denial for your hero, Barack Husssein Obama. Eastwood made the ad for no one, he made it to honor America.
Don't try to tell me how great the auto industry bailout was. Barack Husssein Obama took over GM. Under his direction, carried out by his appointed CEO, many lower tier suppliers lost their jobs. Many dealerships closed down. All of this meant job loss.
Today We The People are on the hook for between $11 billion to $15 billion worth of GM stock. To break even the government must sell at about $53 a share while each share is worth less than $30.
Then to top it all off Barack Husssein Obama actually gave our money to the UAW by allowing them to own about 1/3 of GM.

So Obama and Eastwood are one and the same person? I did not know that but thanks for the info Forest!

Bythebay wrote:

<quoted text>
So Obama and Eastwood are one and the same person? I did not know that but thanks for the info Forest!

That is NOT what s/he claimed. Sadly, there is nothing else to defend in that trash-talk monologue.

seedtick wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, re-read what Eastwood said...and you wrote. If you see anything different you are just in denial for your hero, Barack Husssein Obama. Eastwood made the ad for no one, he made it to honor America.
Don't try to tell me how great the auto industry bailout was. Barack Husssein Obama took over GM. Under his direction, carried out by his appointed CEO, many lower tier suppliers lost their jobs. Many dealerships closed down. All of this meant job loss.
Today We The People are on the hook for between $11 billion to $15 billion worth of GM stock. To break even the government must sell at about $53 a share while each share is worth less than $30.
Then to top it all off Barack Husssein Obama actually gave our money to the UAW by allowing them to own about 1/3 of GM.

That amount pails compared to the 1/2 trillion a year being spent in Iraq

swedenforever wrote:

<quoted text>
That amount pails compared to the 1/2 trillion a year being spent in Iraq

And that makes it right?