Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
One of these days, I'm gonna get things straight
01:49 AM on 09/05/2012
Did anybody else find this totally boring?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Unapologetic liberal female
09:19 AM on 09/05/2012
Clint specifically or the RNC totally?
01:15 AM on 09/05/2012
He borrowed this from Bob Newhart who made this skit famous. i dont know- at least he wasn't whining like the rest of the white millionaires in the room. Eastwood/Chair in 2012
Seriously, it's time.
09:36 AM on 09/05/2012
Chair/Eastwood surely?
02:04 PM on 09/05/2012
I'd take it over Beavis and Butthead (R&R), The chair has the most substance and let's face it, we had 8 years of worse than that even.
12:51 AM on 09/05/2012
Does the tax increase on those earning over $250k apply to corporations as well?

An answer from someone who knows would be nice.
08:02 AM on 09/05/2012
I'm no expert, but personal income tax and corporate taxes are two different things.
09:12 AM on 09/05/2012
Sort of. Corporate taxes are separate from individual taxes, so allowing the rates to reset to Clinton era for earnings over $250,000 does not directly effect the corporate rates. However, in Sub-S corporations the companies pay no tax at the corporate level but pass the income through to the shareholders. That income, since it is taxed at individual, not corporate rates, would be effected. This is what they are talking about when they say small businesses will feel the increase since many small businesses (ie, law firms) make lots of money which is passed through to the shareholders and those rates would go up. Most small businesses they way most of us think of them (like the corner bakery) do not pass through more than $250,000 in profits.
running forward, laughing...
12:43 AM on 09/05/2012
Excellent analysis, Mr. Mitchell. Eastwood and his "speech" are the perfect metaphor for the Grumpy Old People party. After watching the DNC this evening the dire situation facing the Republicans is even more obvious.
02:05 PM on 09/05/2012
You know how they'll fight back? Lie harder.
12:34 AM on 09/05/2012
Some commentators seem to go out of their way to completely miss the big picture.

The one thing the RNC did to alienate the 'youth' vote was to marginalize Ron Paul and his anti-war message. Ron Paul always polled better against Obama than Romney. But the RNC would rather lose than give Ron Paul an audience.

The fact that the Democrats are just as eager to ignore this reveals that they serve the same political masters. Better to distract the plebeians with arguments about gay marriage. Since when did the government define what marriage is anyway?

The selection of Paul Ryan as VP candidate was a desperate attempt by the myopic GOP to co-opt the Paul vote, without whom the Republicans don't stand a chance. But it won't work. So we will get four more years of a pretty, smooth-talking warmonger who serves the bankers first, like all 'legitimate' candidates.
03:22 AM on 09/05/2012
"Since when did the government define what marriage is anyway?"

Since when government decided to give married people a whole lot of benefits like lower taxes, spousal hospital visits, shared health plan, inheritance etc. The list goes on.
08:52 AM on 09/05/2012
See how effective their distractions are?
07:57 AM on 09/05/2012
Why would the Dems care about Paul and what he stands for? He is not the candidate Obama is running against. As for people voting for Gary Johnson, conservatives are more likely to vote for him because they are offended with how Paul was treated by the GOP, not liberals.

"Since when did the government define what marriage is anyway?"

Well, govt has no interest in defining marriage if that is what you mean. Keep in mind it's the people passing anti-gay constitutional amendments, not state legislatures. With that being said, states do issues licenses and should not care if the couple is same sex or hetero, all should be issued licenses.
09:14 AM on 09/05/2012
Apparently my point was missed...

Both candidates are Harvard alumni. Both candidates rabidly support U.S. foreign military intervention despite massive public sentiment against. Neither will threaten the money-printing privileges the political and financial elite enjoy via the Federal Reserve.

The choice between Republican and Democrat is an illusion. The differences between them are carefully chosen for their ability to emotionally distract people from what won't change regardless of how you cast your vote..

"Presidents don't have power; their job is to draw attention away from it." -- Ford Prefect
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
Former Republican - now sane
10:28 AM on 09/05/2012
Funny! I've got to fan you for that, plus save that link...
12:20 AM on 09/05/2012
Am I the only one who thought Gran Torino (which Eastwood directed) was about coming around to a Democratic mindset where we help our neighbors and don't act grumpy and isolated? I would never have guessed Eastwood was a Republican after watching that film.
07:57 AM on 09/05/2012
Just a movie.
08:05 AM on 09/05/2012
I met the guy almost 40 years ago and he was just as rude and grumpy then as now. I also know someone who has known him for 30 years and says the same thing,
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
12:20 AM on 09/05/2012
Great speach, Clint!
There is no such thing as a moderate Republican
09:10 AM on 09/05/2012
That is spelled s-p-e-e-c-h.
11:52 PM on 09/04/2012
Hi Lincoln. It wasn't operatives or strategists but Romney himself who invited Eastwood without the preconditions demanded of Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney gave Clint free reign, and it is Romneys judgement that should thus be questioned.

That doesn't diminish your excellent post, just makes the point that Romney himself is yelling at the kids to stay off his lawn, and Romney himself who is unprofessional and lacks judgement... and surrounds himself with yes men afraid to challenge his bad decisions.
Nathan Brittles
Duc,sequere,aut de via decede
11:04 PM on 09/04/2012
Who knows? Partisan lefties like Mitchell who are drowning in League Ivy, are not the first responders to the Eastwood speech, which while nevertheless rambling, kicked off a national ''empty chair''craze which are local or water-cooler epitomes of the failed presidency of Barack Obama. In Mitchells rarified NYC world, everything is tight, MTV-young, with brilliant colors and bells and whistles which are used as a Potemkin Village to mask the rot, which Eastwood got to the heart of. That this infuriates lesser men like Mitchell, goes without saying, however a sterner thing than both the aging actor, and the middling party functionary Mitchell is coming. Namely, Fridays jobs report from the Labor Dept. This will speak much louder than boths words. [ along with enough of Mitchells hot air to float a Lead Zeppelin].
12:28 AM on 09/05/2012
You do realize that your candidate has more degrees from "League Ivy" than Barack Obama?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
"Poverty is the worst form of violence." Gandhi
03:06 AM on 09/05/2012
I'm sure it doesn't, they don't cover that on FOX AND it would require introspection as to why it finds education so deplorable.
Nathan Brittles
Duc,sequere,aut de via decede
06:20 AM on 09/05/2012
Yet he is not the one going into meltdown over Eastwood now is he?
One of these days, I'm gonna get things straight
01:52 AM on 09/05/2012
Thank you so much for laying that out for the ignorant masses. Keep up the good work.
Not the talk. What good result would it hav
07:18 AM on 09/05/2012
If you notice, jdwright62, this page monopolizes BHO's followers, you can't squeeze in. might as well hope positively.
08:07 AM on 09/05/2012
I could say the same thing without the sarcasm and mean every word.
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
10:45 PM on 09/04/2012
An "older" white man? How polite you are.
09:04 PM on 09/04/2012
I confess that I didn't bother to watch Eastwood's speech based on the assumption that nothing he could say would persuade me to vote for Romney. However, I question whether the speech had as much significance as the author and other commentators seem to think it had.

Unless there is some credible reason to believe that Eastwood's speech will influence voters who were "undecided" to vote either for or against Romney, rather than going down in history as an event of any significance his speech probably will rate little more than a mention (perhaps in a footnote) in some future Wikipedia article about the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
10:47 PM on 09/04/2012
I would say it was important because of what viewers DIDN'T see and what people WEREN'T talking about later. 1) This was the big moment to "introduce" Mitt Romney to America and they decided to let Clint Eastwood ramble on rather than showing their warm and fuzzy campaign bio. 2) Hardly anyone was talking about Romney's big speech. They were talking about this bizarre piece of "performance art' or whatever it was.
Cogito ergo sum. Cogito.
10:52 PM on 09/04/2012
If, heaven forbid, romney wins you are correct--Eastwood's rant will be a historical footnote. On the other hand, if romney loses, Eastwood's incoherent tirade will go down as a crucial turning point. It will be the one thing that stopped dead in its tracks the crucial mission of the convention to sell romney as a likable, capable, and inspiring leader. romney's dull speech certainly couldn't compare to the Eastwood debacle in terms of people's memories of that night.
11:53 AM on 09/05/2012
The fact that you think Romney's speech was dull indicates that Eastwood's rambling may have helped Romney. It's better for the Romney campaign to have viewers remember that Eastwood was rambling instead of having them remember that Romney was dull.
KSU 05/04/70 RIP never ever forget
07:50 PM on 09/04/2012
The trouble with backwardness is there is always this given that there actually was a time of perfection, where the milk and honey flowed freely and life was like Father Knows Best. In reality, daddy probably was a roaring alcoholic who came home and threw his recliner against the wall and then yelled at the kids next day for putting a big dent in the wall and who had $1.25 left in his check after his wages were garnished for his gambling debts and bar bill. In short, the one thing the backward people won't acknowledge are the all the reasons that drove women from their kitchens and all the oppressed people who wanted to stand up and be counted in the first place. The social revolution of the 1960s didn't come out a vacuum, the 1950s were never as idyllic as the conservatives like Eastwood would have you believe. Grace Slick summed up the 1950s as "a big snore."
07:19 PM on 09/04/2012
"While Eastwood's speech was embarrassing both for Eastwood and the Republican Party"

So funny to watch the meltdown of the Ivy Leaguers (I come from a whole family of them..parents, sister, brother, some others...I know them well) it's all the same.
Oh they got it...perfectly. Just as intended by Clint's masterful theatrical performance.

The only thing "embarrassing" is the hissy fit you Lefties are having.
Please stamp your feet some's hilarious.
Jason Ryberg
I can see you.
08:03 PM on 09/04/2012
Nobody is stamping their feet, dude, we're laughing our butts off. This one is gonna get a lot of mileage. Doddering old grouch interrogating an empty chair. Pretty much sums up the Grumpy Old People party. Brilliant! Thanks Clint!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
We'll always have Paris
08:27 PM on 09/04/2012
There is nothing masterful about watching an old man ramble incoherently. Shame on the RNC for allowing this. Not surprising though considering Reince is in charge. I'm sure once Romney loses, they'll send him and his cheesehead packing back to Wisconsin.
07:10 PM on 09/04/2012
My friend and co-worker, who I'm going to the polls with, is a life-long republican voter. He will be reluctantly voting for Romney, but he concedes the republican party has been high-jacked by the Hank Williams Jr's of its faction. I ask liberals to consider that there are rational thinking, honest republicans out there...because that's becoming harder to believe these days. And by the way, my friend's rationale for voting republican in this election is because of the debt increase under president his reason for voting against the democrats in the first place isn't very comprehensive....but he's a good dude. Him and I are different with our fiscal beliefs...he believes austerity measures are the only way to save the economy....I believe austerity measures are about the only way to guarantee another depression.
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
11:58 PM on 09/04/2012
Might show him this. A President's policies don't just vanish when the next guy takes office, it takes time and a freedom from obstructionism that Obama simply hasn't had. Anyway, here, shows what's added to the deficit, who "owns' what and for how much.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
12:39 AM on 09/05/2012
Show him how well austerity measures are working in those European countries governed by conservatives. If he is as thoughtful as you think that might give him pause.