Is Clint Eastwood drunk?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

[Anonymous]

Isn't Clint portraying an old coach who's losing it in his latest film? That's what the previews look like anyway.
Life imitating art.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

Sorry, can you clarify what you are trying to say? I don't understand your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

You what now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will every major Romney event result in a hilarious hash tag or twitter feed? And it twitter prepared for this?

Darlin', this is what Twitter was made for!

[Anonymous]

The Simpsons predicted this: http://i.imgur.com/obE6F.jpg

[Anonymous]

I'm still confused about his comments on bringing home the troops from Afghanistan. Was he saying that we should be bringing them home sooner or that Obama should just not telescope our intentions by making the date clear?

I'm so baffled by all this. The Republicans don't think Obama is tough enough on China or Iran but they think Obama is too tough on Afghanistan and should bring the troops home?! Or are they just generally avoiding mention of it at all because no one is happy about the war in Afghanistan?

So hard to get used to this era where the Democrat is a hawk on drones and surges in Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden and the Republicans are......what now?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

Sorry, can you clarify what you are trying to say? I don't understand your point.

A homer is someone who thinks their friends, family, team and/or anything else are the greatest when, in fact, that is far from the truth. But he/she will continually believe that no matter what..

[Anonymous]

You have to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?????? I love me some Clint Eastwood.

I watched the video and thought it was obviously ad-libbed, but he wasn't all that bad. He's 82 or 83 years old for crying out loud. Congrats to him for making it onstage without a wheelchair! Seriously. That said, I have to wonder if that speech wasn't done on purpose to add spice to a seemingly dull RNC and make everyone forget about the Mittens. Just sayin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

Sorry, can you clarify what you are trying to say? I don't understand your point.

A homer is someone who thinks their friends, family, team and/or anything else are the greatest when, in fact, that is far from the truth. But he/she will continually believe that no matter what..

Thanks for clearing that up. I learn something new every time I come to DCUM.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet everyone is talking about it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because it was a much better speech then the one Mittens gave. I'm sure the RNC was thinking, "let's have an old white guy talk to a chair. Then, nobody will pay any attention to Romney's speech."

If Obama spoke at the convention you would say he sucked. Such a homer.........

Sorry, can you clarify what you are trying to say? I don't understand your point.

A homer is someone who thinks their friends, family, team and/or anything else are the greatest when, in fact, that is far from the truth. But he/she will continually believe that no matter what..

I know what a homer is. I don't know how it applies to my post. Do you honestly believe that Mittens wants everyone talking about Clint Eastwood this morning? There are three threads here about Eastwood. Only one about Romney's speech. That's about par for the course in social media today. If you honestly believe this is the outcome Romney desired, you are the true homer.

[Anonymous]

Someone please explain to me why, oh why..did they pick Clint Eastwood to come out on stage last night? Scripted or not, I think people would still be talking. He had a hard time with delivery and reminded me of Dick Clark last time I watched the New Year's celebration. I think it was a poor choice altogether. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused about his comments on bringing home the troops from Afghanistan. Was he saying that we should be bringing them home sooner or that Obama should just not telescope our intentions by making the date clear?

I'm so baffled by all this. The Republicans don't think Obama is tough enough on China or Iran but they think Obama is too tough on Afghanistan and should bring the troops home?! Or are they just generally avoiding mention of it at all because no one is happy about the war in Afghanistan?

So hard to get used to this era where the Democrat is a hawk on drones and surges in Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden and the Republicans are......what now?

They are disingenuous. Obama could be the best President of all time. He could be Patton and Adam Smith and George Washington all rolled into one. Doesn't matter. They will do and say ANYTHING to get their guy back in. Why? Well mostly for money. The rich want to get richer. One good way to do that is wars. And then secondly for God. They don't want all these uppity gays and women leading sexual lives that will lead god to smite us. All that sh*t will be illegal when the repubs have their way, thank you very much. And don't even get them started on all these filthy immigrants and brown people and (ick) people who are not Christian. Ick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, he clearly doesn't believe in anticonceptives or abortion.