Done! As far as I am concerned, Eastwood was the highlight of that convention!!

You can vote more than once.

Sorry, all your troll buddies beat you to it - you are just a lame "repeat". Yawn!!

1. Clint Eastwood has NEVER been my favorite actor. He doesn't act, he merely plays Clint Eastwood.

2. I don't hate him, I feel sorry for him. At first I thought he was drunk until I realized he is just slipping.

3. Clint Eastwood doesn't like Romney either. Most Republicans wanted someone else but there was too many in the field. It backfired.

4. I actually agree with most of Eastwood's politics. He is pro choice. He believes in marriage equality. He was opposed to DADT and DOMA. I'm not sure exactly why he's a Republican, I'm not sure at this point if he knows either. Maybe just habit.

Yeah, just more hypothetical false equivalence, comparing and equating two things, one of which never happened.

This wacky left-of center guy found much to admire in Clint's performance.

Johnny, are you going somewhere?

Maddow, Schultz, Matthews,....all of the progressive nutty talk show hosts...cannot stand Eastwood. They now think he is nuts.......

What are you talking about? Did any of these individuals say that they cannot stand Eastwood? I guarantee Maddow is not thinking she can't stand Eastwood- I think you're confusing the fact that they were confused by his performance with the idea that they hate him. Remember people that someone not immediately nodding their head in agreement with you and telling you how you're the most awesomest person alive doesn't automatically mean that they HATE you. There's a huge distance between I like this person and I can't stand this person. If you seriously live in a world where no one can criticize you without being your enemy then I shudder to think what kind've human being you are. A person who cannot express any humility is a person who cannot learn from their mistakes, cannot correct for wrongs in the past, cannot learn, and cannot adapt.

Now, if Clint Eastwood would have shown up at the dem convention and done the exact same thing except with Romney in the chair....the wacky left would be PRAISING HIS NAME today...saying he is the brightest of all Hollywood's stars. They would be saying even though he is 82, he is ultra smart....has a great head on his shoulders...etc.

And again with this? NO this is a HYPOTHETICAL. You do NOT have ANY proof whatsoever to make this accusation reality or even plausibility. You do NOT have any reason to believe that if he had shown up at the Democratic convention and did the exact same performance, but with the characters exchanged, that Maddow's reaction would not have been the same or similar. You are assuming that this is true because you are assuming those who are not praising Eastwood's performance must necessarily be mocking him or attacking him. People can think something you did was weird without hating you or devaluing you as a person. His performance was weird in some people's opinions. They aren't wrong- they just have a DIFFERENT view than you. Has it never occurred to you that this could be ENTIRELY outside of politics? Opinions and hypotheticals are not facts. They are subjective perspectives and relative beliefs. Please don't confuse the two and please don't present arguments obfuscating the two.

I don't see how you arrived at the "left hates Clint" conclusion.

This is a HYPOTHETICAL. You do NOT have ANY proof whatsoever

Indeed. The right-wing mind typically contradicts hard fact with speculation. It's how their brains work, and evidence of their inability to distinguish fact from fiction, which is why they lie all the time.

Actually Castro was probably a better baseball player

Awww, guess what!! Another troll who got a new screenname just to tell us this! Wow, we are so impressed!

Didn't you HEAR ANYTHING Rachel said? This was supposed to be Romney's big day and everyone BLEW it!!

As for the rest of your nonsense - well, you probably posted it on another screenname because we've all heard it before!

BTW, how much are you getting paid to make these posts?

Do the detractors realize that Newsvine makes money every time they post on here???

Yes, Clint's performance was a bit odd but for Rachel M. to say someone in charge of the NRC should be fired over it(which just aired on her primetime show) is ridiculous

Sigh. You do understand satire in the form of hyperbole, yes?

I would like her to make the same comments every time a liberal bashes or says something racial towards the republicans- "put them back in chains", "the party of white people", etc, etc, etc.

What are you talking about? Racial comments and hateful comments have nothing to do with the way people are reacting to the Eastwood performance. People are reacting that way because they thought it was bizarre, poorly planned, and poorly executed. Racism has nothing to do with this conversation. FTR you're completely misrepresenting the statements you made, but I don't feel like getting into it.

The reality is that we as a nation are not better off than we were 3.7 years ago. I would love to hear the rational on how someone can make the claim that we are.

We're not losing 700,000+ jobs per month, Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al'Qaeda is decimated, the Iraq War is over and we're on our way to ending the Afghanistan War, we've added jobs every month since Obama's policies took place, the auto-industry didn't collapse and is thriving, we made all of our money from TARP and the bailouts back, we've reduced the deficit, we've passed Obamacare, we've repealed DADT, we passed a consumer protection agency, we've even helped lower taxes, AND we've put more money into school grants and made it easier for students to go to school to get the training to boost our economy in the future. Are we perfect? No. No one is arguing that we're perfect- at least that I've heard. But to a lot of people the things I just listed means that we're better off. The problem here, of course, is that saying we're better or worse off is misleading. Better and worse are subjective terms. What you think is better I may think is worse and vise versa. So honestly this is a non-statement. You have to actually quantify how things are better or worse before asserting that it is or isn't true.

When the interest rate, on the money we borrow to pay for the current size of our goverment, goes back to traditional levels- we will be totally f----. And you can take that to the bank.

Riiiight because raising interest rates 2.5% will totally cause us to go bankrupt. Sheesh. FTR this isn't how interest rates work, but anywho.

How can someone argue with the idea that we shouldn't balance our budget?

I agree. I would like us to pass a balanced budget if one is possible. However it is probably unrealistic in a time of economic recession. It is also likely impossible with our current Congress the way it is since budget resolutions are congressional issues. Changing presidents won't change the budgetary problems this country is facing because neither Romney or Obama have control over budgetary issues.

You like fiscal responsiblility- vote for Romney. You want our country to go bankrupt- vote for Obama. We borrow 40% of every doller spent to run our goverment. Ridiculous and not very responsible.

1. Both Romney's budget and Ryan's budget will add anywhere from 3-5 trillion dollars over the next 4 years if put into place. Obama's budget would actually have us balanced out, although granted it will take approximately 10 years. Again I am all for balancing the budget, but this assumes that there's a faster way to do it. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps there isn't?

2. The majority of debt incurred by the government is money that the government will pay someone at some point in the future. Very few debts are debts that work in the conventional sense (money that we actively borrowed and now owe on). The recession is the single greatest contributor to the lack of revenue going into our government. The second is the Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts. Remove these back to the Clinton era rates and come out of the Great Recession and you will have virtually eliminated the problem. We blew an over 2 trillion dollar hole in our economy. Until that gets replaced nothing is going to change with our national debt or most of what we spend.

I think lots of conservatives seem to forget that we are in the worst economic situation that we've been in since the Great Depression. The GD took us what 10? years to get out of. I do not know why people think the GR would take significantly less. Even if Romney were president it's very likely that his economic numbers would look similar. I have a feeling that with how economically conservative Obama is there really isn't a Republican you could put into office who would pass a bill that is significantly different than that of what Obama has passed (considering most of Obama's policies are or were Republican policies).

@john Re: #10

The ARRA and the ACA (or the "stimulus" and ObamaCares)

Then there is saving the auto industry - so that is three.

Are we better off than we were when President Obama took office?

Perhaps you don't remember what a horrible free-fall the economy was in.

Regarding jobs, let's have a look at the actual DATA:

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

www.bls.gov

search for "CES0500000001

G.W.Bush

January 2000 = 110,210,000

January 2001 = 111,631,000 - Note: jobs were added in 2000 1,421,000

Low point was July 2003 = 108,232,000 - loss of 3,399,000

June 2005 = 111, 844,000 - back to where we were January 2001 4yrs 6 mos

Jobs were added - to January 2008, then were flushed down the toilet.

Obama

Great Recession started December 2007

January 2008 = 115,647,000

January 2009 = 110,985,000 - NOTE: loss of 4,662,000 in 2008

Low point was February 2010 = 106,773,000 - additional loss of 4,212

April 2012 = 110,956,000 - back to where we were in January 2009 - 3 yrs 4 mos

Preliminary July 2012 = 111,317,000

-----------------------------------

We were half-way down the "Jobs hole" when President Obama took office and we kept falling.

We are halfway out of the hole but the distance we have climbed is farther than we climbed when led by G.W.Bush and it didn't take us as long.

---------------------------------------------

If you want to talk about the Stimulus or the Federal Budget, we can do that too. I have links to actual data.

1. During the Bush presidency the US lost more jobs than it has lost in decades and we blew a hole in our economy larger than anything seen since the Great Depression. Because of this our country has had to climb slowly back up out of that hole. It took us over a decade to heal from the Great Depression- it only stands to reason that the Great Recession is going to take several years too. In fact regardless of whose economic policy you're referring to virtually every economist out there agreed that it was going to take at minimum until 2014 (most said 2016) before we saw our economic levels return back to what they were prior to the Great Recession. That's because of how dire the economic situation was.

2. No noone is arguing that 8% unemployment is good. What people are arguing is that 8% is better than it would have been otherwise. What people are arguing is that we're adding jobs, although we're not adding them fast enough to keep up with population growth (which means that we're not doing enough). But we are heading in the right direction. Obama's policies got us going in the right direction. However our congress has stalled and because of that the economy has stalled. Until that problem is fixed our economy will likely continue to drag more than what it should. There are also more complicated issues like the fact that the stimulus was too small, our infrastructure is crumbling and along with that our education system has fallen drastically behind over the past 30+ years, and when you combine these problems together it creates for a terrible job market no matter whose in power.

3. The Keystone Pipeline would have added jobs, this is true. It would have added most of those as temporary jobs and then a handful as permanent jobs. Some of the problems with the Keystone include the fact that environmentally we aren't sure what the consequences are going to be. Obama only delayed the Keystone project (for the record) and it's likely that Keystone will end up getting built regardless if Obama or Romney are in office. The delay on Obama's part was to investigate to make sure the pipeline could be built safely. There is also the problem of where the product goes. While creating jobs here is good it should be noted that the oil produced through Keystone wouldn't get sold to the US. We (meaning the US) would still have to bid at full price for that oil once it was produced. That means the US gets no benefits from doing as such and no guarantees that the oil we're producing here doesn't get sold to our competitors that are making our situation here so much harder- like China. Additionally the figures given by those lobbying for the Keystone Pipeline were that for every 1$ spent by the US we'd get 90cents back. As a fiscal hawk this must bother you. That means we'll be at a net loss for every penny we're spending on the pipeline. Since we're not gaining the oil in exchange I'm not sure that 1,200 jobs is worth that gamble.

4. The majority of the businesses that were given money did not go bankrupt. You focus on Solyndra- and granted that company did went under and it did appear that favoritism was going on (although the US Congress investigated this and confirmed that there were no unethical practices that took place) so I can understand your frustration with it- but you ignore all the other companies that have been good. Remember 80% of all businesses who start up will die within their first 5 years. Almost all (something like 98%) will die by their 10th year mark. It's not really a surprise that a business is going to fail whether it comes from taxpayer money or not. The idea, however, is that by giving the money we incentivize companies to put effort into researching things that will help our society- like new energies or new medical treatments, as an example. For the record I should also point out that the loans to Solyndra started under the George Bush Administration

5. Everyone in the US- even those who are here visiting or who are undocumented residents- pays taxes. I believe what you meant to say is income tax. While income tax does make up a huge portion of the income the US government gets, it's actually payroll tax that mostly funds our government. So it's somewhat arrogant and completely misrepresentation of you to pretend like this wouldn't affect people who don't pay income taxes. But, I digress. I don't like that this government spent money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agreed with our initial mission in Afghanistan, but we managed to cluster@!$%# that up and now I want our troops home. I don't agree with my money going to pay politicians who deny gays the right to marry and women the right to access abortion clinics. I don't agree with my money going to fund private corporations whom I don't agree with. I don't agree with my money going to fund religious institutions such as schools or hospitals. I don't agree with my money paying for infrastructure for people too stupid or in love with themselves to be thankful for the business and the benefit it gives in our community. I don't like my money going to fund new research to cure erectile dysfunction. There are lots of things I don't agree with my money being spent on. However I have to consider the fact that it isn't just about me. I am not the focus of the world. The world doesn't revolve around me. Maybe you have erectile dysfunction and while I don't give a damn about your erection maybe you do. Maybe that's important to you. Who am I to say that's wrong? The same goes with paying politicians who pass policies that harm gays or abortion. The problem here is that it's subjective and since our interests will never match because of their subjectivity arguments like this are ultimately pointless and need to not be made.

How do explain over $500 million given to projects like solyndra that went bankrupt?

Romney: "Business and growing jobs is about taking risk, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, but always striving. It is about dreams. Usually, it doesn’t work out exactly as you might have imagined."

for shame, you hater. but funny.

It is very sad that that troll (another one who just got a screen name to troll us) doesn't have a clue why we think it is funny!!

One thing you can say about the rightwingnuts - they will never get "laugh lines" on their face!

Don't think I've ever met one who knew how to smile!!!

Same lies, same troll, many names.

Imo.