That was "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and "It's A Wonderful Life," both good movies.
But nice tie in, anyway! :awe:
That was "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and "It's A Wonderful Life," both good movies.He went to Washington and saved his town.
It was a train wreck. There isn't enough Koolaid in the world to change that.
Forget the Video READ the Transcript. Eastwoods Speech is Devastating to the Left
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I think that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along. See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway.
If Clint was unsuccessful, there would be no need to attack him.
Clint Eastwoods rambling and off-color endorsement of Mitt Romney on Thursday seemed to startle and unsettle even the candidates own top aides, several of whom made a point of distancing themselves from the decision to put him onstage without a polished script.
Not me, said an exasperated-looking senior adviser, when asked who was responsible for Mr. Eastwoods speech. In late-night interviews, aides variously called the speech strange and weird. One described it as theater of the absurd.
That was in the 70s at the most recent and he was in the Air National Guard unlike Senator McCain who actually put his life on the line.
Doubtful that he could qualify for piloting at his age now unlike Chuck Yeager who kept on flying well into his 70's
and it doesn't change the fact it was a photo op
:hmm:
Pure speculation and dumb assumption. What else you got?
You guys do know that most of Clint's speech was ad-libbed, don't you?
Not bad for an 82 year old guy!
no. no way i dont believe it for a second. not even when the lady screamed "make my day". i bet she was paid good money to heckle that. it was obvious just by the way clint handled it. every word of that speech was scripted, he just mixed a few of them up making it seem like he was shooting from the hip.
Easy, your definition of attack is skewed. This explains why you see boogey men everywhere you look, you think simple criticism is an attack.
Now we know why you fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.
Heck, even the url you posted says "omney-aides-scratch-their-heads-over-eastwoods-speech" not attack, like you claim it says.
In addition...
Hmmmmm
If Clint was unsuccessful, there would be no need to attack him.
If Clint was so successful, why are Romeny's own aides "attacking" him?
Answer me that.
Easy, your definition of attack is skewed. This explains why you see boogey men everywhere you look, you think simple criticism is an attack.Clint Eastwoods rambling and off-color endorsement of Mitt Romney on Thursday seemed to startle and unsettle even the candidates own top aides, several of whom made a point of distancing themselves from the decision to put him onstage without a polished script.
Not me, said an exasperated-looking senior adviser, when asked who was responsible for Mr. Eastwoods speech. In late-night interviews, aides variously called the speech strange and weird. One described it as theater of the absurd.
Now we know why you fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.
Heck, even the url you posted says "omney-aides-scratch-their-heads-over-eastwoods-speech" not attack, like you claim it says.
7. Use quotation marks around words you mean to use ironically or in any other non-literal manner.
The "reform proposed by the Ministry of Education turned out to be yet another budget-cut scheme.
[Ironical use of reform]
In politically correct language, bad looking girls are sometimes referred to as "aesthetically challenging.
[Non-standard use of aesthetically challenging]
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense:
Crystals somehow "know" which shape to grow into.
3. When you use a word that in itself is not unusual, but locate it in a context in which it would have a different nonstandard sense or is jargon related, enclose it in quotation marks. This way, the reader understands that the word is used in a manner out of the ordinary.
In the grammatical jargon of English verb tenses, a "simple verb means that the verb is composed of one word and simply states an action or situation. Actions which are incomplete and still ongoing are expressed by "progressive forms, while "perfect tenses denote the completeness of the action rather than it having been performed perfectly or without flaws.
Wait, you actually believe people have to be paid to yell the most famous and beloved line someone said in a movie? Do people pay those who yell out "Say I'll Be Back" to Arnold?
Wow...
This was all improvised, right? He did not have a script? That would explain a lot, but still bizarre as hell.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/u...heir-heads-over-eastwoods-speech.html?_r=1&hp
Real question is who is the moron who bumped that well produced video biography of Romney from 10 PM time slot, only time when national broadcast tv viewers were tuned in?
Romney advisers so trusted Mr. Eastwood, 82, that unlike with other speakers, they said they did not conduct rehearsals or insist on a script or communicate guidelines for the style or format of his remarks. For Mr. Eastwood, the convention speech was a bit part in a career that has had its political moments.
Thus began an effort by Mr. Romney’s campaign over several weeks to inject a Hollywood-style surprise into the highly scripted, tightly controlled convention where Mr. Romney would formally accept the nomination of the Republican Party to be president.
He can't do this because his views don't represent the republican party. He's a self proclaimed libertarian like Ron Paul with a few minor difference. He is probably opposed to as many Romney policies as he is against Obama policies.To me, Clint Eastwood has always been regarded as a true and decent republican. Unlike other nut-jobs, he was logical and his argument made sense. I especially loved films he directed as those masterfully show the worldview of his and that of a great republican.
Then, this. It was painful to watch because I knew he could've done something so much better. He could have given a speech that is concise and logical. He could've shown the one true side of republicans. He could've let the other nut-jobs know how the game should be played. Yet, he chose to pull out this miserable one-man comedy.
This is sad.