Clint Eastwood Talks 'Empty Chair' Speech, Says Obama Is 'Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated on American People': Agree or Disagree?
SodaHead Celebs
2012/09/10 15:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
685 votes
|
|
71% | |||
|
279 votes
|
|
29% | |||
Clint Eastwood isn't backing away from his "empty chair" speech about President Obama at the Republican National Convention. Not one bit. In fact, in a recent interview, Eastwood told The Carmel Pine Cone that "President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Eastwood continued: "Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the
lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle."
"I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood added. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job.
"It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen," Eastwood said. "I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there."
While Eastwood claims that "A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama," director Rob Reiner was not impressed by his speech. "I thought he was embarrassing ... and kind of disrespectful," he told TMZ. "I'm a big fan of Clint's, but not doing this." Do you agree with Eastwood ... or Reiner?
Eastwood continued: "Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the
lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle."
"I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood added. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job.
"It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen," Eastwood said. "I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there."
While Eastwood claims that "A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama," director Rob Reiner was not impressed by his speech. "I thought he was embarrassing ... and kind of disrespectful," he told TMZ. "I'm a big fan of Clint's, but not doing this." Do you agree with Eastwood ... or Reiner?
Top Opinion
-
intolerantrwj 2012/09/11 16:04:30Agree
+48..... Jeepers Mr. Wilson, he only called him a " Hoax ", why was Clint so prone to Sugarcoating the problem ?
Don't be trying your childish games with me sonny! NOW, go away son, ya bother me. http://cheeseforum.org/articl...
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, and Chairman Leahy cited the previous controversy over President Clinton's court of appeals nominees in justifying why only ten Bush appellate nominees were confirmed during the 110th Congress. A total of eleven appellate seats with Bush nominees were left open at the end of the 110th Congress.
Sound like a couple spoiled children, don't they?
https://www.nrlc.org/news/200...
From now on, I will be demanding proof from you every time you open your yap.
That is NOT what the Republicans are doing here. They're NOT opposing people they think are bad judges- they're filibustering people they think would be good judges in order to gain political advantage.
It's painfully obvious you will only read that which supports your view. Run along little boy.
Miguel Estrada.
Charles Pickering.
Democrats argue that these men were too extreme. Please. They just didn’t like them. If anyone was holding a grudge, it was Democrats during the Bush terms who were still annoyed about Florida. They will argue Republicans held up judicial appointments by President Bill Clinton.
But look at the vote totals for Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. While Democrats were the majority party on both votes in the '90s, Republicans recognized these individuals to be qualified and fit for the court. Sure their ideology might have been “wrong” but hardly a soul questioned their abilities. Ginsburg was approved 97-3, and Breyer was 89-7. Compare that with the votes for Bush nominees Justice John Roberts (78-22) and Alito (58-42). An interesting side note to history, talk about grudges, it was none other than Sen. John Kerry, the defeated presidential candidate from a year before, who lead the charge against Alito. It’s unlikely this was just a coincidence.
Not, take your buffoonish arse and move along. You are an ignorant moron and no longer worth my time.
Democrats argue that these men were too extreme. Please. They just didn’t like them. If anyone was holding a grudge, it was Democrats during the Bush terms who were still annoyed about Florida. They will argue Republicans held up judicial appointments by President Bill Clinton.
Now, shut you piehole dipstick.
"they were filibustering as payback for the judges the republicans held up during the Clinton administration"
This is false. You now admit that this is false, changing your story to:
{Democrats argue that these men were too extreme.}
This is correct. Why did you claim otherwise when you knew your claim was false? This is called a lie.