Eastwood speech

| August 31, 2012

Like I said last night, I can’t watch speeches anymore, but Clint Eastwood got so many bad reviews in the “unbiased” media, I had to watch it this morning. While I’ll admit that it was a little odd that he was talking to an empty chair (which was supposed to represent the President with whom he was supposedly conversing), I didn’t think he did a bad job at all. He hit on all of my complaints about this administration. Well, if you didn’t watch it, here’s the 11 minute video;

He didn’t give me many reasons to vote for Romney, but he gave me a lot of reasons to vote against Obama, and I guess that’s the whole point this year. The speech would have better if he had channeled Gunny Highway, though.

Category: 2012 election, Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WOTN

I’d be more inclined to believe you were discharged as a Private than a Sergeant, but you signed your 214 and should have retained a copy Insipid. Of course, if you send Jonn a copy of what you have and what you think you should have, perhaps, he can walk you through the process of getting it right.

Insipid

How come it’s only incumbant on me to find the perfect source? Regardless of the leads politics, his sources are known Republicans and he’s writing for the Washington Post. Surely that’s a more credible article the the Ulsterman report!

Ex-PH2

So, left is right, and right is wrong.

Oh, that makes so much sense now.

Insipid

I think you’re wrong about Sargent working for media matters. I just checked the site and I can’t find an article by him.

PowerPoint Ranger

He didn’t work for them on paper, it was done via WaPo.

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

Insipid

Ooooooh! You’re using the Daily Caller to “prove” how biased the Washington Post is because the guy who doesn’t work for Media Matters will totally write whatever you give him.

Let’s take a look at the Daily Caller’s scintillating excuse for “Journalism”.
===========================================================

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

============================================================
So we have as “sources” a “media matters source” and “one former staffer”. Wow. Color me convinced!

Silly Greg Sargent used Ed Rollins and Craig Shirley two authorities on the 1980 election as sources. He should of stuck with the so-much-more convincing “some guy says” sources.

MCPO IN OC USN (Ret.)

@ 99 Insipid OK … let me review your problem. You are asking us to help you. OK … fair enough … we can help … you left the Army (presumably US Army) and you were looking for your DD-214 in your sock drawer where you keep your pot … OK …. You could not find it so you wrote to someone and they sent you a copy …. DON’T LOOSE THAT COPY …. OK … it says you were a Private (I guess that is E whatever) …. OK …. but you think you were a E-5 … No problem … I can help …. YOU ARE A FRIGGIN PRIVATE.

BTW McDonald’s is not hiring!

Insipid

I don’t think i was an e-5, i know i was an e-5. While i shouldn’t of lost my discharge papers, i did leave 22 years ago. Either way thanks for the help!

Devtun

Greg Sargent wrote for “Talking Points Memo” & “The Horse’s Mouth” blogs.

MCPO IN OC USN (Ret.)

Insipid .. kidding aside. If you left active duty as a Private and made SGT in Reserve Unit it will not be reflected on a previous DD-214. If you were frocked to SGT and not being paid for it then it would still say Private on DD-214. Shit I don’t even know if the Army frocks. In any case if you were a SGT and you want to correct it. I believe the Army has a similar vehicle as the Navy. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). In addition, the issuer of the DD-214, if I am correct can correct certain administrative errors.

Insipid

Oh, there’s separate DD-214s for NG and active duty? That would actually explain it. My only active duty experience was basic. My unit never went to Desert Storm.

MCPO IN OC USN (Ret.)

I am not sure how the ANG does it … seriously though … there are many folks here who know that road better than I.

Request a transcript of all your records from ANG.

MCPO IN OC USN (Ret.)

HOLY CRAP ….. I just realized my first CIC was Carter and my last was Obama …. I need another Baily’s.

Insipid

Regardless of who wrote the article, i don’t think Ed Rollins or Craig Shirley would allow themeselves to be taken out of context without saying anything. Hell, he actually lifted a whole passage of what Shirley said!

That’s the main reason why stated sources are way better than the anonymoous sources featured in the daily caller article.

Plus the reasoning he gave for 2012 being different seems entirely valid. Does anyone really believe Mitt = Ronald or Barack = Jimmy. The dynamics then was a stong campaigner against a weak campaigner, now it is reversed.

RaptorFire22

Harry Reid can get away with anonymous sources; why can’t we, ‘Sip?

Devtun

Dems are allowed to have imaginary sources. They can also claim to be born in Kenya, before they were born in Hawaii.

Insipid

Harry Reid isn’t a journalist.

Plus, another thing that bothers me about the Daily Caller articls is this: so what? They’re not claiming that media matters lies. They’re saying that they try and manipulate the media. Mmm last I looked that there stated job:

Yep right here:

============================================================
Media Matters for America is a
Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
in the U.S. media.

=============================================================

That mission kind of involved talking with reporters. Since it’s the stated goal of the White House to work with progressive media, how is it surprising that Media Matters talks to the White house either? It seems to me like the article had two purposes 1. To complain that MM is doing its job and 2. To say that David Brock is a weirdo.

The first is gratifying the second is irrelevant.

Redacted1775

I guess instupid only reads what he wants, and doesn’t like Clint because even at 82, he can actually put together a cognisant thought. These guys haven’t been wrong in 32 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

Keep denying the inevitable, sip, your fraud is getting kicked out on his ass.

Insipid

I already addressed that article, redacted. Thanks for keeping up!

Redacted1775

Oh i’ve been travelling for the past few days, didn’t have time to read through all your bullshit. Want to see it again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

Enjoy, douche bag.

Insipid

I addressed in @92 of this thread.

Either way we’ll know in 66 days. \

Yat Yas 1833

Instupid, I was discharged 35+ years ago and I still have an available copy of my DD-214. as for the rest of your moronic blathering, you continue to demonstrate your own bias and ignorance. Is it possible dullASS whatthefuck is your sperm donor?!

PowerPoint Ranger

Sippy,

I don’t really give a crap what you think of the Daily Caller. The fact that Sargent was an enthusiastic participant in Journolist makes any utterance of his suspect, and doesn’t make it unbelievable to think that he would coordinate with MM to push narratives just like he did with the other Journolistas.

It’s interesting that you bring up MM’s online mission statement, since that doesn’t jive at all with what they claimed to be in their IRS filing for tax exempt status.

“The Corporation is organized for the charitable and educational purposes of ensuring accuracy, fairness, and a balance of diverse views in the media through research, public education and advocacy.”

LC

@ PPT Ranger:

Economic growth and infrastructure exist in a chicken-and-egg form – one leads to another, which is then the foundation for the next iteration. The issue at hand is that it’s clear he was referring to government action (yes, with tax revenue) creating infrastructure that the local businesses didn’t (directly) build and, arguably, wouldn’t be nearly as successful without.

To paint that as the President claiming small business owners didn’t build their own businesses is needlessly dishonest. The GOP certainly doesn’t have a lock on dishonesty in politics, mind you, but to make this a central rallying cry of the 2012 campaign? It’s a bit painful in my opinion.

Ex-PH2

LC, when people backpedal and explain that they didn’t really mean what people think they meant, it’s misdirection, trying to deflect attention from what was actually said.

In this case, explaining that it was about roads and bridges, not about actual businesses, doesn’t work. No one believes it was about infrastructure, and if you look at the sentences prior to that “you didn’t build that”. They had nothing to do with roads, bridges, or even sidewalks.

There are plenty of people who run a business out of their homes or in small shops. They don’t ship stuff out. They do all business inhouse, so trying to say it’s about infrastructure — come on! Do you really expect anyone to swallow that?

Like I said, when you have to explain what you meant, it’s like explaining a joke that fell flat. It just doesn’t work.

LC

I guess we’ll have to disagree there – I certainly interpreted the ‘that’ as referring to the things he’d mentioned in the prior sentence: roads, bridges, the internet, teachers (and, by extension, schools).

And yes, while there are some people out there who run a home business without using, say, the postal service, the internet, or hiring people who learned something about said business in a public school, the reality is that MOST will have touched upon some form of publicly funded resource, even indirectly. We can rightfully argue whether those enterprises (such as the USPS or public schools) are being run WELL with our taxpayer dollars, but I’d wager well over 99.99% of us have used them in some form or another with respect to business. And ever since the demise of things like Bell Labs, I can’t think of any businesses that put R&D and development out quite like the government.

In short, there is some truth to it. And the Republicans would be better off attacking it not on the distortion that he was putting down the hard work small business owners put into their ideas, but rather than the effectiveness of government spending is not worth the cost.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t need this ‘explained’ to me – it was obvious from the beginning. I’m just explaining it here since, clearly, some people see it differently.

2-17 AirCav

Well, tie me up and call me doggie! Here’s a timely link to a story that addresses the issue. My favorite pick from the piece:

A more honest speech would have been directed at the underclass and informed them: “Look, somebody else built those roads you use. Somebody else is paying for that welfare check you’re getting every month. Respect those who stayed in school, worked hard and delayed gratification. Try to learn something from them.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_didn_build_that_mavn5oKneBqtgQkoCVu2KI

Yat Yas 1833

LC, how about businesses that have been started within the last five years when the “infrastructure” was already in place for the past 50 years? What about businesses that don’t require “infrastructure”? How about small businesses that have been around since “before” government “infrastructure”? The comrade’s comments are what they are. Everyone is, supposed to be, dependent on the government. That is socialism!

WOTN

LC, I didn’t need it explained to me either. The POTUS said that Small Business Owners didn’t build their own successes, and inferred that they should be grateful that the Federal Govt lets them keep any of their money.

Of course, he also asked Congress to increase his tax on Military Retirees (“Health Insurance premiums”) in the “Buffett Tax” because “some people aren’t paying their fair share.” Based on who he wants to hit in “the Buffett Tax” for “new revenue,” I guess that means Veterans, Farmers, and the Elderly aren’t paying their fair share. Of course, that is what he calls “sharing the wealth,” like he told Joe Plumber in 2008, but no one wanted to hear that.

PowerPoint Ranger

None of us should forget, either, that he wanted to make combat wounded veterans (the one group of people that the government is absolutely obligated to provide for in terms of healthcare) purchase private insurance for their service injuries and was only stopped by a massive shitstorm.

Insipid

@73- Let’s see, i was right and pretty much all of you were wrong about the SC decision and it looks like I was right about Romney’s mediocre convention bounce:

Sept. 1: Romney’s Convention Bounce Appears Middling So Far

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/sept-1-romneys-convention-bounce-appears-middling-so-far/#more-33986
=============================================================
The FiveThirtyEight “now-cast”, which does not adjust for the bounces associated with the party conventions, estimates that Mr. Obama would have a 72.3 percent chance of winning if the election were held today. That’s essentially unchanged from before the conventions, when the number had ranged between about 70 percent and 74 percent.
=============================================================

I should really prepare well in advance: How would you like me to serve your crow come November? Fried, baked? fricasseed? I hope none of you are vegetarians!

2-17 AirCav

Cmts 105 and 108 might put me over the edge. Damn. If anyone develop a software program that reads only predesignated commenters, you’re sure to make a fortune. I backed into those two by trusting 108. That put me in 105. Rats.

UpNorth

@89, You’re lying, yet again, sip. According to the website touting Obama’s stimulus, the US lost jobs in the last quarter of 2008 at the rate of “December 2008: 524,000: November 2008: 533,000: October 2008: 240,000”. That sure as hell doesn’t add up to 2.5 million jobs, even by liberal accounting tricks.
From the website: http://www.economicstimulusdetails.com/job-loss-totals.html

And, now, we’re going to be told, again, that Obama was “taken out of context”? Really, when he said, ” If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that“. He did not say, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build them”, referring to roads or bridges. Simply stated, he overspoke his TOTUS. He said what he meant, and he meant what he said.

Ex-PH2

UpNorth, the Reuters poll this morning has both candidates at 45% each in pre-election polling.

The hole-in-the-wall polls are always biased.

Reuters is not.

This is from Bloomberg yesterday:

“Weak economic growth is the main cause of high U.S. unemployment rather than fundamental labor market weaknesses such as inadequate worker training, according to former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear.

Labor market data don’t offer “any compelling evidence that there have been changes in the structure of the labor market that are capable of explaining the pattern of persistently high unemployment rates,” Lazear said in a paper presented today at the Federal Reserve’s annual meeting of global central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He co-wrote the paper with James Spletzer of the Census Bureau.

“The stagnation of the labor market in particular is a grave concern not only because of the enormous suffering and waste of human talent it entails, but also because persistently high levels of unemployment will wreak structural damage on our economy that could last for many years,” Bernanke said at Jackson Hole. “The rate of improvement in the labor market has been painfully slow.”

Unemployment rose to 8.3 percent in July, the same level as January, even as companies added 163,000 workers during the month. The pace of payroll growth slowed to an average of 73,000 a month in the second quarter from 226,000 in the first quarter.

“The ratio of long-term unemployed to total unemployed is higher than it was in prior recessions, including recessions with comparable unemployment rates,” the economists wrote. “This is not due to any observed structural change, but rather to the depth of the current recession.”

Basically, the rate of job loss is exceeding the rate of job growth.

The next unemployment report from the Labor Dept. is Friday, Sept 7, 2012.

WOTN

PH: the missing piece of that puzzle is that new workers are added to the labor pool daily, while fewer senior citizens will retire, given that they cannot live off Social Security.

The combination of these aspects means that there are far more than 8.3% of workers unemployed.

There are 86,828,000 Americans NOT in the labor force now, up nearly 2 Million from a year ago. http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Ex-PH2

WOTN: I know. I did not include the 3.6 million people who have lost their unemployment benefits and are now receiving disability benefits. These are real statistics, not the fairy-tale stuff that someone else keeps trying to use.

I’m not in the labor force because I’m not working for an employer. I’m in the retired/Social Security section.

The ratio of long-term unemployed to total unemployment is higher than it’s ever been before. The number of jobs added is lower than the number of jobs lost, so there is no offset. The actual unemployment percentage is closer to 16% to 17%, about double the reported levels, because those who have lost their benefits are no longer reported. It doesn’t look good for the immediate future.

NHSparky

And in other “Oh, shit” news, the August unemployment numbers come out the day after the DNC. Love to see the spin on that one when he shows up in Portsmouth on Friday. So insip…if Obama is doing so well, why is he making a visit nearly once every 10 days to a state with a piddly 4 electoral votes he won by over 10 points in 2008?

Hondo

“The rate of improvement in the labor market has been painfully slow.”

But . . . but . . . we’ve been in a recovery since June 2009! How can that be possibly be true?

Yeah, I’m being sarcastic here. We all know how it can be true. It’s something called a “jobless recovery” – one where things recover enough for a small amount of growth, but not enough to seriously affect unemployment. We had a short jobless recovery in 1980 after the early 1980 “shorty” recession – just before the major early 1980s recession hit.

On our current jobless recovery, we’re now at two years 3 months and still counting . . . .

NHSparky

And the CBO has already told us to plan on 8-plus percent unemployment for the forseeable future.

Frankly, I’m surprised we’re not already in another recession. The foreclosure numbers are back up, jobless data is tanking again, inflation is eating what little I have left after paying my $4/gal for gas (and soon to be heating oil–yay!), etc., etc….so tell me people, even the Dems are admitting that we’re not better off than we were four years ago, although in O’Malley’s case he laughably tries to blame Bush for it.

So please, libtards, go ahead and keep blaming Bush. Yeah, that’s gonna work out soooooo well for ya.

Ex-PH2

If you take away the seniors who are now getting Social Security because their retirement savings are nearly gone, along with their jobs, it’s not a large number, because they are replacing unemployment compensation with SSRI.
You can also deduct the 3.6 million who are no longer eligible for unemployment and are now receiving SocSec disability benefits.
That still leaves a too-large and growing number of employable, skilled people who are not able to find long-term full time employment.
Self-employed people, among those who start small businesses, add to the employed numbers, but that group is small and growing too slowly and does not employ other people.
Now is a good time to learn those Depression-era things your grandparents told you about. It’s not all that hard to learn to make your own bread or do canning and freezing.

RS

I know this may be a little late to leave my 2 cents but……

if Gunny Highway tells me to vote for Romney/Ryan then I guess I will