Senility has obviously set in:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19121795
Haven't you noticed, Clint, that people keep voting for these shyster corporate candidates and nothing ever gets better?

I admired him so much when I was a youngster so on that basis, I'll go with your senile theory WUB.

G'day.

Did I miss a memo ?

Is there actually some reason why anyone gives a flying fuck who Clint Eastwood endorses ?

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
G'day back at ya

I expect the numpties that vote will, which is kinda the point

I too scratched my head when seeing this in today's news. I guess there is a point but I'm not entirely sure what it is yet

When I see a headline like "Jay Z endorses the abolition of State and all forms of currency" I might get a little more

psketti wrote:
G'day Psketti.

I get that. It's the social meme being put out there and all that ... the BS marketing (read: mental manipulation / conditioning). That's not a reason though, if you get what I mean. It's an excuse.

The MSM runs the story ... and ?

What reason is there to care one way or another about it ?

So one rich cunt endorses another rich cunt ... and ?

Maybe it's me. I really don't recognise a REASON as to why I should give a flying fuck about who Clint Eastwood endorses in a political system that's a total scam (two hands of the same puppet master).

I enjoyed watching the westerns Clint was in but thinking about when he started his acting career was McCarthyism still running riot in the movie industry?

....................................................................................................

"Paint the town red" (high plains drifter)

And Clint Eastwood is relevant because......???

The beauty of this is, someone who was sitting on the fence about who to choose in Novemeber just had an epiphany because Clint F***ing Eastwood is backing Romney.

Next up, Sylvester Stallone wishes Ron Paul would change his mind...

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Sorry, I didn't read this before I made my post. I agree with you. F**k Clint Eastwood and the Mitt Romney he rode into town on.

ronisron wrote: Fixed

ronisron wrote:

ronisron wrote: People in America will certainly sit up and pay attention when Clint Eastwood speaks, I'm sure it will have some influence. Of course, it makes almost no difference which one of Obama or Romney people vote for, but Romney is an extremely dangerous arch neocon. According to the WSJ:
Kissinger everyone knows about. James Baker was explicitly involved in supporting Saddam Hussein when he was gassing the Kurdish people, and George Shultz was one of the foremost articulators and perpetrators of the Reagan Doctrine.

Of course, Obama has continued and extended all of Bush's policies, but at least he has to placate and appease certain Democratic party elements; for example, it seemed quite possible something would have happened in Iran by now, but it hasn't. Romney has to do no such thing, and is already threatening Iran, even threatening Russia. As I say, it's a small difference as Obama has approved drone bombing Pakistan and Somalia and had, at one time, Brzezinski as an adviser, but the three specific people named here by the WSJ already have a massive amount of blood on their hands. Everyone behind this guy is an exceptionally dangerous, murderous person even by US governmental standards.

wake_up_bomb wrote: See also John Bolton heading up that team of foreign policy advisers for Romney and the future, if he gets into office, gets pretty obvious.

feather wrote: Yeah, I saw that thread, another PNAC refugee.

feather wrote:
What a list of names. Look at that.... even without Bolton. Schultz, Baker and Kissinger of all people. Who else?? Brzezinski? Cheney? Rumsfeld? What a roll call. Awful, awful people. This is why politics needs to be ignored, en masse. The one party system will eventually implode.

feather wrote:
Thank you! "Side saddled" works too. "Bare backed" is just too..... awful to think about.

I'm starting to get where you're coming from WUB but.....

Whoever votes in however many numbers won't change a thing. The next pres has already been decided I reckon.
Ref previous incidents, Bush, cough, ahem.

dubmeup wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if Obama got re-elected as he is almost completely guaranteed the black vote. There is an article about this here:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/obama-...roval_n_1324187.html

Those voting machines always come in handy, though.

ronisron wrote:
Meh.