Something happenedFollow

"Innocent" should be on that list.

You find it interesting that people would "leap" to an issue Clint Eastwood explicitly cited as a principle reason for him no longer being Republican?

If you think that's "interesting", I envy the sense of childlike wonder that must accompany your every waking moment.


Well, at least you don't pretend to respect other people's ability to think or make their own choices. Of course, Eastwood has since defended the ad and his manager had defended it as well but OBVIOUSLY they don't really mean it because they done been ensorcelled by liberal magicks, right?

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 5:39pm by Jophiel

Except he is still a Republican. It's the issue he most disagrees with other Republicans about. Or, more correctly, he (like me) doesn't believe it's really a Republican issue in the first place.

What's interesting about it is that this one issue is being treated as the defining one for the GOP. If you don't take a particular stance on gay marriage, you aren't a Republican. But that's not true. It's not true for Clint Eastwood. It's not true for me. It's not true for most Republicans. It appears to be true only in the minds of liberals who desperately *want* that to be the defining issue.




Yes. Because he didn't think it was political. But it clearly is, right? Hence the whole "he was tricked into making a political ad" bit. See, I can quote him too. How about this article?



Sound like someone who'd make an ad that pretty blatantly praises the bail out of the Detroit auto industry? Of course not.




That sound like someone who'd make that commercial (the way it came out)? Nope. Not even close.





This is the spirit he was clearly calling upon when he did that ad. And if you read the script, it fits into that "raise yourself by your bootstraps" mentality. Unfortunately, when the ad was finished, and cut scenes were added, it comes off strongly as a praise of the auto bailouts and a plea to America to support Obama for the "second half" of his presidency. Eastwood could easily have missed that just reading the script, but it's incredibly hard not to see that message when you actually see the finished product.

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 4:10pm by gbaji

No. It shows that he didn't intend any political aspect to it when he did the ad. But pretty much everyone who watched the ad saw a political message in it, didn't they? So. If Eastwood didn't think it was political, but the result of the ad *was* political, then either he intended the political message and is lying about it *or* he thought it wasn't going to be political, but it turned out to be.


Given his past positions on bail out and Democrat presidents, the first case is extremely unlikely. Which leaves us to him being tricked into doing a political ad. I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time. For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.

You're a very talented parrot. Yes you are. Oh yes you are! You can mimic both the Republicans and me. I do feel honored that you hold me to such high esteem.

It's too bad you're too stupid to actually think for yourself and go for these inane conspiracy theories. You could probably do the world good if you could just figure out how to breath automatically. For instance, for it to be a trick it would require that he had gotten his lines the day of recording, had no insight or interaction with the rest of production, and still had not seen the commercial itself to release his statement about it not being political. See, if you could think for yourself, that scenario would mean that either he did make a political ad, but that he did it voluntarily with no coercion and he just can't stand Republicans anymore, or that it wasn't political at all but gosh darn the Republicans need something to liberalbash with and they had nothing legitimate in their ******** I know you'll try to sneak in a third option, but the only other options require most people to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes. Must be nice when other people tell you what your conclusions are so you don't have to waste time thinking for yourself.

Mr. Clint Eastwood. Because the liberals done witched him!

How can I be parroting, when that was my interpretation of the ad while I was watching it? I didn't go check with some GOP sources to see what they thought. I saw it and when "holy hell? How'd they get Clint Eastwood to do a pro-Obama campaign ad?". Honestly, what did you think when you saw it? Can you honestly say that you didn't think it reflected positively on current economic policies in the context of economic recovery?

Even if you didn't think "this is an ad for the Obama campaign" you had to think it was a positive message about the process of recovery in Detroit, right? I mean, that's what it was about. Now maybe Eastwood isn't familiar with how the Detroit recovery came about. Maybe he was sold a line about how they did it all themselves (why else do the commercial if he's stated publicly in the past he opposed the bail outs?). Who knows. The point is that there's no way to watch that commercial and fail to get that it's about how America can recover from its current economic woes by using Detroit as a model.


If you don't see the political connotations, it's likely because you aren't familiar with how Detroit "recovered" in the first place. But ignorance on your part doesn't change the issue here.



Um... Which is pretty much how commercials are done. Are you aware how common it is for actors to not realize the content or message of an ad they're in until it airs? Sure. They should insist on seeing the completed product and having executive control over the content. But most either can't do that, or don't have the time to do that. He was probably hired to do the spot. Was told that it was about American can do, and a rallying cry to Americans to get off their butts and work their way out of our current problems. He was probably told all sorts of stuff that appealed to his own personal politics. And even if he saw the result (or a version of it), he would still interpret what he saw within the context of what he had been told it was about.


But when a huge number of people, unbiased by what they think the message is supposed to be, see it and come to the same "OMG, it's a pro-stimulus ad" result, what he thought it was about is kinda irrelevant.



No. It requires that people only be aware of some common patterns out there. How many times on this forum has the whole "OMG! Here's a conservative saying he agrees with us liberals!" been used to support something? Lots (yeah, there's that term again!). It's a common liberal tactic. Make what they're doing seem perfectly normal and acceptable and make anyone who disagrees look like some radical. Getting someone like Eastwood to do this spot is a huge coup for the liberal media. You really don't see that?

If it were some liberal mouthpiece doing the exact same spot, it would have been dismissed as liberal political rhetoric. But you get a staunch conservative like Eastwood to do it? That means that the stimulus really must have bi-partisan support. And Obama must be on the right track. Cause we all know that Eastwood isn't some liberal mouthpiece, right!


You really don't see that? Perhaps you should take off the blinders. What do you think the whole bit Joph dug out about how Eastwood doesn't agree with the GOP on gay marriage was about? It's about trying to argue that the GOP has lost it's way. Even other conservatives think they're wrong about this, that, and the other thing. And look! Here's Eastwood agreeing with the stimulus bill! So they must be wrong about opposition to that too.

Well, of course you're going to say that. You don't have any pride in your shilling and go out of your way to try to convince everyone you don't. I mean, there is no doubt you're stupid, but not varusX level of stupid. You must be desperate, you're using your entire stock of "grade school level arguments." I use quotation marks here because I've actually heard more varied arguments from first graders. If you can't use facts, use assumptions! Ha, that's adorable. So the situation is that the people that made it say you're wrong; the person starring in it says you're wrong, reality pretty firmly calls you intellectually impotent, and you have absolutely zero evidence other than gossip and conspiracy theories, but your conclusion is the correct one. And by "your conclusion," I mean "Karl Rove's conclusion that you're claiming you came to all by your lonesome." On top of all that, you want people to believe you aren't just crying in tune with your party, but you jumped to this conclusion all by your lonesome? Even though 99% of anything you post can be found at least a half a day before you from actual politicians and political analysts? You're making it too easy to highlight the flaws in your thinking processes.Yeah, that was the "you have to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes" option I talked about. Funny how that was the option you went with. Your being dumb enough to fall for "there's candy in the van" doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Your brain dead option also requires Clint Eastwood to be so retarded that even after days of recording the commercial that he still doesn't get the conspiracy that you got .0001 seconds after seeing it. Says the guy who jumps to the conclusions he's told to jump to every time a Republican says liberal.

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 10:52pm by lolgaxe

Really?



They show the factory where the cars are being built. In the middle, they show a Ram truck. Toward the end, there's a row of Chryslers coming off the assembly line.

You didn't see the commercial, did you? No, it's not about selling the cars. It's a parallel of how Chrysler and the US are at halftime and making a comeback. That's all.

Also, my husband loved the commercial. Not because he thought it carried a political message, but because he has a man crush on Clint, like a lot of hetero men in this country.

You guys are idiots. It's clear as day. Obama is black. Black people steal cars. Therefore there are no cars in the commercial. You're liberals who just think they saw cars. They weren't really there.

Cuz Obama stole them.

Who knew poor ole Clint was so stupid?

.

Heh.