An empty suit that may, even now, win the presidency.
ETA: Oh and Chefguy, I’ve never gotten an ‘old man’ vibe from you.
Just for what it is worth.
Why is it that they think we should be flattered to be mistaken for an ignorant, hormone addled puppy?
Meh, he’s in the right demographic – white, very rich, and pretty damn old (he’s 82). And I suppose working in Hollywood for 50 or 60 years gives you a tolerance for insincere, amoral, business guys in suits.
Still, I’m a bit disappointed in Clint, simply because it’s difficult to point to any positive virtue of Romney, aside from (for the Republicans) him not being Obama. He’s disavowed virtually everything he every stood for, his tax plan is a disaster for the middle class, he’s failed to articulate key details of his proposed policies, and the less said about his foreign policy credentials, the better. So there doesn’t seem to be much there that’s actually worth endorsing.
I’m a Democrat and Eastwood is by far my favorite actor of all time. Nope, no boycott here. California is going Obama anyway.
This is beyond ridiculous. Whether you agree with the guys politics or not, he’s got quite a good resume. He’s accomplished quite a lot in his life and has much to his credit. A great education with multiple graduate degrees from prestigious colleges; terrific success as a businessman; a successful governor; his role in turning turning around the Olympics debacle… Maybe you’ve accomplished more, but it’s absurd to say that he is an empty suit.
See, this is the next illogical step from the Chick-fil-A bullshit, now people won’t do business with someone who supports another political candidate in a two party system in which both parties typically pull very close in Presidential elections.
You’re basically walling yourself off from about half of America for a stupid reason. You’re the type of person who has caused civil wars and misery throughout human history.
Sound like anybody else we know? 
The qualifications for elective office are quite a bit different from the qualifications for a corporate CEO. The last President should have driven those points home very clearly.
So what? Half of America thinks Obama is a Muslim, that the UN is out to get us, that vaccines make their kids autistic…
No they don’t for one, and the so what is it is half the fucking country. If you don’t think there’s a problem for refusing to associate with anyone who doesn’t meet your ideological purity test then you’re so far gone as to be beyond help.
Doesn’t that sound even the least bit fucked up to you? Not dealing with anyone who doesn’t meet your ideological purity test?
It’s one thing to boycott a company that does a specific act you think is really bad. But to boycott an actor because they vote for someone other than you? Shit, that’s scary.
Reported.
Calm down. This is not The BBQ Pit.
= = =
D-bear, announcing that one has reported spam is a way to avoid having Moderator e-mail flooded with reports. Announcing that one has reported a post because one does not like the content is not necessary and should be avoided.
[ /Moderating ]
If it were discovered that Clint headed a dog fighting ring, was selling preteen girls as sex slaves, hadn’t paid taxes. . .ever, was Natalie Wood’s true killer, and had a vault filled with cures for various cancers he was keeping hidden away out of spite, I’d stop seeing his films. Anything up to that, though, not so much.
Let’s keep in mind this is the guy who starred in and directed Unforgiven the best western ever. This isn’t some shitty fried chicken chain, so kayaker is spot on, it’d take a hell of a lot to justify a Clint Eastwood boycott.
I’m not saying that Eastwood should be sent to Coventry over this, just that refusing to denounce something just because a lot of people are into it doesn’t make sense.
And, as well, a star turn in Hearbreak Ridge. To the shame of liberal Hollywood elites, the only movie dedicated to the heroic American military triumph over the crack Cuban commando bulldozer drivers in Grenada!
Not even to mention his commanding presence in Tarantula!, the Citizen Kane of giant bug movies. He gave the voice over dialogue for the unnamed Air Force pilot who led the squadron that totally fried the giant spider with napalm, immediately after it gained one hundred tons of mass in the space of about ten seconds! Whew! Just in time!
No, not because Eastwood is voting for Romney, but because he is endorsing him.
If Eastwood were just quietly voting for him, no-one would care. Because no-one would know.
And Joe Schlabotsky, of Peoria, Illinois, has also endorsed Romney. What’s that, nobody cares? Well, neither do I care about some guy’s opinion just because he happens to be an actor.
No, not if the thing lots of people are into is something like “lynching blacks” or “killing Jews” or something that is inherently immoral. But we’re just talking about someone who endorsed a political candidate. Endorsement doesn’t mean “I agree with everything they do or say” it doesn’t even mean they like everything about that candidate, it just means “I want this person to win the election and I’m making it known I support his winning the election.”
Do you genuinely believe it is a good idea for people to refuse to associate with anyone who simply decides to endorse the opposition candidate? We’re not talking about someone who is cavorting with the Nazis, you guys do realize that America is a two party state and we’re just talking about someone who came out for the other party, right? It just seems deeply unhealthy to me that you’d only want to associate with people who support the same political candidates that you support.
I don’t think the Chick-fil-A thing makes sense, but at least you have more to hang your hat on. You can at least say “well they’re actively donating money to narrowly-focused groups that seek to deny something I consider to be an essential civil right.”
I hope that people don’t confuse the fact that you can refuse to associate with people over any reason with whether or not it is wise or intelligent to do so.
Cite?
Wow. And I’m the one with a problem here?