From what I saw of Clint Eastwoods speech, it reminded me of when they had a celebrity be a roaster at one of those friar club roasts.

A little too blunt and a little too focused on his own celebrity to get through it.

I feel like people making fun of him are kinda missing the point.

Clint Eastwood isn't an ideologue. He doesn't even really have hard feelings one way or another about most issues. He was a republican, then a democrat and is back as a republican because he just goes for who he think will work and make things better regardless of actual policy.

Hence why he was a republican during the cold war when people like carter were failing. Democrat during the Clinton/Bush Jr era and now a Republican again.

Eastwood is a specific kind of one of the "undecided middle" types.

He has donated to both parties and I remember him vocally supporting Gray Davis, but I think he's been pretty consistently Republican, actually. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pretty consistently anti-war, and considers himself more of a libertarian, but I guess he chooses the Republicans because the Libertarian Party is almost impossible to actually support.

i saw the speech of suzanna martinez and condoleeza rice ans in my opinion they were both excellent

Meh, that's what I get for trusting The Atlantic for once.

Figured if anyone had a motive to portray him as a constant rightwing goon or something it would be them.

Ahh the Atlantic, another one of those faithless bastard employers who never acknowledge your existence.

In short: they can rot.

Awful, completely awful.

Rand's speech was the only one I could stomach the whole way through, and that was more out of my respect for him, versus the quality of the speech.

But, we're all ignoring the most important point, here: the rule changes that occurred. Now, in future primaries, if the state parties don't like who's won the delegation, they can simply replace the delegates. Also, unbound delegates are no longer allowed, they must be bound to a candidate.

These rules were purely put in place in response to the Paul campaign. Clearly, the GOP would rather die than see libertarian values put in place. If these rules were in place in the past, it's reasonable to claim that there never would have been a President Reagan (while I don't care much for Reagan, myself, he's the favourite of most Republican moderates and conservatives).

And what's really disgusting is the manner in which these rules were put in place. There wasn't even a legitimate vote, the results were pre-scripted. That alone proves what a complete and utter farce this whole primary has been.

Mark my words, the GOP will be dead by the end of the decade. This convention put the last nails in the coffin. Whether the party will be replaced by a Conservative or Libertarian alternative, is yet to be seen.

My idea is that American politics is going to reorient in a "Populist versus Progressives" direction, with less socially-conservative libertarians (who are, in their own way, "Progressives" at least in the sense of reform-minded) joining the Progressive said. This, of course, necessitates the redefinition of Progressive which is currently synonymous with what Europe would see as Social-Democrats (but not Britain's SDs. Damn this is confusing)

Anyway, you're going to see the people who want real change against the people who don't (big labor, which tends to be socially-conservative in the rank-and-file, could side up with the NRA and Evangelical crowd easily, and then they join with the "welfare" crowd, poor blacks who are largely socially-conservative but vote heavily Democratic on the welfare/social services hinge).

essentially it will be a more straight example of class warfare, because you'll get large chunks of big business on the "reform" side, clicking together with American socialists, social liberals who tend to be more affluent, and more affluent libertarians), while big labor, certain businesses who really benefit from the status-quo, military hawks, the religious right, and others of like mind go to the "populist" side.

Saw the first night of the convention and I have to say that Romney picked himself a winner with Paul Ryan. That little bastard is charming as hell and he has the media eating out of his hand. He's a sneaky son of a bitch, though. I can tell because I'm a sneaky son of a bitch. We see other sneaky bitches from a mile away. If I were Obama, I'd be a little nervous. This guy makes him seem like an old man. Young people will connect with Ryan for all of the wrong reasons.

Not the response I would of expected.  Do they have really immoral practices like the Huffington Post where they bleed dry contributors and steal content by slighting changing it?

Or was it more of a "never called you back" on an interview type thing?

I generally prefer them as my "Particularly biased leftwing source" becaues of the aforementioned Hufffington post issues.

Can't tell if Ariana Huffington is really a liberal who just has a HUGE disconnect at praticing what she preaches, or if she is just playing people for the money.

Either way she's about as ruthless and corrupt a media moghul as you'd get.

Rupert Murdoch's got nothing onher.  Well, except for Rupert Murdochs ability to "Go with the flow." as evidenced by when he switched sides to Labor in the UK.

Never called me back. Personal thing. Granted, i'm going to end up hating a lot of respectable organizations in this manner, but that's just where i'm at right now.