pedro from napoleon dynamite in the role of a lifetime

>> ^ant:

It reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite movie.


I thought this must have been a deleted scene from the movie based on the thumbnail and the title. Then I was like "No way! This is actually some real dude!". Unreal.

It's life imitating art, in an ironic way.

It reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite movie.

>> ^Skeeve:

This is definitely some quality television.
I love examples of how "short" history actually is.
We have here a video recording of a man who was alive before the existence, politically speaking, of nations like Italy and Canada. He was born before the invention of dynamite and he coexisted with people who knew Napoleon personally. That stuff blows my mind.


indeed, about 5ish years ago, i was having dinner at a buffet and this older lady and gentlemen walked in followed by two other older ladies, i learned from the older man that he was 96, the smaller lady was his wife who was 104 (she looks about 70ish) and the two other women was there daughters who were each in there 60's, i sat there just dumbfounded at all the history these four new as "life" and all i had were crappy books and lame ass teachers in school.

This is definitely some *quality television.

I love examples of how "short" history actually is.

We have here a video recording of a man who was alive before the existence, politically speaking, of nations like Italy and Canada. He was born before the invention of dynamite and he coexisted with people who knew Napoleon personally. That stuff blows my mind.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

He's got mad skills. Girls dig mad skills. *napoleon dynamite

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My pleasure - it's wiggety wiggety wiggety whack.
In reply to this comment by darkrowan:
THANK YOU!!!!!11ELEVENTY!

In reply to this comment by dag:
Sweet rhymes and that's a pretty good Napoleon D. impression. *promote

THANK YOU!!!!!11ELEVENTY!

In reply to this comment by dag:
Sweet rhymes and that's a pretty good Napoleon D. impression. *promote

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sweet rhymes and that's a pretty good Napoleon D. impression. *promote

I had a dream about this movie once...

Oceanic Flight 815, en route to Earth 2, crash lands on a desert planet infested with giant sand worms and zombies. In an attempt to get home, the survivors encounter Jeffrey Sinclair on board a space station caught in a time rift, who reveals that he has been chasing Q who is commanding an army of half-Scarran, half-Sylons with Goa'uld symbiotes to conquer a magical island in Neverland. And the only one who can save the universe is Jim Raynor, captain of a stolen Firefly, and his life partner, a half Wookie, half Time Lord who has sworn a life debt to the captain. They have a depressed robot sex slave who isn't attracted to them and each of them owns a power ring, bestowed to them by the Guardians of the Universe (who are all dwarves, except for one of them who is Tom Waits).

You don't even want to know who the crew of the Firefly is. It will blow your fucking mind. Ok, I'll tell you: Napoleon, Socrates, Sigmund Fruuud, Billy the Kid, Genghis Kahn, and Ludwig Van; then for some reason Whoopie Goldberg is there with William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, and Malcolm McDowell, who can't stop pining over Beethoven. At the end of the movie, the crew is clean cut, the robots are all shiny, and the ghosts of Bill Hicks, Rufus, Obi-wan, Pizza the Hut, Dr. Frankenfurter, and Alf are all sitting around waiting for you to wake up -- but, when you wake up -- you're Homer Simpson! OMG don't tell ANYONE about the twist ending or the sequel where he meets Hank Hill who gets abducted by aliens and meets spooky Fox Mulder and that sexy redhead Leeloo.

My mind is exploding! There may be another me who isn't as awesome as the real me and enjoyed the movie The Notebook... Pshhhhhh -- Frell the frack off. Every alternate reality of me smokes pot and makes or plays video games. Stop trying to change me, universe!

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

I don't know if his accusation that she's carrying water for Obama is fair. I honestly believe that she just isn't bright enough to make the connections. I'm not big on quoting people, but Napoleon said, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Instead of malice he was ascribing partisanship to her, but you get the point.

You know Napoleon Dynamite has had enough when he replaces gosh with fuck.

Damn straight!>> ^calvados:

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^calvados:
Tater Tots. Get your own!
you mean make your own?

NO. GO FIND YOUR OWN
http://www.zimbio.com/watch/7zloi41xhNe/Napoleon+Dynamit
e+Scene+Tots/Napoleon+Dynamite