Well howled,...well said sir.
In reply to this comment by Tymbrwulf:
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!!
OOOoooOoOOOOoooooooOOO

Your video, puppy is howling while sleeping, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^EMPIRE:

that was so adorable, I just got diabetes.

You should check your blood sugar, check it often.

C'mon, get happy.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by mintbbb. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

sorry, a dupe
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/puppy-is-howling-while-sleeping

What's sad is that no one is talking about letting ALL of the tax cuts expire, maybe not in the middle of a recession, but soon thereafter.

The government has spent 30 years borrowing to inflate our standard of living beyond what we actually produce. It's time that we start paying for all the services that we consume. Even republicans scream and howl when anyone talks about cutting medicare, social security, or defense. The programs they talk about cutting barely cover 10% of our yearly deficit, if that.

No one was overburdened by Clinton era tax rates. We still had the highest standard of living of any large country. Everyone who makes enough money to actually pay taxes can afford to buy a little less plastic crap from China and help pay our way out of this hole.

I don't know what's more depressing: the fact that our politicians are too cowardly to ask even the smallest sacrifice from us, or the fact that we keep voting for people who tell us everything's okay, just grab your credit card and head for the mall.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials, Philippe Mora' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, Werewolf, Philippe Mora' - edited by BoneRemake

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials, Philippe Mora' - edited by BoneRemake

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials' - edited by BoneRemake

My dog looks similar to this one and does the exact same thing. When you howl at him he likes to join in.

All it needs is a dog howling along

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign. Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.


You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Watching this video made my dog howl.


Watching it made me howl too. *brief