I have no problem believing the reporter is probably right @cosmovitelli I'm just saying that in the world we live in, having all the facts on your side doesn't automatically save you from being portrayed as a douche/villian/whatever.

He could very well be right, but he attacked him in the wrong way in the wrong time. He basically just threw out a "wah, you're lying!" fit out of nowhere with no real compelling proof that he's right. He did it so clumsily that Romney is able to sidestep the whole thing and play it like he's the victim of the rabid conspiracy theorist.

If you want to look at it from the other side of the aisle. You got Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!" outburst at the state of the union. Playing devil's advocate, even if the guy was 100 percent right. He still comes off as a dick and it portrays the republicans as frothing-at-the-mouth maniacs

I'm not saying people shouldn't do stuff like that, but you have to at least acknowledge that you're not exactly going to win a lot of people over with clumsy outbursts like that regardless of how right you may be.

And what do you know? The Broncos... LOST... to the PATRIOTS! HAHAHAHAHA! Eat THAT all of you Tebow-maniacs!

Patriots: 41
Broncos: 23

You would like this guy wouldn't you Marbles. For the record, Webster Tarpley is a central figure in the 9/11 truther movement. Here is proof again that there are big elements of the truther crowd being manipulated and used by brutal maniacal dictators to try and blame America for their people rising up. It plainly couldn't be that they resent having been repressed, tortured and murdered by the dictator.

For the record, the Arab League is condemning Assad's crackdowns and demanding Arab observers be allowed to simply be present in Syria to confirm the regime(and lackey's like Webster) are telling the truth. Assad is refusing.

Worse, Webster further obfuscates things with half truths about how tolerant and mixed Syrian society is, which is true. The civilian populations spans christian, muslim, arab and non-arab, and they generally do get along as well as their counterparts in Egypt. The trick is NOBODY is calling that into question. The same was true when Assad's father decided to turn an entire town into rubble to massacre a muslim brotherhood protest that had attempted to start. The civilians are getting along with each other well enough, it's the regime they have beef with and it's the regime that is responding with violence, repression and brutality.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Boss 4x4 maniac awsome guy' to 'Boss 4x4 maniac awsome guy, shrinkage' - edited by Boise_Lib

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Boss 4x4 maniac awsome guy' to 'Boss, 4x4, maniac, awesome guy' - edited by kulpims

I liked the part where the lady jumped the counter to "lay the smack down", but then got confronted by a pipe-wielding maniac.

Story from my old school hometown sheriff: Once had a guy driving like a maniac, he let him go for a bit on the highway, but decided he needed to stop him before he got into town. He pulled up along side, aimed he gun through his own door at the guy and shot. Bullet went through his door, through the other guys door, and hit him in the side. Guy pulls over, they go to take his shirt off and the bullet fell to the ground. Sheriff still has the bullet in a little case at home.

I first lost it when I realised he was wearing a pair of Isotoners. The maniacal laughter only got worse at the end as he ducks behind the quilt.

One of the greatest modern myths is that Republicans are fiscally conservative and that Democrats are the wastrels.

Our debt ballooned under the Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing unabated through the two Bush presidencies largely due to a maniacal thirst for war and trickle down (voodoo) economics.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^longde:
This guy is an anti-muslim hatemonger himself. I'm sure he has influenced a few nuts.

I hate Starbucks, I tell people I hate Starbucks. Am I responsible for a maniac blowing up Starbucks? Maybe we should all silence ourself lest we knock a domino over in somebodies broken mind.
There are good reasons to Hate Islam. They are not good reasons to murder innocent civilians. There is a difference between expressing your hate of Islam, and inciting violence against followers of Islam. If you can't understand this I'm afraid you might be one of those "few nuts".


Certainly you're not responsible. But you would be kidding yourself if you think hating and insulting religion(s) is going to solve the problem or do anything other than make the divisions between people wider. It IS possible to be critical of religion without being insulting, but it doesn't get you as many YouTube upvotes which is why Condell won't do it. He couldn't even restrain himself for this particular vid, with its message about violence I wholeheartedly agree with. Upvoted only for that message.

>> ^longde:

This guy is an anti-muslim hatemonger himself. I'm sure he has influenced a few nuts.

I hate Starbucks, I tell people I hate Starbucks. Am I responsible for a maniac blowing up Starbucks? Maybe we should all silence ourself lest we knock a domino over in somebodies broken mind.

There are good reasons to Hate Islam. They are not good reasons to murder innocent civilians. There is a difference between expressing your hate of Islam, and inciting violence against followers of Islam. If you can't understand this I'm afraid you might be one of those "few nuts".

>> ^EMPIRE:

wait... what??? What did she say at 1:22? "One of the things I read about in my book "The Next Wave"? lol what??
What's a domestic extremist? someone who does house chores to an obsessive degree?


Domuscidal maniacs!

Marinegunrock, stop shaking out your carpets, you maniac!

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?
My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.


Maybe they thought they'd never HAVE to enforce the law. But who can say? I think this argument has reached a stalemate. Everybody seems fairly set in their opinions so... rock on.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.


I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?

My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.