Seemingly nice guy, sounds like Jack Bauer, doesn't understand Wisconsin.

Well you're taking him out of context...meaning that you forgot he's from Boston. So, for a Boston hooligan, he's a nice guy.>> ^spoco2:

>> ^rottenseed:
Don't hate Mark. He's a sweet guy...>> ^Shepppard:
Meh, I think my hatred of Mark Whalberg is keeping me from enjoying this clip.


Yeah, no... he's not:

"When he was 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious (while calling him "Vietnam fucking shit"). He also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving him permanently blind in one eye, and attacked a security guard (again using racist language)."
"In another incident, the 21-year-old Wahlberg fractured the jaw of a neighbor in an unprovoked attack"

>> ^charliem:

Hes had such a fast rise to the top, it almost feels too fast.....how is he going to be able to sustain it? I mean, mental health wise?
Stories like his usually dont end well


Unfortunately, that's true. But from what I hear, he is (still) a super nice guy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sonic, seranade, Giorgio, nice guy, guitar' to 'Sonic, serenade, Giorgio, nice guy, guitar' - edited by bareboards2

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sonic, seranade, Giorgio, nice guy' to 'Sonic, seranade, Giorgio, nice guy, guitar' - edited by RhesusMonk

I guess that ends our argument.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.


Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.



Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.


Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.

Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

That was my point. I'm just saying Chomsky should at least get the story right.

BTW, You're Crazy.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Grimm:
Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

>> ^Grimm:

Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE


It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

Your video, Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul: He's a nice guy, but..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^Trancecoach:

So, I posted this video to a Ron Paul supporting friend of mine. Here is his response, written directly to Noam:
"Hi, I saw this and noticed you used an emotional tactic when you referred to the person on life support and Ron Paul's first answer was with Liberty. First, some context of what he was dealing with... Notice what makes the crowd cheer! - http://www.colbertnation.com/th
e-colbert-report-videos/396581/september-13-2011/cnn-tea-party-republican-debate .
"You are a very well read man (there are whole sections of you in bookstores, sorry, havn't read any) so I'm surprised you havn't read his overview, I've explained it for "Liberals" here: http://case4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/10/overview-of-ron-pa
uls-plan-to-restore.html (I know economics, please explain to me how this won't work? Keep in mind Obama has already started condensing 6 departments into 1) .
"Also, if you have been following politics then you may have noticed that the only person that the "Libertarians" have been able to work with is Senator Bernie Sanders (who has been fighting on the front lines for lot longer than you) and he has a team of economists to help us with the FED - Read about Sen. Sanders' team of economists here: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=de4c73fb-131c-4a25
-b83e-4604eaefcebb ."


Your Ron Paul supporting friend is a nice guy, but...

Hey dft. Our school recently had a visit from a Princeton psychologist. I chatted to him -- really nice guy -- and it turns out he's publishing a book that I think you might find interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Despite-Itself-System-Shouldnt/dp/0262017237/

>> ^Yogi:

Assholes are interesting: I guess if you're curious about why they are assholes but for anyone who is an asshole (namely me) we know that an asshole is an asshole for a reason that probably isn't good enough.
Assholes have confidence: It probably appears that way while they don't give a shit about what you're saying and just continue on with their boring lives...bet that seems intriguing to idiot girls.
To me Assholes look more dateable because people have that list and they see an asshole that runs counter to it but doesn't care. They start wondering if that asshole actually has the answers and that their list or set of morals could possibly be wrong.
The problem is people are stupid, and they're worried that their stupid. When you're scared you make mistakes, so you date an asshole cause you're stupid and scared.
Empowered smart women are better lays anyways


Exactly. As a very confident 'nice guy' I've always known this truth that confuses many 'nice guys'. I just behave like a bit of a bad boy while also treating her well, but the confidence alone usually does the trick. Generally I'm able to filter out trashy girls who play games and genuinely seek fractured, bad relationships (even if they aren't aware of it). There is a very strong difference between girls who want confident men, and the screwed up women that are truly comfortable with pieces of shit/asshole bad boys.

The best women I've dated have always been intelligent, empowered, modern women. And yes they've always been better in bed as they aren't scared prudes who are fearful of being 'sluts' and thus refuse to experiment.