Burton Cummings lives here in Victoria and Bachman is out on a nearby island.

Sarah Palin is out, now Michelle Bachman is out, what other politician will be there to entertain us now, Rick Perry?

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

It works for me. The video that is, not anything Bachman has to say.

Fuck Jesus.

You need some Bachman–Turner Overdrive in your life, BTO is the answer.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is everything a grand conspiracy in the eyes of a Ron Paul supporter? For a group of people so interested in 'personal responsibility' they don't seem very interested in taking responsibility for their own failings. Don't blame the media. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate who does a perfectly fine job of marginalizing himself.


Your statement implies that the other Retardican candidates did not marginalize themselves... but each and every one of them has, (including the front runner) yet they all continue to get air time. At the same time Ron Paul won some primaries (no air time) did exceedingly well in others (ignored), and MAY actually have the most delegates at the convention (his supporters stayed and voted for the delegates, so he may actually be ahead in numbers, people). The media has consistently ignored the Ron Paul campaign from the beginning of the campaign, except when they were taking the time to denigrate and downgrade it.
Why? I have no idea, but they certainly have been singling out Paul to ignore. I still hear them speaking about Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, even Bachman on national news, daily. Talk about marginalized candidates, they are all out of the race completely but are still getting tons of air time. Paul is still running, maybe even winning (probably not, but there's no real way of knowing right now), but never gets mentioned, even when he wins primaries. You can try to make the argument it's because he isn't a winning candidate, but you have to ignore ALL the facts to try to make that argument stick.
If, as you imply, Paul is a terrible candidate, why does he not get the air time that all the other terrible candidates got? Please, I'm looking for a real answer if there is one, not another meaningless, denigrating quip about Paul's inadequacy.

>> ^geo321:

dead


Fixed. Making that 600 sifted videos in just shy of 3 years.

He's got Michelle Bachmans endorsement, thats all you need.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^:

I think the most important question of the next election will be who do YOU want at the controls when the Space Nazis From the Dark Side of the Moon attack!?!?!!???!!


for sure michelle bachman, dressed as a nun

@notarobot

They are all terrible - each with his or her own individual horrors to inflict upon the nation. It's as weak a field as I've ever seen. I think the best choice would be the one that is likely to get the least done - the most boring, uncharismatic and ineffectual. Sooo.... Hunstman, I guess.

It's much easier to pick a worst, and that would be Newt Gingrich. That guy is one of the shiftiest politicians I've ever seen. He seems like a complete mercenary who is only looking out for Newt. Bachman, Perry and Santorum are idiots. I liked Cain's wtf campaign and weird sense of humor, but he obviously lacked even a basic understanding of the information needed to do the job. I don't really feel like I know who Romney is. He is very slick and guarded. It looks like he is going to be the guy unless some tragedy befalls him.

@Auger8

That's nice of you to say. I'm used to being called a statist idiot. I like you too and think that if you dig Ron Paul, you should shout it from the roof tops. He is indeed not the status quo, fairly consistent and more honest than most politicians (though I do believe he intentionally misleads through omission and vagueness) I also like that he brings war, weed and the debt into the dialog.

You shouldn't need to counter any of what I've said if you truly support Ron Paul. He is a states rights guy, an anti-federalist and adherent of 'negative' liberty, which is liberty FROM democratic government, rather than liberty BY WAY of democratic government. If the things I've posted bug you, you should read up on Austrian economics, the Mises Institute, Ayn Rand, anarcho-capitalism, negative vs positive liberty and Ron Paul's homepage (though Ron is smart enough to keep things brief and vague on his own site). If these things appeal to you, then ending federal civil rights protections and letting the states decide should be something you support.

What bugs me is that many liberals are attracted to him based on hearing a few persuasive anti-war and pro-weed soundbites, without realizing that his economics are an extreme right wing form of capitalism. I want to make sure that people see this side of Ron Paul. If you support completely unfettered, unregulated markets, then Ron Paul is the guy for you. I know I probably come off as a little over-obsessive to allies and opponents alike, and I'm sorry to be that way, but that's who I am and how I feel. If I feel strongly about something, I just blurt it out. The internet is my safety release valve, because I'm much more guarded about discussing politics in my real life. Though I can be impulsively drawn to conflict in real life too. Anyway, cheers. I'm curious to know if you support Ron Paul's total package, or just the anti-war, pro-constitution stuff he talks about in the media.

Also, you can edit down my quote or remove it all together from your comment with the edit function. It's pretty darned long in and of itself without being quoted in its entirety.

(note: several edits and additions as to not take up any more comment space)

Couldn't do any worse than Bachman.

Hah, thanks, I did not notice that at all.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
"Overdrive," even.

Not the same Bachman(n) I was expecting. I'm not sure whether I'm relieved or disappointed....

Beg to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRzl-vRkM8

>> ^marinara:

michelle bachman has never said anything nearly that stupid. not in the same ballpark

michelle bachman has never said anything nearly that stupid. not in the same ballpark