Starring Patrick Wilson as Ron Burgundy

I also don't like Ron White who most of my friends think is hysterical. Not sure exactly what it is. Ron and Ricky fall in the arse category, but so do Bill Burr and Larry David in Curb, but I like both of them alot. Congrats on the new token. Fits well with your screen name. Or maybe that's what you've been trying for all along. Clever lad (lass) that Alien Concept

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

Love the profile avatar! Have a wonderful Birthday Ron.

I believe you mean Sir Ron Jeremy.

also appearing: Ron Jeremy

You're right - it's a British institution if we're to take the books as they come. But let's look at it from a J K Rowling point of view - from a brief scan of wikipedia, she went to an average british school with presumably average british children probably around 30 years ago - vastly different from the stats quoted above in 2011. There weren't many africans, pakistanis, etc. nor were there many gay, bi, transgendered people when i went to school about 20 years ago (1 black girl and everyone was "straight"). What she wrote came from imagination based on her own experiences and why on earth would people chastise her for the sheer happen-stance of her life experiences? She didn't write a book to exclude people, she wrote a book that just happened to not include every type of person in a fantasy world where there existed entirely different sorts of people. Are we to expect another video from professional-offence-takers about how JRR Tolkein - another FANTASY writer - didn't represent the diversity of humanity in any of his books?

And that's selling her short; there are elements of the books that make allusions to homophobia, racism, etc. - "Mudblood," is a xenophobic term used by characters in the book and it's not accepted by any of the extended main characters, and people really should think long and hard before placing their own expectations and values on other people and judging them for it.

Whether you like the books or not, they are popular and i think their popularity stems from the belief she has in her characters and story. Sure, she could have replaced Ron with an albino lesbian transgendered midget who would have lived happily ever after with Hermione, but would the books have been as good with a character that didn't come from Rowling's heart, someone that Rowling felt like she understood? What if she wrote a gay part for someone and got it wrong, is she then liable to take an ear bashing from the gay community for misrepresenting gay people? Where do you draw the line? Do we - at the expense of the story - put one gay person in and then suddenly we're taking abuse for including a "token" gay person?

It should not be the responsibility of anyone to compromise their art to appease someone else's sense of right or wrong, especially when it seems that their right or wrong is balanced on "is there someone like me in there?" In my opinion, if you come away from a story like Harry Potter with the burning question "Where were all the gay/whatever people?" then it's probably you that has the problem with diversity.

I say this - homophobia and racism are dead when no one even considers the issue any more. Now you can't do that in the workplace and stuff, because there are genuinely racist people out there who we try and keep in check. But this is the absolute worst place to direct your anger - no one was hired or fired based on their creed, no one did anything wrong here, all this woman has done is draw attention to what i consider to be her own contradiction. We want to encourage the idea that "Everyone is equal; there is no black or white, straight or gay, everyone is simply the same - we're just people!" And quickly follow that up with "Hey, where are all the GAY people in this fictional story?"

And finally, how the fuck does she know that every character in the book was straight? Isn't it a bit strange (i want to say homophobic) for her to expect gay people to act differently to the degree that she can spot them in a crowd? 95% of the people in Huffelpuff could be single and gay for all anyone knows. The main 3 characters are straight, all of their parents had to be straight for them to be their parents, but all the rest of them we never need to know about their sexuality, so why should they stand out, why should we even discuss it in a kids book anyway? There's only about 4 relationships in 7 books and some of them happen to the same characters.

These are just some of the problems i have with this nonsense and i've written an entire page.

I only ask this of those who insist that Lincoln went to war to "free the slaves" (which is what Stewart and Wilmore suggest in the video). Obviously if you dismiss that as nonsense, then sure, the answer is obvious, because he didn't care to, he just wanted to preserve the union. So, where's the contradiction?


"War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

Again, I understand what you are saying, I only mention the freeing of the slaves for those (like Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore apparently) who insist that the war was about "freeing the slaves."

Tom Woods would agree with this. In fact, he's written about it: that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

You obviously haven't read him.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and many libertarians agree that it was (in your own words) a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". Get it? There is no disagreement there. Get it?

The issue of buying the slaves' freedom is only for those who say that the war was "necessary" to free the slaves. But it was not and it was not the main reason the war was fought. Get it?

So, about this you are in fact in agreement with Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano and you are in disagreement with Jon Stewart. Get it?

Don't feel too embarrassed - 5 years old and I was rocking out to Sean Cassidy's Da Doo Ron Ron . I was to be soon redeemed by my next album though; Donna Summer's Bad Girls , which brought down the house at Show and Tell.

Good on YA, TO-RON-TO! (and proppers to the wildest of the women there, you know who you are)-Oh and, don't let them hear the chambered round darlin', the last thing they need to hear is the report.

Oh and Dagmar?? We know how much you love Obama buddy, and he's the type of person you should be the most frightened of, funny that eh??

He's one of the most dangerous motherfuckers on the planet, bubbo, as evidenced in his policies of dismantling America and in the number of his dick-riding fans here on this site, who haven't a fucking clue-

That's my gf every Friday night -- Ron Jeremy

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

To put Edward Snowden and CHELSEA Manning on the same list as Ted Nugent, Ted Cruz, Jesse Ventura, Ayn Rand, Ron and Rand Paul, Alex Jones, and Wesley Clark is the biggest fucking joke I can imagine.

Those two are to be respected for their service to the American People and the Constitution. Those morons on that list don't belong in the same universe as Edward and Chelsea.

Downvoted before I even watched it because of your retarded list.

FWIW, 27 is around the beginning of Saturn's Return

10. Pete Ham
9. Chris Bell
8. Ron "Pigpen" McKernan
7. Amy Winehouse
6. Brian Jones
5. Janis Joplin
4. Robert Johnson
3. Jim Morrison
2. Kurt Cobain
1. Jimi Hendrix

Ron Paul 2012!