I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.

I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.

I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.

But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.

I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

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

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

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

Sorry,
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jackpotfishypoopypants-Michele-Bachmann-Bad-Lip-Reading

I now know of two noises that come from Michele Bachmann's mouth that I hate, one is talking...

Good point. I agree.

However, it still cracks me up that Willard sat down at that booth thinking he had a slam dunk photo op and instead with met with diverse America.


In reply to this comment by hpqp:
>> ^bareboards2:

omg, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp, come check this out... hysterical!!!


That was actually kinda sad. Ever since Bachmann's pathetic argument against gay marriage I cannot get out of my head that, if these tools are going to cite the first Americans, they should remember that marriage was always - until very recently - between men and women of the same race. I just wish someone would pull that on them in an interview.

>> ^bareboards2:

omg, @hpqp, come check this out... hysterical!!!


That was actually kinda sad. Ever since Bachmann's pathetic argument against gay marriage I cannot get out of my head that, if these tools are going to cite the first Americans, they should remember that marriage was always - until very recently - between men and women of the same race. I just wish someone would pull that on them in an interview.

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

>>> You believe it's 'possible to be ignorant without being hateful' but the pro-gay 'agendists' as well as politically-correct foot soldiers don't see it that way. It's easier to use intimidation and shackling free speech than send "new" ideas through the meat grinder of public debate.

>>> If there was a homosexual gene that could be detected very early, the odds are parents more numerous than you would approve of would abort the child. I'M not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, but it is a less desirable trait, like being born a little person or missing limbs is less desirable.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues.

>>> I hate hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Labeling Others Who Disagree simply as "haters" is the easy way out. It's easy to demand "equality" when you think that burden doesn't befall you, but the reality is that actions in this world have consequences. Do you know the facts and figures (mental health stats, disease rates) regarding homosexuality? Some of these problems are exacerbated by society/by intolerance, but the disease rates and promiscuity among gay males is tragic without blaming society. The left is doing no one any favors by hiding the ugly side of life, any more than the local paper does when they hide the race of at-large criminals to avoid being perceived as racist.

I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

>>> Brushing aside these gentle ad hominem aspersions (all incorrect BTW) once you become (more) conservative, you can't go back. Like the atheisifters who at one time sincerely believed in God but now don't---it's the exact same feeling. It's knowing that in life there are no 'solutions', only tradeoffs, and that global wealth, while steadily growing, is still finite and has alternate uses which make choosing how to utilize it important.

>>> If you claim you are against "intolerance", then you can't be halfway in. You can't righteously condemn Whitey or Straightey for exercising a right to free speech, then remain silent when Minority does the exact same thing, giving a free pass due to "past injustices".


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.
The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.
Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?
Bullshit.


I think It could be fair to call the physical sexual aspect of homosexuality a disorder , although that's not necessarily a bad thing , its one of those things that has very few negative effects the only grounds for which I would say its a "disorder" are the following

I would think given the choice most gay men or women would rather be equpid with sexual organs that better function for sexual enjoyment from each other without so much hassle or that can operate with less risk of health implications ( in the case of men).

for example Interims of the machinery of sexual enjoyment a penis and vagina function far better together mechanically than a penis and a anus or a vagina and vagina. ( vagina lubricates itself , is less prone to tairing , when it does brake has more ability to repair itself , it has a balance of microbes that can better protect and reduce the risk of infection ) With vagina and vagina sex I think you could argue that its less intimate than penal sex with a vagina and if lesbian woman could have a lesbian penis then im sure they would use that over fingers or other body parts.

due to the Psychological aspect of sexual enjoyment obviously some people prefer a dick in an ass then a dick in a vagina , or would rather rub up against a statue or a tree. but I'm sure if you give them the ability to chose what they could enjoy they would pick vagina penis sex.

However I don't see how the emotional side of homosexuality could be construed as a disorder as There is no real negative consequence ( other than idiotic cultural conventions) from loving another human regardless of what there sex might be. ( unless gays were a super minority but at between 15-25% of the population its not going to be that hard for a gay person to find a partner)


If at birth you could have it so that people didn't need to be gay then it may be better to not have people be gay. But fact is that will never really happen and we have also got to the point where techanloicaly gay people can reproduce and function as normal or more so than anyone else , furthermore the fundamental differences between a gay mind and a straight mind probably is of social and cultural bnofit to a society as a whole.

The TEA Party is just fed up with corrupt government and the only way to fight back is to go back to the original intent of the founders and that to to just plainly follow the constitution. How can that be wrong?

There is so many unconstitutional policies on and everyone knows it.

The report on the government officials practicing insider trading just came out and it indicated a 98%+ corruption of elected leaders. How sad. Only 2 republicans were singled out as having not participated in this actions, and that was Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. These 2 don't have a chance of winning the party nomination because they are deemed too radical or such. Are they? Or have we drifted astray? I would gather there would be a Democrat or 2 also that have clean sheets and they should run against Obama.

We don't need more of the same. We need change. Obama did not bring change. The wars did not end. Gitmo still stands. The Patriot Act is even more intrusive. TSA - need I say more? Spending is totally out of control. Our credit rating took a hit because we yet again raised out debt ceiling. Have we not learned anything from what is going on on Greece and Europe?

We have to wake up and vote for officials who are loyal to the ideals of the Constitution and not to themselves. We the people also need to stop asking for a handout just because its "free". nothing is free only freedom and we are loosing it at a very fast rate.

Stop voting just to beat the other guy. I feel that Gingridge can wipe the floor in an Obama debate but he will never get my vote.
For purely principle sake I would have to Vote for Paul or Bauchmann. Sure I disagree on some things but they would preform their elected duties following the constitution. Isn't that what the a are supposed to do? Don't they take an oath on the Bible to uphold the constitution?

I don't think it is funny, sarcasm box or not.

As someone who avoided being involved with the Sift for YEARS because of "jokes" like this, now that I am involved, I speak up.

Bone thought you were funny. I did not. Not for me to censor.

But I don't censor myself either -- I speak up when I think something stinks. You don't have to agree with me. But I have the right to say it.

In reply to this comment by westy:
>> ^bareboards2:

To new or casual visitors to the Sift --
This is not typical of the Sift. I don't know if this comment was meant to be a "joke" or not. There is a mechanism for marking a comment as "sarcasm" -- it wasn't utilized for this comment. So I don't know if this sifter Westy is "joking" or not.
The Sift has guidelines against egregiously offensive speech; it can lead to being banned from the site.
The Sift also is fiercely proud of Americans' everyone's right to free speech. (Thanks, Boise-lib)
It puts folks like me in a quandary. I hate this comment, whether it is a "joke" or not. I believe in free speech.
I am posting my comment so that if you are new or a casual visitor, you will know that at least one person on the sift is appalled by this comment and doesn't know what to do. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">dag.
What is weird is that this seems out of character for Westy. He's crusty and opinionated, not foul mouthed and ugly. It's almost as if someone has hacked into his account.

>> ^westy:
TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.
PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD



>> ^dag:

From years of interacting with Westy - I can tell you that this is definitely sarcastic parody - though he does live at the fringe of Poe's Law and without using the sarcasm box - it's hard to tell. It's also a troll. Sigh.>> ^bareboards2:
To new or casual visitors to the Sift --
This is not typical of the Sift. I don't know if this comment was meant to be a "joke" or not. There is a mechanism for marking a comment as "sarcasm" -- it wasn't utilized for this comment. So I don't know if this sifter Westy is "joking" or not.
The Sift has guidelines against egregiously offensive speech; it can lead to being banned from the site.
The Sift also is fiercely proud of Americans' right to free speech.
It puts folks like me in a quandary. I hate this comment, whether it is a "joke" or not. I believe in free speech.
I am posting my comment so that if you are new or a casual visitor, you will know that at least one person on the sift is appalled by this comment and doesn't know what to do. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">dag.
What is weird is that this seems out of character for Westy. He's crusty and opinionated, not foul mouthed and ugly. It's almost as if someone has hacked into his account.

>> ^westy:
TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.
PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD




Not a troll , just think how bland the world would be if every comment or remark has a disclaimer and full exsplination next to it.

If sum one claims the world is 6k years old then they are ether being sarcastic or past the point of reasonable communication.

Will you marry me please?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in internet forums that have a penchant for social justice.

An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.