Does that dude say "I think I love him" at the end?

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, April 28th, 2011 10:45am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

That news segment is so embarrassing I'm surprised it's not on CNN.

That would be awesome! Obama could spend more time governing rather than wasting his time on the campaign trail. RP is popular now because most people have no clue how crazy he is.

Even if RoPaul is right on 90% (hell even 80%) of the issues, people hate real change and REALLY hate fast change. When Cankles Clinton tried to ram through the original socialist health care claptrap in the early 90s she was shut down by an animal reactionary resistance before the logical arguments from both sides arrived.

In 4 years there's no way RoPaul can dismantle the Fed, call all the troops home, legalize drugs, etc.

Even if he had a sensible, painless way to enact his reforms, liberty's many enemies on both sides of the aisle would fight him every step of the way. No sane politician will vote to eliminate Socialist Security and Medicrap "overnight". That's why all 'new' government nonsense should be ferociously fought against...once it's signed into law it's hell to repeal it. Look at the burst appendix that is obamacare.

Even a neutered President RoPaul who got only 10% of what he wanted would be baby steps in the right direction and a welcome change from the obama nightmare. But both sides of the aisle are against him for their own reasons, as well as the leftist lamestream media.

QM, with all the name-calling, you really are a nine year old when it comes to voicing your opinion. Which is why yours will never count.

^I don't know, Cankles Clinton got a laugh out of me.

Ron Paul just might win... if your vote actually counted in this farce of a democracy.

I refer you to http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-25-2011/indecision-2012---premature-ecalculation. In which the idiocy of these early polls is made abundantly clear.

I think Ron Paul would be a great choice for the Republicans. He is in complete solidarity with the corporatists on economic issues (deregulation, privatization, austerity, etc.) and his anti-war stance could probably be subverted just as easily as Obama's similar anti-war stance was subverted.

I'd much prefer him to idiots like Huckabee, Romney, Trump, Palin or Gingrich.

I would rather throw my hat in with Kucinich. But to be fully honest here. I don't fucking trust any of them.

... and for those interested in the # of people phoned, the margin of error,... basically any statistical information to allow you to in any way understand this data... FOXBUSINESS and RASMUSSEN REPORTS, LLC want you to go fuck yourself.

This is just beautiful. Blanky using Fox Business to justify his passion and love for Ron Paul.

I would vote for Ron Paul in a second and I wanted to before.

Uh yeah. And I'm supposed to take seriously the CHILDREN that call everyone that disagrees with them racists, homophobes, warmongers, greedy, etc. How is someone racist for wanting lower taxes? I'm still trying to figure that one out...

Discounting the glass jaw and virgin ears, it would be less insulting if the left didn't pretend to embrace "tolerance" and "all points of view" while being so insolently insular.

I try to limit name-calling to big name doofs, not fellow sifters. If it makes you feel better, Alohabamarx, Cankles, Slick Willie, Je$$e Jack$on and Kucinich the communist Keebler Elf will never read these posts.



>> ^probie:

QM, with all the name-calling, you really are a nine year old when it comes to voicing your opinion. Which is why yours will never count.

The difference is that one has actual facts behind it....the other is just a loudmouthed child behind it.

One can be demonstrated, the other is just someone looking for attention.

When we call someone racist, we're arguing that what the person is doing is wrong: judging people based on their race.

When you call someone a name, you're ignoring the actual issues at hand and just playing a child's game. the same ad homs you always do QM and you instantly lose any high ground you might have gained if you were actually debating instead of slinging mud. Sure, dems do it too, but again, using that as your excuse is what a child does.

More QM fail.

The difference is that one has actual facts behind it....the other is just a loudmouthed child behind it.

Per this sift, my post was an opinion piece based on observation and what actually happened in the early 90s. Calling a socialist "Cankles" is far less obnoxious than the grandiose plans these utopian knuckleheads have for MY freedom.

One can be demonstrated, the other is just someone looking for attention.

Everyone that posts seeks some attention. Everyone that does anything in the public eye is seeking some kind of attention, positive or negative. I'm merely typing my mind and if you disagree with it, that's all right by me. If a liberal wants to prove something with facts and data, I'm all for it.

When we call someone racist, we're arguing that what the person is doing is wrong: judging people based on their race.

You mean like when the left prejudges all minorities as helpless victims who need special government help?

When you call someone a name, you're ignoring the actual issues at hand and just playing a child's game. the same ad homs you always do QM and you instantly lose any high ground you might have gained if you were actually debating instead of slinging mud. Sure, dems do it too, but again, using that as your excuse is what a child does.

I harbor no illusions about "changing" anyone's mind about anything. I doubt anyone logs on thinking, I hope someone challenges my belief system so I can see their side of things!

More peeps enjoy witty sarcasm than long-winded essays. I admit to not always being witty, but so what, I ain't gettin' paid, this is a labor of love and annoyance.

QM FTW.

Yes he did. >> ^blankfist:

Does that dude say "I think I love him" at the end?