http://www.videosift.com/video/Bill-Hicks-perfectly-describes-Rush-Limbaugh

siftbot is bein a scatmuncher, so i'll hafta do my promoting this way...

any man who knows calls Rush Limbaugh an 800 pound gorilla and who knows how to get good plastic surgery is a man i trust

He's dead-on about making any party viable in the long run: You need to have a big tent. However he should probably steer clear of fat jokes, only because it makes one sound mean-spirited. In other words, like Rush Limbaugh.

There's no way the failures of California can be blamed on conservatives, since they have no power there and Schwarzy isn't one.

Schwarzy is a Republican in Name Only (RINO) who, with the aid of the decades-old Californian Democratic majority, has run that state straight into the ground. CA has (had?) the sixth largest economy in the world; now it lies in tatters due to high taxation, open borders and bottomless government spending.

CA is 21 billion in debt and awaiting (surprise) a bailout from King Obama, much like Castro awaited money from the USSR every year to keep his failed utopia afloat.

CA liberals, supplicate the King that he might send the money to enable more of the same irresponsibility and insanity.

The only way that the GOP will become more inclusive is when it stops being the GOP.

Can't wait to hear QM's heart-throb, Rushbo, start attacking Arnold.

Wonder if Arnold will apologise like all the rest of them did?

I think not, but I could be wrong (and I'm no Arnold fan).

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

"Hey Limbaugh, remember when I said I'd kill you last? I lied."

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no way the failures of California can be blamed on conservatives, since they have no power there and Schwarzy isn't one.
Schwarzy is a Republican in Name Only (RINO) who, with the aid of the decades-old Californian Democratic majority, has run that state straight into the ground. CA has (had?) the sixth largest economy in the world; now it lies in tatters due to high taxation, open borders and bottomless government spending.
CA is 21 billion in debt and awaiting (surprise) a bailout from King Obama, much like Castro awaited money from the USSR every year to keep his failed utopia afloat.
CA liberals, supplicate the King that he might send the money to enable more of the same irresponsibility and insanity.


Your ideas are stupid. The border is just as open as it ever was (especially when we were the 7th largest economy in the world), taxation has just been increased because of our debt, and the government spending? Well, just like your friend George W. Bush, just because Arnold wears the label "Republican" it doesn't make him fiscally responsible.

Besides, why would you be picking on our shortcomings here in California with Arnold being our Governor when you've got your work cut out for you explaining what the fuck Bush did to our entire country.

Oh and another thing, where do you live? If it's not in Southern California, or Southern Texas, you should shut the fuck up about border issues. Everybody knows it's thinly veiled racism. If you're worried about paying for the welfare of others you should head over to the bible belt and punch every welfare receiving southern baptist in her pregnant uterus.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no way the failures of California can be blamed on conservatives, since they have no power there and Schwarzy isn't one.


My god, you're a joke.

You've already forgotten St. Ronnie's magic?

Everything wrong with our country can be blamed on conservatives and conservative doctrine, and yes, that goes for California as well.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Schwarzy is a Republican in Name Only (RINO) who, with the aid of the decades-old Californian Democratic majority, has run that state straight into the ground.

Good luck with your definition of Republican. If you get your way, your party is dead.

Arnie's wrong on one point, Rush does have a big tent. Just a pity he fills it.

I think QM is located somewhere near the "buttcrack" region. Decent sized gap for a few loyal far right wingers and Darth Cheney's wheelchair/ramp access. Not to mention close enough for the obligatory ass licking and nuzzling required to keep Limbaugh from exploding.

But who can blame QM for being a bit antsy, being forced to live in the buttcrack of an 650 lb gorilla would make anyone a bit tetchy now and again.

But who can blame QM for being a bit antsy, being forced to live in the buttcrack of an 650 lb gorilla would make anyone a bit tetchy now and again.

You don't have to suck up to liberalsifters to get your stars, n00b. But, the more time you spend here, the less time for daily kos.

Heh - it is always quite amusing when the ultimate hardcore left wing neo-libs try to give advice on what they think is going to help their enemies. The last person on the planet who should be giving advice to anybody at this point in time is Arnold. His failure as governor is complete. The Republican party has already done the big tent thing, but guys like John McCain don't exactly swell the party ranks... Why is that?

The only way the GOP is going to get out of its doldrums is by standing up firmly as the opposition to all the crazy left-wing crap coming out of the Democrat party. The Republican party isn't having problems because it is alienating moderates by being "radically right wing". It is alienating moderate voters because it is has stopped fighting for small government, lower taxes, and decreased spending.

You don't have to be ultra-hardcore right wing like Limbaugh to make the Republican party a juggernaut that would crush the Democrat party thoroughly. All they need to do is stop pretending to be Democrats, and start standing up for fiscal responsibility. There is a huge hunger for fiscal responsibility out there. It used to be that Republicans stood for that vote... Sadly, that is no longer the case - and voters are abandoning the Republican party EXACTLY because it is filled with big-spending jerks like Arnold, Bush, and so on.

Problem is, all the RINOs in the party make it hard because they are addicted to spending as much as foam-at-the-mouth hardcore liberal kooks (IE Pelosi or Obama). Rather than do the right thing and get thier votes by cutting spending, reducing taxes, and advocating small government - guys like Arnold prefer to try and 'strategerize' around voting blocs. That's all Arnold means.

I find this video extremely offensive.

Your ideas are stupid.

What about the facts? When do liberals ever own up to anything or claim credit for the results of THEIR policies? Constantly whining about being backstabbed by 'the system'? You're the ones holding the knife!

The border is just as open as it ever was (especially when we were the 7th largest economy in the world), taxation has just been increased because of our debt, and the government spending? Well, just like your friend George W. Bush, just because Arnold wears the label "Republican" it doesn't make him fiscally responsible.

You're just repeating what I wrote (minus the part about who ran California all those years). And how long is the Bush Blame Game going to continue? I've said plenty of times Bush failed to make the right decisions. He spent like a half-liberal over 8 years and now Obama's almost caught up to him in 100 days. Fiscally, Bush set fire to the house, and now Obama's spread that fire to the whole neighborhood, with not a peep from the media.

you should shut the fuck up about border issues. Everybody knows it's thinly veiled racism.

It's "racist" to demand laws are obeyed and borders respected? Tell that to the Mexican soldiers guarding their southern border.

To the leftist everything outside the vision of a statist utopia is "racism". The President is Black as well as Red. Welcome to post-racial America!

We're all entitled to our opinions but not our own facts. The libs ran (and still run) California. If they had any balls, they'd own up to their failures. They won't, and should The One gift them more money, they'll keep doing the exact same things that caused them to fail in the first place.

I am in partial agreement with you Winstonfield_Pennypacker. I do think, however, the republicans' recent horrible spending is scaring away moderates being that fiscal responsibility [was] one of their strong points. A moderate isn't necessarily going to side with their moral agenda, especially moderates that actually want to see small government.

The way I see it, both parties want too much out of me and are failing to serve me at the present moment.

Problem is, all the RINOs in the party make it hard because they are addicted to spending as much as foam-at-the-mouth hardcore liberal kooks (IE Pelosi or Obama).

...Oh yeah...the over spending species includes only the liberal kooks.

Jesys

-_-

I do think, however, the republicans' recent horrible spending is scaring away moderates being that fiscal responsibility [was] one of their strong points.

Well put. A more accurate way to phrase my argument would be to say that the Republican party is not scaring off moderate voters by being "too radically right wing". It is scaring off moderate voters by being hypocrital, backstabbing left-wing big spenders.

Oh yeah...the over spending species includes only the liberal kooks

Well - frankly - YEAH! That's exactly right. The real problem here is that EVERYBODY in Washington today is a big-spending liberal. That includes the bulk of the Republican party. That's why voters are abandoning them in droves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - frankly - YEAH! That's exactly right. The real problem here is that EVERYBODY in Washington today is a big-spending liberal. That includes the bulk of the Republican party. That's why voters are abandoning them in droves.


Since conservatives have, far and away, outspent liberals over the course of the last THIRTY YEARS, only the foolish or the deceitful would still classify overspending as an exclusively liberal trait.

And you don't know the meaning of the word "neo-lib" (neoliberalim) but I know it won't stop you from misusing it. After all, you're a right winger and you never have to back up your words with facts.

We on the left are not "neo-libs" - we're just liberals - same as we've always been, waging a constant battle for equality, fairness, and honesty against those of you on the right.

QM brings in his alt pennypacker when he's getting picked on

what went wrong in your life QM... who hurt you

people like you prevent the work from being done... then say 'look, you couldn't do it'....

that's the only reason things aren't like they should be... people like you.

die?

I must say that while I don't agree with QM pretty much *at all*, I do admire the fact that he's got the balls to argue his views without backing down. Conversations are always more interesting with some descent....

>> ^gorillaman:
I find this video extremely offensive.


I see what you did there! +1

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no way the failures of California can be blamed on conservatives, since they have no power there and Schwarzy isn't one.


You must not live here. Your ignorance of the situation could only be explained by that.

Some 30 years ago, Conservatives put Prop 13 on the ballot. It passed overwhelmingly.

It set limits on property taxes, which means in many communities today, older home owners pay less property taxes than newer, younger home owners.

It also introduced a new rule to the state legislature: All tax increases now require a 2/3rds majority to pass, instead of a 51% majority.

The Conservatives may not have the majority in the California legislature, just like the federal legislature. But they do have just enough power to be a roadblock, just like the federal republican legislators. The minority party always has some rules that work in their favor, don't forget that. Unless you really are just a closet fascist.

This is why we're in the hole we're in. We refuse to tax ourselves adequately. This is basically a problem with the hardline conservative dogma. We had a chance during the Clinton Administration (you know, the largest economic expansion in US history?) to save up for hard times. We ignored the opportunity to save up during our feasts for the inevitable famines that would follow.

What part of this do you not understand? How could you be so ignorant and blind?

The point being that any politician who radically overspends really ISN'T a fiscal conservative rougy. Overspending - particularly on social programs - is a characteristic of big-government proponents (IE liberals). That's why the political class - Republicans and Democrats - are pretty much all liberals nowadays. It's also why 'moderate' fiscally conservative voters are abandoning the Republican party en masse. The result is that the GOP is being abandoned by socially moderate fiscal conservatives and all is left are radical right-wing social special interest groups (what you guys would call 'neocons').

That's why Arnold and Powell are fools. The so-called 'moderate Republican' is a staunch fiscal conservative. They aren't going to vote Republican because of issues like gay marriage and abortion. They can make thier 'tent' as big as they want in that regard and it isn't going to accomplish anything. The way to net all those moderates is to take a stand on spending and small government. But RINOs like Powell & Arnold want those big spending programs, so they don't even try to appeal to that bloc.

And I can't possibly misuse the term 'neolib' because I'm the one that INVENTED it. I don't use the term to describe the denotative definition of neoliberalism, or even 'liberalism'. When you go by the dictionary, the word 'liberal' has a very different meaning than its practical, connotative definition today. Neolibs are far-left radical special interest groups and their flunkies. Much like neocons are the radical far-right interest groups and thier flunkies.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: And I can't possibly misuse the term 'neolib' because I'm the one that INVENTED it.

Just like Bill Clinton INVENTED what is is.

Don't expect to be understood, or not laughed at, when you decide that "car" means cabbage.

1 - California is and has been controlled by some of the most rabid members of the GOP for decades. Even as a minority party, with Prop13, we're fucking doomed. QM is 1000% FAIL on this one.

2- Winstonfeld is also 1000% FAIL. The last three GOP preznits have all increased the defecit, while massively inflating the budget.


Every single motherfucking graph on the planet shows that Reagan was an economic and job-creation nightmare, as was Bush I and Bush II. While Clinton, was not. He actually boosted the shit out of the economy, cut taxes (Reagan raised them) and created the fuck out of some jobs.

The notion of "fiscal responsibility" when it comes to conservatives is a fucking laugh riot. I mean hell, I can call myself an 80 foot woman, doesn't mean it's true. But, I guess QM/WP would rather live the lie, which is weird since they both seem to be very smart people.

So if you two are so seemingly smart, why do you buy into this bullshit lie that has never, ever, ever shown to be true?

Oh, but I guess graphs and data have a well-known liberal bias, so why would WP/QM ever believe historic, accurate and empirical evidence when they can just take whatever they want out of their asses?


http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4599/budgetdeficitorsurplus.gif
http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages//2009/01/unempl-rates-bar-graph-for-1992-2000-2008.jpg

Whig party 4 life!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And I can't possibly misuse the term 'neolib' because I'm the one that INVENTED it. I don't use the term to describe the denotative definition of neoliberalism, or even 'liberalism'. When you go by the dictionary, the word 'liberal' has a very different meaning than its practical, connotative definition today. Neolibs are far-left radical special interest groups and their flunkies. Much like neocons are the radical far-right interest groups and thier flunkies.


But it's a very juvenile term. Calling us “neo-libs” just because Cheney, Feith, and Rumsfeld et al. called themselves “Neocons” just has no basis in reality. They are not mirror images of each other.

And as far as I can tell, you refer to everybody on the left as a “neo-lib” without exception. It's a snarky little label that you use to lump us all together.

And the dictionary definition of liberal isn't all that far removed from what liberals stand for. We stand for tolerance and fairness. We stand for progress.

You're just making things up as you go along.

Every group is a “special interest” group, the only difference being that on the left of the aisle the groups represent the interests of the majority of every day people, while on the right they represent the minority with the greatest wealth, and the demands of the biggest and most powerful corporations.

Liberals and conservatives might both have a tendency to "overspend," but with liberals we get services, instead of trillions of dollars poured into a mostly unnecessary military.

Minimizing the chances of North Korea giving WMD to other crazy countries is one thing, but why do we need military presence everywhere?1,2

For every trillion dollars we spend on the military, we receive a certain amount of blowback, and we have to agree to funnel a certain amount of money to seemingly every country in the world to grease the wheels for our paternalistic foreign policy.

You must not live here. Your ignorance of the situation could only be explained by that.

I not only lived there, I helped vote the RINO into office before he lost his balls. Remember, people were fed up with Democrat corruption from Gray Davis, the former governor, enough to boot his butt out early.

Some 30 years ago, Conservatives put Prop 13 on the ballot. It passed overwhelmingly.

It sure did. Prop 13 was a VOTE, wasn't it? In a rare burst of sanity close to the Bicentennial, people voted down more of the same liberalism. I'm well versed on the Prop 13 lie. If only we leftists could get our hands on more property tax money, THEN we could send every illegal alien to college for free and pay for all their medical care (in exchange for votes). We could fully fund all of our welfare programs--rife with fraud and waste--which keep people dependent on us.

I'm well aware that's now how the average liberals see things, and that's why the same errors are made over and over.

Every single motherfucking graph on the planet shows that Reagan was an economic and job-creation nightmare, as was Bush I and Bush II. While Clinton, was not. He actually boosted the shit out of the economy, cut taxes (Reagan raised them) and created the fuck out of some jobs.

Reagan unleashed the power of the American people via tax cuts and the economy boomed. Every income bracket rose. Yes, taxes also went up under Reagan--twice, I think--and guess who controlled Congress not only for his tenure but Bush 41s? DEMOCRATS.

Taxes went up under Bush 41 and...recession. Clinton wanted to raise taxes (much like Obamarx) but was thwarted when America had another burst of sanity and elected enough Republicans to keep him in check. Welfare reform was a roaring success. Of course Clinton's going to take credit for the anomaly that was the tech-boom, built on air.

The charge that Repubicans are just as bad as Democrats when it comes to "fiscal responsibility" at the federal level is true. Once Repubicans get to Washington they decide they'd rather be loved than lead, so they cave in. I can't think of any other reason why when the R's controlled all three branches of government they did NOTHING to change the status quo. Lazy cowards or simply human?

I find it ludicrous that the same liberals that call conservatives hypocrites over "small government" are the EXACT SAME "ACTIVISTS" that throw tantrums whenever attempts to stop government waste or failed, obsolete programs is made. Even the suggestion that a government program be scrapped is met with liberal hysteria. "Look at the evil murderers, trying to starve the poor children!"

All of this arguing, while delightful, is pointless, because beloved Obamarx will end up spending more than George to George--that's Washington to W. Bush--before he's through.
The One will literally bankrupt the US government, except he's no dummy, it's been his plan all along. He is a leftist radical disguised as a moderate, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

When PRAVDA, the dead Soviet Union's propaganda rag sees things more clearly than the libmedia, there's a problem.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

I respect the Communist Party of America more than any liberal or "moderate" Repubican. At least THEY don't hide who they are or their plans, which are not only unconstitutional, but per the lessons of history, unworkable and immoral.

Have you ever noticed every time a Stalin or Pol Pot declares there will be 'equality for all' he leaves behind mountains of skulls?

This is no longer a fking game, never has been. The statist left has been undermining the true intent and laws of the Constitution since FDR, with plenty of help from "moderate" conservatives. The scum in Congress are no longer bothering to ask if their antics are legal. Tyranny is coming, as usual, in the guise of "taking care" of the people.

^ Oh god it never ends.

Jesus christ, its like arguing with a 4-year-old. Why do we bother? I swear, I think he's retarded.

I'm just glad idiots like him are a dying minority. A loud, obnoxious minority, but a soon-to-be-completely marginalized minority (and it's his own party doing the marginalization! He's actually sticking up for the people who screw him the most! You can't make this shit up!).

I'm this close to ignoring the quackpotmushhead, but it's so fascinating seeing something so xenophobic, so self-loathing...

I miss the days when everyone just hated politicians. It seems like the internet has divided everyone into teams of extremists (on every topic and subject).

Bush spent a lot. A lot more than we wanted, but he didn't spend $4,000,000,000,000 in his first 6 months. Guess who did chief.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no way the failures of California can be blamed on conservatives, since they have no power there and Schwarzy isn't one.

My god, you're a joke.
You've already forgotten St. Ronnie's magic?
Everything wrong with our country can be blamed on conservatives and conservative doctrine, and yes, that goes for California as well.


>> ^chilaxe:
Liberals and conservatives might both have a tendency to "overspend," but with liberals we get services, instead of trillions of dollars poured into a mostly unnecessary military.
Minimizing the chances of North Korea giving WMD to other crazy countries is one thing, but why do we need military presence everywhere?1,2
For every trillion dollars we spend on the military, we receive a certain amount of blowback, and we have to agree to funnel a certain amount of money to seemingly every country in the world to grease the wheels for our paternalistic foreign policy.


>> ^Raaagh:
Problem is, all the RINOs in the party make it hard because they are addicted to spending as much as foam-at-the-mouth hardcore liberal kooks (IE Pelosi or Obama).
...Oh yeah...the over spending species includes only the liberal kooks.
Jesys
-_-


>> ^rougy:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - frankly - YEAH! That's exactly right. The real problem here is that EVERYBODY in Washington today is a big-spending liberal. That includes the bulk of the Republican party. That's why voters are abandoning them in droves.

Since conservatives have, far and away, outspent liberals over the course of the last THIRTY YEARS, only the foolish or the deceitful would still classify overspending as an exclusively liberal trait.
And you don't know the meaning of the word "neo-lib" (neoliberalim) but I know it won't stop you from misusing it. After all, you're a right winger and you never have to back up your words with facts.
We on the left are not "neo-libs" - we're just liberals - same as we've always been, waging a constant battle for equality, fairness, and honesty against those of you on the right.

It is bizarre to sit here in a social democracy close to utopia and listen to people from a country with no healthcare worry about spending and tax while supporting a war that has run the country into an unprecedented dept. where the fuck is your head, qm? When will people like you ever realize that your morbid fear of anything "red"* is a bizarre side-effect of cold-war propaganda? When will you realize that cutting taxes wont make everyone into Donald Trumps, but in the end just ends up making the actual Trumps even richer, while the average American has to work 3 jobs just to pay their health insurance.With higher taxing and more spending on USEFUL things, the state could provide people with a much better platform than you currently have. By SPENDING money on providing healthcare you could actually SAVE and MAKE money because people would be healthier overall, and by SPENDING money on things like science you could rid yourself of oil-dependancy and clean up cities, again making people healthier and in less need of healthcare, you could tax the filthy rich and provide support and tax-relief to small businesses, SPEND money on public transportation and save people's money for gas and so on and so on. Soon you would live in a welfare state.

*except the giant fumbling, massively destructive elephant in the room

QM is 1000% FAIL on this one.

Hm? How am I wrong when I’m the one saying that Republicans have been governing like liberal democrats? You yourself admit that GOP POTUS’s have massively increased our deficits. I agree with that position. It conclusively proves my point that fiscally conservative voters (such as myself) have very little to identify with in today’s Republican party. Therefore they are not voting for it. Duh.

And the dictionary definition of liberal isn't all that far removed from what liberals stand for. We stand for tolerance and fairness. We stand for progress.

Tolerance, fairness, and progress are generic pretty words. The practical political reality of the far-left liberal Democrat party has very little to do with any of those things. The degree of anger, hatred, and intolerance that comes from the political left proves that very few neolibs are actually interested in tolerance, fairness, or progress.

Liberals and conservatives might both have a tendency to "overspend," but with liberals we get services, instead of trillions of dollars poured into a mostly unnecessary military.

Baloney. That’s a neolib conceit. The bulk of Bush2’s overspending was on social issues, not the military. His problem was that he spent a lot on military AND social services without cutting anything. Terrible. The idea that Republicans spend all the budget on military is a complete neo-lib myth. Entitlement spending has dominated the US Federal budget since WW2 ended.

With higher taxing and more spending on USEFUL things, the state could provide people with a much better platform than you currently have. By SPENDING money on providing healthcare you could actually SAVE and MAKE money because people would be healthier overall

Let's assume that by your methods we manage to make our population an unprecedented '20% healthier'. I.E. They need to go see a health-care professional 20% less, need 20% fewer prescriptions, surgeries, et al. Even reducing health care needs by a whopping 20%, you aren't 'saving' money and you certainly aren't 'making' it. All you are doing is SPENDING money at an 80% rate instead of a 100% rate.

Neolibs love to say that single-payer health care will save taxpayers money, but they have yet to prove that claim. In no single-payer system has it ever been demonstrably proved that costs were reduced while care was increased. Quite the opposite. The only way single-payer systems can reduce costs is to reduce quality of care.

So it becomes a semantic shell game. Neolibs love to whine about the 'uninsured' as if they were getting no health care (which is blatantly untrue). It's a sob story they use to sell universal health care. So when we go on a single payer system 'everyone' will have care? BULL. Every government run system denies coverate, delays care, and lowers the rate of treatment compared to private models. Just because 'everyone is covered' doesn't mean 'everyone gets treated'.

That's the lie. Sell the system by promising 'unversal health care' and hide the fact that when you go in the office expecting treatment that you get denied medical care because 'that service isn't covered' or 'you'll have to wait 6 to 12 months' or 'you'll have to pay for that operation'.

That's the lie. Sell the system by promising 'unversal health care' and hide the fact that when you go in the office expecting treatment that you get denied medical care because 'that service isn't covered' or 'you'll have to wait 6 to 12 months' or 'you'll have to pay for that operation'.

Instead of listening to "your doctor" at FOX news, why not travel to a country with this "fake" universal health care, and ASK people at hospitals how it actually works.

Of course the system is not perfect, by all means, and yes, in the end it does cost money, yet it is pretty obvious that a country is better off with state-provided health care than a private insurance-based solution. It provides people with security and it serves to protect the weakest in society. in short, it just works.

So whats the drawback? do we drown in taxes? is it impossible to be a self-made man and start your own business?, do doctors quit en masse because they'll make tons more in a private institution? Do we usually have to wait 6 months to get treatment?, are we somtimes denied treatment, or sometimes have to pay for our own operation?, is the quality of health care in countries with universal healthcare measurably lower than in the US? No, no, no, no, no and no.

I just dont know what to say, other than just "look around". or perhaps "look at the fire department." are the "only way they can reduce cost, is to put out fewer fires". Dont be silly. It works, they put out fires and save lives, they provide security and safety, and yes, it costs money. We think of health care the same way: it saves lives and provides security.

Doc_M, WP, QM - I'm not sure if they just don't know how our society has operated, if any have traveled to other countries (and not just to go to the Paris Hooters), or if they're all sock puppets just here to gin up some heated comments.

Whichever way you slice it, their views have very little to do with American realities. And thank fucking god for that.

I also find it funny that only one of the three has a charter account here. It's funny that they very same Randian pseudo-libertarians don't shell out their fair share to this service they use every day. What the hell is up with that? I thought you guys were against a free ride? Are you guys just the videosift version of welfare queens?

pfffff

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.

arvana has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because arvana's points are already fully charged.