|Rovin - 2008-01-25 |
Five stars for Charlie Manson's eyes.
He's actually fairly intelligent, which makes him a lot scarier.
|Thundercougarfalconbird - 2008-01-25 |
5 Stars for how retarded she is, -2 stars for how fucking angry that makes me.
also, i'm guessing her beast needs a little warming up, and i think i should be the one to do it.
|Sean Robinson - 2008-01-25 |
You see this girl at the meet-up, yelling at a stranger for leaving a tip, and you elbow your buddy and point at her and just say, "Wife."
|FatFatuousNation - 2008-01-25 |
Come on, DMX played that out a decade ago in '98:
"Know what it's like to suffer, never
Have enough of shit, startin' off hard than
Only gettin' rougher, tougher, but then came
The grease, so if you wanna say peace, tame the beast!"
-DMX "Fuckin wit' D"
Ron Paul: gangster rap politician, who'd have guessed
|EvilHomer - 2008-01-25 |
I'm really, really scared. I'm really scared. This is not- I'm scared.
God, I hope Ron Paul wins.
|kthorjensen - 2008-01-25 |
WARM ME UP, BEAST!
|Operation Cornflakes - 2008-01-25 |
Oh crazy eyed internet girl, I have a beast that will warm you up.
|Aelric - 2008-01-25 |
this is another viral for cloverfield, right?
|theSnake - 2008-01-25 |
When I finish moving, I'm going to cut this up into clips and spam them on TF2 servers.
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2008-01-25 |
What does this bitch have against the Xmen?
|Adramelech - 2008-01-25 |
The Beast sounds like a giant pussy. Use a better Beast voice lady, christ.
Yeah, I was kind of pulling for the beast there at the end. Fuck this lady.
VOTE BEAST 2008! ONLY HE CAN DEFEAT RON PAUL!
|IrishWhiskey - 2008-01-25 |
Its called civilization psycho. Without it you would be in the cold and dark, ironically enough, fighting off actual beasts.
We had a smaller government because the government didn't involve itself in the economy as much as it has since FDR. We have a standing army because we are an empire and the last 7 years have proved that that is poison to the republic.
Not to mention all I was saying was that civilization doesn't require the current construct to survive. I know it means something else now, but I'm turned off by the origin of the term which came from Europeans' desire to differentiate themselves from all the colored people they were conquering in the 19th century.
All civilization requires is a couple bouncers at the door and some free party hats for everybody. Also, no health care.
|Ersatz - 2008-01-25 |
How soon 'til a Ron Paul nut goes Ruby Ridge? I've got the under on October 22.
|StanleyPain - 2008-01-25 |
Most of this girl's videos are basically like this:
"THE GOVERNMENT IS LIKE A GIANT COOKIE AND TAX MONEY IS LIKE DOUGH AND IF YOU PUT TOO MUCH DOUGH IN A COOKIE IT'S GROSS!!! RONPAUL!!!!"
|Honest Abe - 2008-01-25 |
if the government beast can save me from this crazypants all the money is worth it
|glenn - 2008-01-25 |
You can't let Beast suspect you're seeing Ron Paul on the side or he'll kill your ass. He's crazy jealous.
|Doomstein - 2008-01-25 |
Wow, so this is the woman who calls my work every day screaming about the illegitimacy of the hawaiian government. I always pictured a tangled head of hair and a fist full of feces.
|Baldr - 2008-01-26 |
The most horrifying thing about the internet is discovering that all of the people who like the same things you do are completely insane.
It's more complicated than that. I'm a moderate libertarian, and generally agree that a smaller government and more freedom is a good thing. My general inclination is to vote for a democrat in the next election, since the republicans have spent the last seven years moving the country in a direction I don't care for. However, if the democrats choose a candidate I really don't like (like Clinton) then I'll either choose the republican candidate (provided they're only a little insane), or take Ron Paul if he chooses to go third party.
Rodents of Unusual Size
And corporations will take care off all our health care needs...it...it really is a fairy tale come true!
It may or may not be necessary for the government to deal with the rising cost of modern health care. If it turns out that it is necessary, I'd like the support to remain as minimal as possible, so that we're not burdened with the hospital bills of people who set themselves on fire while wearing banana suits, or wrestling renactors who jump off of rooftops.
Or gun owners who shoot their own kids coming home late, or people who don't look both ways, or fatties, or smokers, or drinkers, or drug addicts, or men over 50 who can't get it up anymore. Hell, only perfect people who never do anything stupid should get healthcare, the other 100% of the population can go fuck themselves.
What exactly do you mean when you say "more freedom"? What freedoms are you being denied? What CAN'T you do that you really wanna?
>>>It's more complicated than that. I'm a moderate libertarian, and generally agree that a smaller government and more freedom is a good thing.
Interesting because personally I support unnecessarily large government and less freedom
libertarians are such dork morons
Libertarians are people who want to be exactly like their dads except also smoke pot.
This is part of the reason why you guys lost the last presidential election. The general reaction of a lot of democrats to someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal is to engage in insults instead of seeking common ground or engaging in rational discussion. It doesn't bother me on a personal level, but I would like to point out that, as far as everyday conversation goes, the republicans are a lot better at not alienating people who could potentially vote for their candidate.
sounds to me that you should just vote republican like every other "fiscal liberal social conservative" mealy-mouthed antisocial nerd eventually does and save us the fucking drama
Mr Robinson- what if I want to be exactly like my dad, only without the pot?
Baldr - If you are looking for a reasoned discussion of moderate libertarianism, there are many places to go. I don't think the comments section of a 'crazy-eyed lady' video is one of them.
Also we lost the last election because Kerry has the charisma of a plank, the party leaders had the balls of a eunuch, and the President promised the terrorists will kill us all if we voted Democratic.
In 2004 the Democrats ran a log with the words, "I'm not Bush" carved in it and lost the election by 130,000 votes in Ohio. Not quite a resounding refutation of Democratic policies.
Again, what do you mean by 'More Freedom'?
I specifically said that their comments didn't "bother me on a personal level" so that no one would come to that conclusion. What I am saying is that the republican party contains a lot of people with conflicting political philosophies and goals. I think that a fraction of those people would be willing to vote democrat, or at least independent; if less of the everyday political discourse of the left worked on the assumption that people who only agree with liberals on half the issues are either retarded or pricks. I'm mentioning this as a general trend, since I've seen friends and family members make the same assumption.
I also maintain that this assumption is part of the reason why the democrats lost the last election. If you reflexively assume that not sharing the same political philosophy is indicative of a moral or intellectual failure, then you'll never be able to convince someone else that your candidate is the one to vote for. And yes, I understand that there were many other factors resulting in the defeat. However, after Bush's first performance, convincing the country to vote for anyone else should have been simple.
As I said before, I'm not mentioning this because I'm personally offended, and no I didn't vote for Bush either time. After the last eight years, I think you guys deserve to win the next election. I just think your chances would be better if you alter your strategy a bit. As IrishWhisky pointed out, this is a horrible place for this discussion. However, I'd be willing to continue it in one of the forums if someone wants to make a thread.
But the "general trend" for the political discourse on the right is to view the Dummycrats and Liebrals as either retards or Communists. Immorality is a given. Yet this "general trend" doesn't seem to have prevented the noble, square-jawed, American right from snagging swing votes and trouncing the slimy leftards!
Personally, I say that reflexive assumptions are the KEY to winning elections. Sure, they might be "wrong" in a strictly factual sense, and they might even be a hindrance to a true democratic process, but as long as you make your brand of instinctual pigeonholing feel natural to a voter (either by repeating it enough times or by getting your opponent to over-repeat his) then you ensure that people will vote for you. So maybe the real factor is that the Demoncrats didn't call rightwingers dumb-dumb heads ENOUGH? I think if progressive America wants to win this time around, the best strategy would be for them to nominate the Wicked Witch of the Left, and have her spend the entire campaign going "Duuuur, lookit me gais, I'm a right winger, duuurrr daaaa Hitler NASCAR 9/11 dummm daaaarrr where's mah brain"
But what do you mean when you say "more freedom"?
Big Name Celebrity
More freedom= Fuck the IRS + fuck the ATF + legalize it + return to a REAL conservative foreign policy (GTFO the biz of world-policing) + fuck gun laws (why shouldn't I get to own a SAM? It's for... uh, plinking?) + put an end to corporate welfare, farm subsidies and most of the other giveaway programs that keep most people alive these days.
|Atomic Powered Jack-O-Lantern - 2008-01-26 |
Her eyes are going to pop out of her skull.
And they're going to come through my monitor and eat me.
|revdrew - 2008-01-26 |
Another vote for fucking the crazy out of this chick.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2008-01-26 |
It's going to take a big honey taste to tame a beast like that!
|Vicious - 2008-05-15 |
Oh, I'd definitely hit it.
|CornOnTheCabre - 2008-08-17 |
This is unacceptable to listen to unless Ive been talking this girl up all night and we have four 40s of malt liquor around us.
seriously out of context this does nothing for me.
maybe if you added a UH HUH, OH DEFINITELY track underneath this entire thing, I could relate, but no way, not as it stands.
|Chalkdust - 2009-07-23 |
...are we -sure- this isn't about wild sex?
|HP Lovesauce - 2009-09-15 |
she reminds me of a maria bamford character.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|