I am Muslim and this is hilarious. They are not making fun of Muslims. They are making fun of the fear mongering politicians,the media and the idiots who fall in to this whole propagandistic way of dehumanizing Islam in order to make it OK to invade anyone's country at any given time just by saying..."We think they're terrorist Muslims hiding over there".
The Muslim threat to what..........stop shiting in your pants. All the atrocities against humans are carried out by the non - Muslims. Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia....there is a long list.
i just drank 12 beers in an hour........without throwin up......not cuz im drunk but be cuz.thats alote of beer............now in getttin drunk..........
America wants to build a world where Muslims are treated as subhuman animals, where as Islam calls to a world based on true worship of God and justice.
I could argue that bleeding-heart progressives want to turn a blind eye on all questionable Arab (not Muslim) activity, because they must have their own right to (one) religion. Ours of course being Christian/atheist (what's the difference?)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what the hell? mooslem, i mean look at that guy who has to get the info into evry1s head, he can't even finish a fucking sentence and the other guy with a shit haircuts like omg a "mooslem".
Yes theyre a different religion, that doesnt mean that theyre some aliens from another planet.
And also the guy with the shit haircut was like " and there was a mooslem in the woods"
dude, he could be a christian or jew or hindu, did you ask him for his life story before saying he was a "mooslem"?
hahahaaha, after reading all this, thorgath is the only person with the right mind. it's a satire you fuckin idiots! it's not supposed to be taken seriously! The guy in the middle was a comedian, EUGENE MIRMAN. this is 23/6, a pseudo news agency.
Dude, you are a retarded chimp. Those guys are all comedians! I repeat: THOSE GUYS ARE ALL COMEDIANS! It's a satirical video. People like you should be banned from society for being too stupid
OMG SO WE'RE ''MOOSLEMS NOW'' HAHAHAHAH WOW it's like we have this paranormal effect on people, just walk by and they're all like OH F*** OMG DID YOU SEE THAT? IT WAS A MUSLIM!!!!! LOL!!
This is why America needs to cut down all thems trees... So that we can catch all them Mooslem Turrists lurken about in our Forests, plotting their acts... acts of Terrer.
I dont watch the mainstream media, I study it. Did you even go to the website?
Are you seriously unaware of the centralization of information that is our mainstream media? The idiot box is lying to you, and the newspapers are slowly being bought up by, yes, corporations.
And as far as 9/11 is concerned, if you havent read the 9/11 commission report for yourself, and any other book on the subject, just go ahead and admit that you have no business even claiming to have an educated opinion on it
hey its the internet, thats what its for, anonymous yelling and such. You cant really have in depth discussions on youtube. Im not telling him to believe me either. Just look into stuff he hasnt looked into.
You've got no arguing point left(especially if all you have is what you repeat from the right-wing National Review), and you keep circling around the same bullshit. Go vote for your little Bush puppet. I'm going to vote for my candidate with the funny sounding name. I'm done with you.
It's National *Journal*, not National Review (sorry I misspoke this time tho I've stated National *Journal* several times before here, to you). Since you've not countered ONE 'point' I've made, only embarrased yourself with your childlike political knowledge, diversionary smears, and regurgitation of propoganda points instead of any serious display of knowledge.
I'll go vote for my hyper qualified candidate with a record of selfless leadership, you go vote for your empty suit.
McCain has no qualifications, and no executive experience. Crashing your plane and being a POW doesn't make you qualified. He has legislative experience, but that means nothing when running for president (a completely different government branch).
He has no more EXECTUtIVE experience, or EXECUTIVE qualifications than Obama. Legislative experience means next to nothing when you're talking about a completely different branch of government. That was my point, and it obviously went over your head. Being a Senator is not the same as being President. So any qualifications YOU think he has in regards to this are meaningless. Now he may have hung around Washington longer than Obama, but not in the Executive Branch...which is what counts.
The National Review is doing the same thing they did in 2003 to John Kerry, rushing out a bogus statement about how the Democratic candidate is the most liberal senator of that year, and I proved them wrong using many different sources that counted his actual voting record and compared it to that of other senators.
woops,I meant the National Journal...yeah looks like it's hard to tell the two apart. One's a more respectable conservative journal, but neither are liberal.
Of course the National Journal is liberal. But it matters not, they are at the very least middle of the road JOURNALISTS. It's far fetched to put more accuracy on conservative PAC's rating than on the NJ's.
National Journal is not liberal. They aren't as nasty and ignorant as the National review, but they're point of view is certainly leaning more to the right than left. I'll go so far as to say they can have moderate views on some things...bordering on the objective, but their perspective is still quite conservative.
Uh-huh. Well this has been fun. I'd really like to debate you further but YT is just such a poor forum for it, and I'm pretty convinced of your inability to enter into a reasoned discussion. You have the last word.
chrisboard the fact that you even forayed into the left right paradigm shows how much fucking mainstream media you watch...
stop watching, start analyzing, your country is being ripped apart by liberals and conservatives, two factions of the giant mafia scheme that you are hopelessley unaware of.
your dollar is worth shit, the president is a criminal, and the speaker of the house is a cannot-do who pretends to oppose criminality.
and 9/11 was an inside job..patriotsquestion911(dot)com
thats cool man, that website says a lot to the skeptics (reasonable to be skeptical, its what I consider myself) that mindlessly dismiss information. Authority speaks volumes, when the authority is justified. I am not associated with any group however.
So who do you trust more, one of America's oldest LOBBYING organizations, or a bunch of you know, JOURNALISTS? Funny that you'd reach there to find facts you prefer ;).
BTW, you've been bashing McCain for days now because he's changed his tone on gun control during an election year, a 'slimeball' who'd 'lost all integrity.' But just yesterday Obama who has been even more extreme than McCain on the subject joined him in lockstep. Guess you won't be voting for that 'slimeball' either, eh?
"Sounds to me like one of those 'high risk' bipartisan moves you were touting about"
ROFLMAO. I knew you'd say something that stupid. Here's a few hints: 1) it has to have actual *risk* behind it, 2) it has to be something he has to put up his hand and be counted on (and have a realistic possibility of becoming law), and (and you're gonna love this one) 3) it has to be more than campaign year rhetoric.
Guess by your definition, all McCain's 'slimy' moves this year have been heroic! LOL!
You're an idiot. If I say Obama is doing something Bipartisan, you say it's typical politician tricks...If I say McCain's tarnished his own record with flip-flops you say he's its an election year. McCain has done nothing that has really risked his own career...maybe put him at odds with his own party on a few issues, but that's not a real risk. In any case, none of that bears ANY meaning when it comes to executive decision making, and experience. Something of which NEITHER candidate has ANY.
I cited the ACU because they are the backbone of conservative thinking, and are well known for ranking senators on their conservative views. I figured that a union comprised of the originators of the conservative way of life would have the best view of how conservative McCain is supposed to be. It's better to get perspective from a group that is right there at the heart of the conservative movement, than get information from a source that is more distant, and possibly skewed in their views.
You cited ACU because they are the only ones you could find who produced a stat you liked. More to the point, that is the same point some web site or some other blogger (or equally blind supporter of your particlar candidate) used to defend the most liberal sitting senator.
*I* already cited the National Review (a respected liberal journal), so the excuse that you were simply trying to find a source I would trust doesn't hold water.
Right wing lobbyists or left leaning journalists..hmm...
The national review is NOT liberal, they are in the same league with Fox News...a bunch of Neo-Con nationalists spinning bullshit that alters the facts to meet their own interests.
It's hard to call the National Review a "respected Liberal journal" when they've employed people like Ann Coulter...and were founded by William F. Buckley (a well known conservative commentator).
Sorry, I've said this several time, but this time I misspoke. That's "National Journal," not "National Review." There goes the wind out of your sails.
Obama pretty new as a US Senator, but he has been bipartisan in this short time, and he wants to continue to be even more so as president. On the other hand you have McCain, who is gearing himself up more and more to be Bush's 3rd term. I'd argue this point, but McCain does all the arguing for me.
Obama's been in the national Senate I think 4 years now, and had 8 years in the Illinois senate before then. That's nearly half of McCain's 25 years in the national senate.
I've named just a few of the several instances just in the last 7 years where John McCain infuriated his base, or bucked his leadership in a potentially career ending way. Apparently John McCain CAN. For Barak Obama it's been twelve years of 'No, I Can't!!'
lol, and you still go around in circles about how awesome McCain was no more recent that about 2 years ago...well a lot has changed in McCain since his "risky" days as a Senator. He's playing ball right in line with the Bush administration, and turned his back on all 25 years of his career to try and kiss the far right's ass. He's thrown out just about every bit of his own legislation that you claim made him risk his career..of which I've named several.
Circles? WTF? Well, my head IS still spinning after you discarded everything I just explained to you to cling to the safe old 'flip flopper' smear. I've explained how all politicians McCain and Obama included, become especially full of shit during campaign season.
No doubt, once the election is over and no matter who wins, both candidates will reset to their pre-election personas: Obama the uber-partisan, wimpy leftist hack, and McCain the middle of the road straight talking 'maverick.'
No smear here, just the cold hard truth that you won't accept. McCain is a right wing bitch. Obama hasn't changed his message since he started campaigning.
If you're just going to keep coming back to his now meaningless record as a US Senator, then you have nothing else to argue over. You go ahead and vote for your 3rd Bush term meat puppet, and I'll vote for my rookie candidate with the funny name.
Yeah, records are 'meaningless.' ROFL. I that's a necessary position for an Obama support.
BTW 'right wing bitch'?? Putting aside the childishness of that particlar name calling, you DO realize McCain's most recent 'conservative' rating is 60%? And the American people were polled very recently at 62%? That puts McCain to the LEFT of the American people, and makes them, in your words, 'right wing bitches!' LOL!
There's also a HUGE difference between considering yourself a conservative, and right wing nut jobs like the Bush administration who have ADMITTED to deceiving the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq. I won't vote for someone who believes we should stay in Iraq indefinitely...I also didn't vote for a flip-flopper in 2004, and I sure as hell won't vote for one in 2008.
Obama worked with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn on the Coburn-Obama bill. The bill set up a database that tracks where federal dollars are being spent and which contractors receive federal funding.
Obama worked with Republican Sen. Dick Lugar to get the Lugar-Obama bill passed. The bill enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.
As I said, pick any senator and they can name a host of such token bills where they acted in a bipartisan way on something utterly noncontroversial. National Review, a respected liberal journal, rated Obama the most liberal sitting senator NOT because of his ability to work across the aisle (much less put his own bacon on the line to do so), but because he voted as far from his Republican colleagues as possible more often than any other Democrat.
ACTUALLY, Obama is rated the 40th most liberal according to his legislation record. Further more, He may not have a lot of experience as a US Senator, but he has more total elected office experience than Reagan, and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Experience matters little. McCain has thrown his credibility away by turning his back on every single issue that had him labeled him the "maveric" republican. He's now just an ass puppet for the Bush administration...and I won't vote for a 3rd Bush term.
ACTUALLY, National Review rated him the MOST liberal and they, unlike you, had no reason to 'parse' the truth. Such as when you point out Obama had more elected office experience than Ronald Reagan. Virtually all that experience is in the state senate and none of it is execute. Ronald Reagan had already earned his reputation as the greatest chief executive in the history of the most populated state in the union before running for president. Experience MATTERS. Look at our current president.
McCain is now nothing more than a backbiter, a flip-flopper, and a crook that takes soft money from lobbyists and special interest PACs...something which he himself used to condemn. He's surrounded himself with big oil executives, and key members of Bush's administration. He's not the "straight talk" candidate that he was 8 years ago. McCain is nothing more than Bush meat puppet.
I'll ask this again since you didn't have the balls to answer the first time. Now that Obama has joined McCain in flip flopping on the guns issue (after a career of hard left anti-2nd amendment behavior and speechifying he wanted all guns bannded), is Obama now a 'slimeball' politician that you'd 'never vote for?'
Just looking for the same standards. OR is your faith in your Messiah unshakeable, no matter what he does, unaccountable to the standards of mere mortals?
First off...you can stop right there. He never said he wanted all guns banned. No one, not republican or democrat is for overturning the 2nd amendment. Get that out of your Neo-Con skull. He IS for a stronger ban on concealed weapons, and a ban on assault weapons (like I stated before)...which I agree with. He basically agreed with the supreme court in stating that the law was unconstitutional, but added that responsible gun control needed to be further pursued (referring to my point above).
Here's a hint. The legislation "ban[ned] the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns". Not just concealed. And when asked about the D.C. ban which just went down in flames, Obama has multiple times in the last year said he supported the ban.
If you had any integrity at all, you'd apply your own words now against Obama: "that 'slimeball' has totally flip flopped and sold his soul. I would never vote for such a person." LOL!
Well since now all you have is name calling, and attempts to insult me. The only thing close to him saying he supported it was that he said he supported an individual community's right to regulate how they handle ILLEGAL handgun use. This includes stronger background checks, and abilities to better trace how these guns are getting to people who shouldn't have them (criminals, mentally ill, etc).
Did originally say he supported it? Yes, and no. Like you said about all 10 or so of the many different issues where McCain has completely discredited his own past 'accomplishments'. It's an election year, and he's allowed to "adjust to the current reality". Only this time Obama didn't actually say anything contradictory to himself. He, like the vast majority the Democrats, didn't challenge the courts. There's no argument to be had here.
McCain thinks he can push this issue into the limelight as a major campaign topic(as though most citizens care about it) to overshadow everything else that he can't seem to gain any ground on. I bet if Obama had gone against the grain and said that he wanted to keep guns away from terrorists, McCain would most likely then have to say that terrorism isn't a big enough threat. I guarantee he actually would, and I would laugh all they way to November.
Now who's the one with child-like knowledge of the facts? You distort every point I make...typical right-wing, Fox News loving bullshit. Your faith in your precious McCain is so skewed it's unbelievable. I tell you loads of TRUE FACTS, and you put your best spin on saying their propaganda, and smear attacks. By the way nice try in backtracking on the National Review. I still countered your false attempt at saying Obama was the #1 liberal senator. I sited from many different sources that he's #40
lol, then why all the spin saying everything I've states is political smearing, and false propaganda? ...ahh, that's right...because you're full of shit.
BTW, phoenixatom, you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again (this makes twice):
Can you name one instance where Barak Obama ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for himself? Just one. I can name several for McCain.
As an Illinois state senator he reached across the table on several issues. One in particular was his ability to gain bipartisan support for legislation that would reform ethics and health care. He sponsored a law that would increase tax credits for low income workers. He was also co-chairman of a bi-partisan committee that supported the Republican Illinois Governor's payday loan regulations, as well as predatory mortgage lending regulations. I haven't even tapped into his time in US Senate.
Ok, MOST senators can take several years and name several things they were (usually peripherally) involved in that involved working w/ the other side. That's extremely common and means very litle. Even the senator rated the most liberal sitting senator by National Review, Barak Obama, can do this.
I'll ask the question again since you didn't quite grasp (3 times):
Can you name 1 instance where Barak Obama ever worked across the aisle in a way that entailed a political RISK for HIMSELF?
You're obviously going to try and spin every point I make, which is rediculous. You see McCain as this big savior of humanity, even though he is just as crooked a politician as any. Obama, while an inexperienced US Senator, has cultivated a great amount of bipartisan support for someone so new. He's worked directly with Republican Senators on many different issues, but you will choose to ignore that or blow over it like it's nothing. McCain is NOT them man he used to be back in the 80s and 90s.
"You see McCain as this big savior of humanity, even though he is just as crooked a politician as any"
Weird comment. I've stated multiple times he's no such thing & have only tried to correct your uninformed attempts at character assassination.
I've asked several times ONE instance where Barak ever worked across the aisle in a way that entailed a political RISK for HIMSELF. You can't provide one, instead falling back on the day to day 'bipartisan' stuff every senator can list with ease.
I obviously don't see what you mean by "risk to himself". I do know that any good that McCain might have done in the past is now destroyed due to his flip-flopping on almost all of the stances that had once alienated him from his own republican party. He's against wealthy tax cuts at one moment, and then for them. He's an advocate for Roe vs Wade, and then claims to reject it. McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
Also, in 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In Aprilof this year, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
If you don't know what 'risk to his own political career' means, noone can explain it to you; it's too simple a concept. I suspect you actually DO, but since the most liberal sitting senator has not once ever risked ANYTHING, NEVER angered party bosses for the bipartisanship he now claims to represent, you'd rather fein ignorance. Obama is an ultra-liberal, uber-partisan phony.
When you get tired of the character assassination, try taking a look at McCain's career for a wide array of examples
Obama never had to risk anything because everyone knew where he stood on bipartisan relations in both state and US Senate. McCain had to make risks back in his early years because ever since Watergate, the Republican party has ALWAYS been extremely partisan against Democrats. But you keep ignoring all the facts I've brought up about how all the risks McCain may have taken are now meaningless due to his reversal on all the issues that alienated him from other conservatives in the first place.
Only Repubs are 'extremely partisan?' ROFL! So Naive!
Just RECENTLY, McCain supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, campaign finance & comprehensive immigration reform, even led the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations & supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
All of these have left wounds so wide his base campaigned with great intensity against his nomination. Contrast this with the reaction of the liberal base to Obama's.
Recently...Recently?? You act as if those things happened a week ago when in fact most of that happened well before he decided to campaign for president. The Gang of 14 was 4 years ago. I also don't think you read the part where stated the fact that McCain ABANDONED his OWN campaign finance reform legislation. The fact is that McCain voted in favor of Bush's position 95% of the time in 2007, and 100% of the time here in 2008. McCain's past record is meaningless now.
It was 2000 when McCain took a stand on gun conrtol, and fought with the NRA...now, in 2008, McCain has declined to cosponsor the very legislation that he once actively championed. Just thought I'd throw that out there too.
You go on posting your distortions of McCain's record (such as claiming the Gang of 14 was 4 years ago-guess you can't count-it was 2.5 years ago before running for prez, and trying to run against GWB instead of JC).
I'm still waiting for one reason to take Obama by his cheap, high sounding words in the midst of an election than his actions over his entire public career. I'm still looking for a reason to vote for a national security naif over one who has mastered the subject like few others.
You keep touting about how great McCain is, when he's proven to be nothing but a spineless coward when facing his own party to become president. He's backed down on EVERY issue you've ever given him merit for. Now he's flip-flopped on offshore drilling...something else McCain had, at one time, voted against. Don't make me laugh about McCain being a National Security master...he obviously has no solid stance on anything. Just another pandering fool trying to appease his party...It's sad really.
Of course he hasn't, just more of your overheated rhetoric. He hasn't flip flopped on offshore drilling, he adjusted to the current reality, which is that oil prices are rising too fast; if we don't start tapping our own oil soon an economic meltdown is right around the corner.
Something had to give, and he did. It's called leadership.
But you go right on beaming about the ideological rigidity of your candidate on Iraq (hasn't even been there in years), on oil, etc.
Yeah I guess you got me there...I was slightly incorrect on the timeline by about a year and a half. But that's kind of trivial since Gang of 14 is still NOT recent. You twisted it to sound as if it had happened yesterday, I was 100% correct on everything else. Obviously McCain's record, which you seem to hold on such a high pedestal, means absolutely nothing...and means nothing to even McCain himself since he's desecrated nearly every bit of bipartisan legislation he's ever worked on. Good Day.
You have a strangely brief sense of 'recent' politics. Anything less than 2 can be dismissed as presidential electioneering.
I'm not sure how I 'twisted it to sound as if it happened yesterday.' McCain's career in the senate has been 25 years long. I spoke only of things done in the last 5 or 6, especially since he became prominent on the national scene after the 2000 primaries.
Yeah and those past 25 years of experience are worth nothing now due to his complete reversal of everything from gun control to Roe vs Wade, . Sorry I won't elect someone who holds no moral center. Offshore drilling will give us about 2.5 years worth in oil reserves, but takes nearly 10 years to show any of that to actually kick in. Also, oil companies like to hang on to their drilling permits and not use them. That way they can keep prices up. It's a well documented fact.
lol the Mooslem sightings were funny this whole video was great satire but neocons wont understand it. lol the guy who was sure he would go hiking but pretty sure he wouldnt was funny
h jon benjamin behind the camera there.
supafly345 2 months ago
You can buy a Mooslem tactical survival kit at Wal-Mart for $39.95.
LRonnyHubbard 3 months ago
this is awsome
gears5336 6 months ago
OMG it's Jon Glaser!
UselessOpinion 6 months ago
damn filthy moooooooslems they're probably part cow pretty sure they worship them or sumtin
cunroth 6 months ago
nemo ghandi was actually a muslim... thats the ffunny part
mpc1mil 7 months ago
Freakin' scary man. Thanks for uploading this video. Everyone needs to know about this.
aroblesCG 7 months ago
The guy in the trees was Mahoomad.
flight1100 7 months ago
oh Yvgeny
mrnaji 7 months ago
@mrnaji and jon,,, that was jon glaser from delocated at the begining sans ski mask
SplinterCellFrever 7 months ago
I am Muslim and this is hilarious. They are not making fun of Muslims. They are making fun of the fear mongering politicians,the media and the idiots who fall in to this whole propagandistic way of dehumanizing Islam in order to make it OK to invade anyone's country at any given time just by saying..."We think they're terrorist Muslims hiding over there".
TruthNjection 9 months ago 6
@TruthNjection I am Muslim and I also concur that it is hilarious
mrnaji 7 months ago
The Mooslem of Boggy Creek. :)
37chk 9 months ago
21 people need to consult merriam and webster on the meaning of "satire"
pdzeller 10 months ago
Wow this video is actually real. Mooslems are an even bigger problem than I thought.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
It's MOOslem, morons. Moo. Moooooooooooooooooooooo.
Moo.
joynthis 1 year ago
I AM A MUSLIM AND I AM OFFENDED. LET'S SEE HOW FUNNY YOU ARE WHEN I BURN YOUR FAMILY ALALALALALAA
theedwardian 1 year ago
love how some ppl think this vid is 4 real =D
ruluffy 1 year ago 6
The Muslim threat to what..........stop shiting in your pants. All the atrocities against humans are carried out by the non - Muslims. Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia....there is a long list.
Abuhozaifa100 1 year ago
coming from a muslim, that was absolutely hilarious!
HaiderLaghari 1 year ago 4
funny video
frostedpornflakes 1 year ago
haha Amateur Hiker...
sheerterror77 1 year ago
"institute for American Freedom" LMAO
doomedelk 1 year ago 2
Lol I'm a Muslim... this is fucking hillarious
cycoboy817 1 year ago 7
"you know what?"
"no"
hahaha
persianchick28 1 year ago
2:39 on is great stuff
flashdance63 1 year ago
brilliant satire on the epidemic of fear surrounding a post 9/11 America... and also, just downright funny.
StrOcc 1 year ago
Eugene Mirman, H. John Benjamin, Jon Glaser... Awesome.
wikired 1 year ago
that was brilliant ...especially mirman.
woz240 1 year ago 3
This is really stooooopid.
Hope they didn't spend more than a buck on this garbage.
HillsoGold 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i just drank 12 beers in an hour........without throwin up......not cuz im drunk but be cuz.thats alote of beer............now in getttin drunk..........
lane83180 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I will... But I don't know... No. I won't.
bungbung13131 2 years ago 2
lol
JonBon70sBush 2 years ago
1. First of all this video is Super great. 'Mooslems. They're... umm... They....' Brilliant.
B. The posters below who dont get the comedy are even better. They highlight the comedy to an even shinier glint.
Anyone, whats the Hiker's real name? Hes great. Do you think you:ll ever go hiking again? I don't know. Probably... No...
Im going to answer all my future job interview questions like that from now on.
carlosgodoy1 2 years ago 6
Jon Glaser
normandale1987 2 years ago
i was expecting a cow because it was misspelled mooslem
moomoomeal 2 years ago
hahahaha :o)
oceanofloveandpeace2 2 years ago
Is that Jon Glaser at 0:26
RudeBoyOfTheBlock 2 years ago
nice work.
FunnyHaHaFunnyHaHa 2 years ago
"Institute of American Freedom"
There you go, Mirman!
Mirman's the man!
jakespick 2 years ago
Mooslems dont drink beer...
cm2dude 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
And according to South Park they're so pissed off because they got sand in the crack of their ass.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
i believe it was their vaginas.
The3rdPlateau 2 years ago
Im a reptilian. NOT.
cm2dude 2 years ago
I love how they shot from 0:25 - 1:11 like one of those sasquatch sighting videos, awesome satirical video
AcheroniD 2 years ago 4
Are people seriously dense enough to not realize this is satirical?
OrangeAppleSheep 2 years ago 32
@OrangeAppleSheep Social satire yesss
cycoboy817 1 year ago
.....they dont feel.... lol
punkre435 2 years ago 20
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
prevention552 2 years ago 2
no shit the first guy is real. thats what their making the video about. idiot...
Marinecorps711 2 years ago 2
I know this is a comedy bit but im pretty sure the very first guy is real.
pwgroh 2 years ago
its called comedy you stupid liberals lol
Marinecorps711 2 years ago
What? The people who made this video are liberals...
ThwartedVillainy 1 year ago
Maybe another hiker, maybe a coyote...
...But not a Mooslem.
Anon1696 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
America wants to build a world where Muslims are treated as subhuman animals, where as Islam calls to a world based on true worship of God and justice.
ozmanbro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Amen
AsianMageBros 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I could argue that bleeding-heart progressives want to turn a blind eye on all questionable Arab (not Muslim) activity, because they must have their own right to (one) religion. Ours of course being Christian/atheist (what's the difference?)
gnomos1 2 years ago
Big difference between Christianity and Atheism! Don't lump those two together.
andyrooney11 2 years ago 4
Oooooooooo! Them mooslems are everywhere!!! John McCain woulda put them in their place I tell ya what! lol
tracer740 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what the hell? mooslem, i mean look at that guy who has to get the info into evry1s head, he can't even finish a fucking sentence and the other guy with a shit haircuts like omg a "mooslem".
Yes theyre a different religion, that doesnt mean that theyre some aliens from another planet.
And also the guy with the shit haircut was like " and there was a mooslem in the woods"
dude, he could be a christian or jew or hindu, did you ask him for his life story before saying he was a "mooslem"?
afshanali123 2 years ago
your a fucking idiot
Quigleyallover 2 years ago
Comment removed
afshanali123 2 years ago
well at least im not stupid
Quigleyallover 2 years ago
Comment removed
afshanali123 2 years ago
so u just called yourself stupid. also im not ganna argue anny more because obviously your too thick headed to talk to. dumshit
Quigleyallover 2 years ago
Comment removed
afshanali123 2 years ago
i told you im not fighting anymore theres no point
Quigleyallover 2 years ago
it's satire...
thorgath13 2 years ago 6
hahahaaha, after reading all this, thorgath is the only person with the right mind. it's a satire you fuckin idiots! it's not supposed to be taken seriously! The guy in the middle was a comedian, EUGENE MIRMAN. this is 23/6, a pseudo news agency.
fuckin idiots. HAHAHHAHA
strokesfan1107 2 years ago 3
this video is a joke. lighten up dood
arugula121 2 years ago 3
Dude, you are a retarded chimp. Those guys are all comedians! I repeat: THOSE GUYS ARE ALL COMEDIANS! It's a satirical video. People like you should be banned from society for being too stupid
evlmnkybtr 2 years ago 2
awesome
Solarees 3 years ago 2
Everyone knows that Mooslems don't drink beer!
survivalofone 3 years ago 3
Eugene Mirman, marry me.
violentviolet13 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
what is a "MoOslUm"?
wait can anyone tell me if they are trying to say muslim and not mooslim?
it's like moose-lum... wtf?
darkrid3r372 3 years ago
wow... dude. Just wow.
TheBarroomHero321 3 years ago 2
lol, mooslems
I think you'll find the rise of the "mooslems" was about 1500 years ago
Bucketheadhead 3 years ago 2
OMG SO WE'RE ''MOOSLEMS NOW'' HAHAHAHAH WOW it's like we have this paranormal effect on people, just walk by and they're all like OH F*** OMG DID YOU SEE THAT? IT WAS A MUSLIM!!!!! LOL!!
SSJRMPP 3 years ago
wtf is a mooslem
aznsoulja007 3 years ago
a muslim.... islamic.....
strokesfan1107 2 years ago
ROFL!!! This is awesome.
Techory 3 years ago
That was great.
galaxyrock 3 years ago
hahahahah
I am a Muslim, and this was hilarious. :D :D
Pugnate 3 years ago 6
I heard Sarah Palin must be a secret mooselim too.
jakobfrederik 3 years ago
This is why America needs to cut down all thems trees... So that we can catch all them Mooslem Turrists lurken about in our Forests, plotting their acts... acts of Terrer.
sheerterror77 3 years ago 5
Terrier.
The Mooselems and the Terriers are going to INVADE!
Sam111111 3 years ago
haha that's so hilarious that he pauses and they cut him off in mid-sentence!
scarter180 3 years ago
Lmao, i looooooovvvveee how he can't even say what Mooslims do and stuff :D
venuss3333 3 years ago 4
"I'm pretty sure I will, but.. Yeah I'm pretty sure I will. But I also don't know.. no, I wont"
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha
fooshfoosh 3 years ago 6
Ha ha ha, that guy is so funny. Great acting you guys.
jonasnilaus 3 years ago
I've honestly never laughed so hard at a YouTube video.
BoxCubeSquare 3 years ago 6
you know where i get my news and information? youtube comment arguments.
edsulvan42 3 years ago 2
"2Halifaxion2," perhaps you should take a deep breath and watch more of that 'mainstream' media.
chrisbord 3 years ago
I dont watch the mainstream media, I study it. Did you even go to the website?
Are you seriously unaware of the centralization of information that is our mainstream media? The idiot box is lying to you, and the newspapers are slowly being bought up by, yes, corporations.
And as far as 9/11 is concerned, if you havent read the 9/11 commission report for yourself, and any other book on the subject, just go ahead and admit that you have no business even claiming to have an educated opinion on it
2Halifaxion2 3 years ago
No, instead, he'll believe someone yelling at him ON THE INTERNET.
Sam111111 3 years ago
hey its the internet, thats what its for, anonymous yelling and such. You cant really have in depth discussions on youtube. Im not telling him to believe me either. Just look into stuff he hasnt looked into.
2Halifaxion2 3 years ago
A mooslem drinking beer?
VoteNixon2008 3 years ago 2
Haha! Funniest thing .. this morning
batukhan 3 years ago
chrisbord,
You've got no arguing point left(especially if all you have is what you repeat from the right-wing National Review), and you keep circling around the same bullshit. Go vote for your little Bush puppet. I'm going to vote for my candidate with the funny sounding name. I'm done with you.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
It's National *Journal*, not National Review (sorry I misspoke this time tho I've stated National *Journal* several times before here, to you). Since you've not countered ONE 'point' I've made, only embarrased yourself with your childlike political knowledge, diversionary smears, and regurgitation of propoganda points instead of any serious display of knowledge.
I'll go vote for my hyper qualified candidate with a record of selfless leadership, you go vote for your empty suit.
chrisbord 3 years ago
McCain has no qualifications, and no executive experience. Crashing your plane and being a POW doesn't make you qualified. He has legislative experience, but that means nothing when running for president (a completely different government branch).
phoenixatom 3 years ago
The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. McCain has no qualifications? Do you realize how silly you sound?
chrisbord 3 years ago
He has no more EXECTUtIVE experience, or EXECUTIVE qualifications than Obama. Legislative experience means next to nothing when you're talking about a completely different branch of government. That was my point, and it obviously went over your head. Being a Senator is not the same as being President. So any qualifications YOU think he has in regards to this are meaningless. Now he may have hung around Washington longer than Obama, but not in the Executive Branch...which is what counts.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
The National Review is doing the same thing they did in 2003 to John Kerry, rushing out a bogus statement about how the Democratic candidate is the most liberal senator of that year, and I proved them wrong using many different sources that counted his actual voting record and compared it to that of other senators.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
woops,I meant the National Journal...yeah looks like it's hard to tell the two apart. One's a more respectable conservative journal, but neither are liberal.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Of course the National Journal is liberal. But it matters not, they are at the very least middle of the road JOURNALISTS. It's far fetched to put more accuracy on conservative PAC's rating than on the NJ's.
chrisbord 3 years ago
National Journal is not liberal. They aren't as nasty and ignorant as the National review, but they're point of view is certainly leaning more to the right than left. I'll go so far as to say they can have moderate views on some things...bordering on the objective, but their perspective is still quite conservative.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
The fact that you think the National Journal is not left leaning only shows how far to the left you are.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Shows how far to the right YOU are.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Uh-huh. Well this has been fun. I'd really like to debate you further but YT is just such a poor forum for it, and I'm pretty convinced of your inability to enter into a reasoned discussion. You have the last word.
chrisbord 3 years ago
I just think its hilarious how far to the right ALL American politics are compared to Canadian. Your democrats are our conservatives.
CaptainKaddywhak 3 years ago
chrisboard the fact that you even forayed into the left right paradigm shows how much fucking mainstream media you watch...
stop watching, start analyzing, your country is being ripped apart by liberals and conservatives, two factions of the giant mafia scheme that you are hopelessley unaware of.
your dollar is worth shit, the president is a criminal, and the speaker of the house is a cannot-do who pretends to oppose criminality.
and 9/11 was an inside job..patriotsquestion911(dot)com
2Halifaxion2 3 years ago
hey i think i got a free dvd from you or someone associated with that website, in boston, two years ago, i got a dvd
asszzes 3 years ago
thats cool man, that website says a lot to the skeptics (reasonable to be skeptical, its what I consider myself) that mindlessly dismiss information. Authority speaks volumes, when the authority is justified. I am not associated with any group however.
2Halifaxion2 3 years ago
1) ACLU is a higly liberal organization.
2) Look at the 'recent' numbers, as I stated.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Not the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)...they're pretty liberal.
I said the ACU (American Conservative Union)... America's oldest Conservative Lobbying Organization. They're anything but liberal.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
So who do you trust more, one of America's oldest LOBBYING organizations, or a bunch of you know, JOURNALISTS? Funny that you'd reach there to find facts you prefer ;).
BTW, you've been bashing McCain for days now because he's changed his tone on gun control during an election year, a 'slimeball' who'd 'lost all integrity.' But just yesterday Obama who has been even more extreme than McCain on the subject joined him in lockstep. Guess you won't be voting for that 'slimeball' either, eh?
chrisbord 3 years ago
Sounds to me like one of those 'high risk' bipartisan moves you were touting about. He still supports a ban on concealed weapons, assault weapons.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
"Sounds to me like one of those 'high risk' bipartisan moves you were touting about"
ROFLMAO. I knew you'd say something that stupid. Here's a few hints: 1) it has to have actual *risk* behind it, 2) it has to be something he has to put up his hand and be counted on (and have a realistic possibility of becoming law), and (and you're gonna love this one) 3) it has to be more than campaign year rhetoric.
Guess by your definition, all McCain's 'slimy' moves this year have been heroic! LOL!
chrisbord 3 years ago
You're an idiot. If I say Obama is doing something Bipartisan, you say it's typical politician tricks...If I say McCain's tarnished his own record with flip-flops you say he's its an election year. McCain has done nothing that has really risked his own career...maybe put him at odds with his own party on a few issues, but that's not a real risk. In any case, none of that bears ANY meaning when it comes to executive decision making, and experience. Something of which NEITHER candidate has ANY.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
I cited the ACU because they are the backbone of conservative thinking, and are well known for ranking senators on their conservative views. I figured that a union comprised of the originators of the conservative way of life would have the best view of how conservative McCain is supposed to be. It's better to get perspective from a group that is right there at the heart of the conservative movement, than get information from a source that is more distant, and possibly skewed in their views.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
You cited ACU because they are the only ones you could find who produced a stat you liked. More to the point, that is the same point some web site or some other blogger (or equally blind supporter of your particlar candidate) used to defend the most liberal sitting senator.
*I* already cited the National Review (a respected liberal journal), so the excuse that you were simply trying to find a source I would trust doesn't hold water.
Right wing lobbyists or left leaning journalists..hmm...
chrisbord 3 years ago
The national review is NOT liberal, they are in the same league with Fox News...a bunch of Neo-Con nationalists spinning bullshit that alters the facts to meet their own interests.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
It's hard to call the National Review a "respected Liberal journal" when they've employed people like Ann Coulter...and were founded by William F. Buckley (a well known conservative commentator).
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Sorry, I've said this several time, but this time I misspoke. That's "National Journal," not "National Review." There goes the wind out of your sails.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Obama pretty new as a US Senator, but he has been bipartisan in this short time, and he wants to continue to be even more so as president. On the other hand you have McCain, who is gearing himself up more and more to be Bush's 3rd term. I'd argue this point, but McCain does all the arguing for me.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Obama's been in the national Senate I think 4 years now, and had 8 years in the Illinois senate before then. That's nearly half of McCain's 25 years in the national senate.
I've named just a few of the several instances just in the last 7 years where John McCain infuriated his base, or bucked his leadership in a potentially career ending way. Apparently John McCain CAN. For Barak Obama it's been twelve years of 'No, I Can't!!'
chrisbord 3 years ago
lol, and you still go around in circles about how awesome McCain was no more recent that about 2 years ago...well a lot has changed in McCain since his "risky" days as a Senator. He's playing ball right in line with the Bush administration, and turned his back on all 25 years of his career to try and kiss the far right's ass. He's thrown out just about every bit of his own legislation that you claim made him risk his career..of which I've named several.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Circles? WTF? Well, my head IS still spinning after you discarded everything I just explained to you to cling to the safe old 'flip flopper' smear. I've explained how all politicians McCain and Obama included, become especially full of shit during campaign season.
No doubt, once the election is over and no matter who wins, both candidates will reset to their pre-election personas: Obama the uber-partisan, wimpy leftist hack, and McCain the middle of the road straight talking 'maverick.'
chrisbord 3 years ago
No smear here, just the cold hard truth that you won't accept. McCain is a right wing bitch. Obama hasn't changed his message since he started campaigning.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
If you're just going to keep coming back to his now meaningless record as a US Senator, then you have nothing else to argue over. You go ahead and vote for your 3rd Bush term meat puppet, and I'll vote for my rookie candidate with the funny name.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Yeah, records are 'meaningless.' ROFL. I that's a necessary position for an Obama support.
BTW 'right wing bitch'?? Putting aside the childishness of that particlar name calling, you DO realize McCain's most recent 'conservative' rating is 60%? And the American people were polled very recently at 62%? That puts McCain to the LEFT of the American people, and makes them, in your words, 'right wing bitches!' LOL!
chrisbord 3 years ago
There you go with that spin of yours...The ACU (American Conservative Union) rated McCain currently at 82.3%.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
There's also a HUGE difference between considering yourself a conservative, and right wing nut jobs like the Bush administration who have ADMITTED to deceiving the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq. I won't vote for someone who believes we should stay in Iraq indefinitely...I also didn't vote for a flip-flopper in 2004, and I sure as hell won't vote for one in 2008.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Go ahead and keep calling all the FACTS I've stated about McCain's trashing of his own Senate record a smear...it doesn't make them any less true. :)
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Obama worked with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn on the Coburn-Obama bill. The bill set up a database that tracks where federal dollars are being spent and which contractors receive federal funding.
Obama worked with Republican Sen. Dick Lugar to get the Lugar-Obama bill passed. The bill enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.
These two examples sound pretty bipartisan.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
"These two examples sound pretty bipartisan."
As I said, pick any senator and they can name a host of such token bills where they acted in a bipartisan way on something utterly noncontroversial. National Review, a respected liberal journal, rated Obama the most liberal sitting senator NOT because of his ability to work across the aisle (much less put his own bacon on the line to do so), but because he voted as far from his Republican colleagues as possible more often than any other Democrat.
chrisbord 3 years ago
ACTUALLY, Obama is rated the 40th most liberal according to his legislation record. Further more, He may not have a lot of experience as a US Senator, but he has more total elected office experience than Reagan, and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Experience matters little. McCain has thrown his credibility away by turning his back on every single issue that had him labeled him the "maveric" republican. He's now just an ass puppet for the Bush administration...and I won't vote for a 3rd Bush term.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
ACTUALLY, National Review rated him the MOST liberal and they, unlike you, had no reason to 'parse' the truth. Such as when you point out Obama had more elected office experience than Ronald Reagan. Virtually all that experience is in the state senate and none of it is execute. Ronald Reagan had already earned his reputation as the greatest chief executive in the history of the most populated state in the union before running for president. Experience MATTERS. Look at our current president.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Neither of these examples sound out of the ordinary for any senator, and none entailed any political risk whatsoever.
chrisbord 3 years ago
McCain is now nothing more than a backbiter, a flip-flopper, and a crook that takes soft money from lobbyists and special interest PACs...something which he himself used to condemn. He's surrounded himself with big oil executives, and key members of Bush's administration. He's not the "straight talk" candidate that he was 8 years ago. McCain is nothing more than Bush meat puppet.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
I'll ask this again since you didn't have the balls to answer the first time. Now that Obama has joined McCain in flip flopping on the guns issue (after a career of hard left anti-2nd amendment behavior and speechifying he wanted all guns bannded), is Obama now a 'slimeball' politician that you'd 'never vote for?'
Just looking for the same standards. OR is your faith in your Messiah unshakeable, no matter what he does, unaccountable to the standards of mere mortals?
chrisbord 3 years ago
First off...you can stop right there. He never said he wanted all guns banned. No one, not republican or democrat is for overturning the 2nd amendment. Get that out of your Neo-Con skull. He IS for a stronger ban on concealed weapons, and a ban on assault weapons (like I stated before)...which I agree with. He basically agreed with the supreme court in stating that the law was unconstitutional, but added that responsible gun control needed to be further pursued (referring to my point above).
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Yeah...all handguns anyway. Check his Illinois legislative. He supported a bill to ban all handguns. A little homework for you.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Concealed weapons are not just handguns.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Here's a hint. The legislation "ban[ned] the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns". Not just concealed. And when asked about the D.C. ban which just went down in flames, Obama has multiple times in the last year said he supported the ban.
If you had any integrity at all, you'd apply your own words now against Obama: "that 'slimeball' has totally flip flopped and sold his soul. I would never vote for such a person." LOL!
Can you say HYPOCRACY!
chrisbord 3 years ago
Well since now all you have is name calling, and attempts to insult me. The only thing close to him saying he supported it was that he said he supported an individual community's right to regulate how they handle ILLEGAL handgun use. This includes stronger background checks, and abilities to better trace how these guns are getting to people who shouldn't have them (criminals, mentally ill, etc).
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Did originally say he supported it? Yes, and no. Like you said about all 10 or so of the many different issues where McCain has completely discredited his own past 'accomplishments'. It's an election year, and he's allowed to "adjust to the current reality". Only this time Obama didn't actually say anything contradictory to himself. He, like the vast majority the Democrats, didn't challenge the courts. There's no argument to be had here.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
McCain thinks he can push this issue into the limelight as a major campaign topic(as though most citizens care about it) to overshadow everything else that he can't seem to gain any ground on. I bet if Obama had gone against the grain and said that he wanted to keep guns away from terrorists, McCain would most likely then have to say that terrorism isn't a big enough threat. I guarantee he actually would, and I would laugh all they way to November.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Now who's the one with child-like knowledge of the facts? You distort every point I make...typical right-wing, Fox News loving bullshit. Your faith in your precious McCain is so skewed it's unbelievable. I tell you loads of TRUE FACTS, and you put your best spin on saying their propaganda, and smear attacks. By the way nice try in backtracking on the National Review. I still countered your false attempt at saying Obama was the #1 liberal senator. I sited from many different sources that he's #40
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Ah, TRUE FACTS. Ok, you win. All this time I was assuming you were citing FALSE facts. Now you've made it clear. ROFL.
chrisbord 3 years ago
lol, then why all the spin saying everything I've states is political smearing, and false propaganda? ...ahh, that's right...because you're full of shit.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
BTW, phoenixatom, you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again (this makes twice):
Can you name one instance where Barak Obama ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for himself? Just one. I can name several for McCain.
chrisbord 3 years ago
As an Illinois state senator he reached across the table on several issues. One in particular was his ability to gain bipartisan support for legislation that would reform ethics and health care. He sponsored a law that would increase tax credits for low income workers. He was also co-chairman of a bi-partisan committee that supported the Republican Illinois Governor's payday loan regulations, as well as predatory mortgage lending regulations. I haven't even tapped into his time in US Senate.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Ok, MOST senators can take several years and name several things they were (usually peripherally) involved in that involved working w/ the other side. That's extremely common and means very litle. Even the senator rated the most liberal sitting senator by National Review, Barak Obama, can do this.
I'll ask the question again since you didn't quite grasp (3 times):
Can you name 1 instance where Barak Obama ever worked across the aisle in a way that entailed a political RISK for HIMSELF?
chrisbord 3 years ago
You're obviously going to try and spin every point I make, which is rediculous. You see McCain as this big savior of humanity, even though he is just as crooked a politician as any. Obama, while an inexperienced US Senator, has cultivated a great amount of bipartisan support for someone so new. He's worked directly with Republican Senators on many different issues, but you will choose to ignore that or blow over it like it's nothing. McCain is NOT them man he used to be back in the 80s and 90s.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
"You see McCain as this big savior of humanity, even though he is just as crooked a politician as any"
Weird comment. I've stated multiple times he's no such thing & have only tried to correct your uninformed attempts at character assassination.
I've asked several times ONE instance where Barak ever worked across the aisle in a way that entailed a political RISK for HIMSELF. You can't provide one, instead falling back on the day to day 'bipartisan' stuff every senator can list with ease.
chrisbord 3 years ago
I obviously don't see what you mean by "risk to himself". I do know that any good that McCain might have done in the past is now destroyed due to his flip-flopping on almost all of the stances that had once alienated him from his own republican party. He's against wealthy tax cuts at one moment, and then for them. He's an advocate for Roe vs Wade, and then claims to reject it. McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Also, in 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In Aprilof this year, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
If you don't know what 'risk to his own political career' means, noone can explain it to you; it's too simple a concept. I suspect you actually DO, but since the most liberal sitting senator has not once ever risked ANYTHING, NEVER angered party bosses for the bipartisanship he now claims to represent, you'd rather fein ignorance. Obama is an ultra-liberal, uber-partisan phony.
When you get tired of the character assassination, try taking a look at McCain's career for a wide array of examples
chrisbord 3 years ago
Obama never had to risk anything because everyone knew where he stood on bipartisan relations in both state and US Senate. McCain had to make risks back in his early years because ever since Watergate, the Republican party has ALWAYS been extremely partisan against Democrats. But you keep ignoring all the facts I've brought up about how all the risks McCain may have taken are now meaningless due to his reversal on all the issues that alienated him from other conservatives in the first place.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Only Repubs are 'extremely partisan?' ROFL! So Naive!
Just RECENTLY, McCain supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, campaign finance & comprehensive immigration reform, even led the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations & supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
All of these have left wounds so wide his base campaigned with great intensity against his nomination. Contrast this with the reaction of the liberal base to Obama's.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Recently...Recently?? You act as if those things happened a week ago when in fact most of that happened well before he decided to campaign for president. The Gang of 14 was 4 years ago. I also don't think you read the part where stated the fact that McCain ABANDONED his OWN campaign finance reform legislation. The fact is that McCain voted in favor of Bush's position 95% of the time in 2007, and 100% of the time here in 2008. McCain's past record is meaningless now.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
It was 2000 when McCain took a stand on gun conrtol, and fought with the NRA...now, in 2008, McCain has declined to cosponsor the very legislation that he once actively championed. Just thought I'd throw that out there too.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
You go on posting your distortions of McCain's record (such as claiming the Gang of 14 was 4 years ago-guess you can't count-it was 2.5 years ago before running for prez, and trying to run against GWB instead of JC).
I'm still waiting for one reason to take Obama by his cheap, high sounding words in the midst of an election than his actions over his entire public career. I'm still looking for a reason to vote for a national security naif over one who has mastered the subject like few others.
chrisbord 3 years ago
You keep touting about how great McCain is, when he's proven to be nothing but a spineless coward when facing his own party to become president. He's backed down on EVERY issue you've ever given him merit for. Now he's flip-flopped on offshore drilling...something else McCain had, at one time, voted against. Don't make me laugh about McCain being a National Security master...he obviously has no solid stance on anything. Just another pandering fool trying to appease his party...It's sad really.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
Of course he hasn't, just more of your overheated rhetoric. He hasn't flip flopped on offshore drilling, he adjusted to the current reality, which is that oil prices are rising too fast; if we don't start tapping our own oil soon an economic meltdown is right around the corner.
Something had to give, and he did. It's called leadership.
But you go right on beaming about the ideological rigidity of your candidate on Iraq (hasn't even been there in years), on oil, etc.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Yeah I guess you got me there...I was slightly incorrect on the timeline by about a year and a half. But that's kind of trivial since Gang of 14 is still NOT recent. You twisted it to sound as if it had happened yesterday, I was 100% correct on everything else. Obviously McCain's record, which you seem to hold on such a high pedestal, means absolutely nothing...and means nothing to even McCain himself since he's desecrated nearly every bit of bipartisan legislation he's ever worked on. Good Day.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
You have a strangely brief sense of 'recent' politics. Anything less than 2 can be dismissed as presidential electioneering.
I'm not sure how I 'twisted it to sound as if it happened yesterday.' McCain's career in the senate has been 25 years long. I spoke only of things done in the last 5 or 6, especially since he became prominent on the national scene after the 2000 primaries.
chrisbord 3 years ago
Yeah and those past 25 years of experience are worth nothing now due to his complete reversal of everything from gun control to Roe vs Wade, . Sorry I won't elect someone who holds no moral center. Offshore drilling will give us about 2.5 years worth in oil reserves, but takes nearly 10 years to show any of that to actually kick in. Also, oil companies like to hang on to their drilling permits and not use them. That way they can keep prices up. It's a well documented fact.
phoenixatom 3 years ago
jesus christ... more of this shit in response to a comedy skit? fuck... who cares????????
HAETE 3 years ago 3
GOLD
psyentist420 3 years ago
Thank GOD Gulliani will not be our next president.
SmashThSilence 3 years ago
lol the Mooslem sightings were funny this whole video was great satire but neocons wont understand it. lol the guy who was sure he would go hiking but pretty sure he wouldnt was funny
PriaNorm 3 years ago
Nice sparring with you - God Bless!
JTRUSA 3 years ago