It's satire you nutcakes! You see, there was this YouTube video made where this "guy" screams at the camera begging people, the media and the paparazzi to Please leave Brittney Alone! that was HUGELY popular, like 10 gazabillion hits, and it was at the top of the charts for weeks...

Oh never mind. You conservatives are so frigging lame when it comes to the internet. Go ask a teenager about the "Leave Brittney Alone" guy... this is just a takeoff on that meme.

Further proof that the liberals have nothing on you "New Republicans" when it comes to immaturity. When you left you your former party, I wish you had left your tactics behind as well.

Funny parody on the Britney Spears video.

But guys, really, Fox News knows it revealed a bias when they invited the last place Fred Thompson and Julie Annie and not Ron Paul for that event.

Julie Annie will get Florida, NY and NJ and that is all. Only NY is winner take all so Julie Annie goes to the convention next September with no more than 200 delegates.

McInsane, the Democrat, will get about 400 delegates from a number of wins that won't be big delegate rake-ins.

Ron Paul will have about 124 delegates at the convention. So will Romney.

So we will have a brokered convention. And Ron Paul has the money to convince Republicans to prefer him over the others long before the convention happens.

So...funny video, but Ron Paul supporters are military and business professionals, so it only amounts to a funny video.

Usually, blogging endomorphs like "Ace" have a vast mental library of pop culture trivia catalogued for easy reference, to steer conversations away from anyone enquiring, "Are you gay or what?" in social settings, and to demonstrate one good characteristic like game show-winning ability.

Yet "Ace" falls for the 99th satire of the "Leave Britney Alone" video that (like Lee says) has been seen by everyone on Earth and in earth orbit and if there's life on Mars.

It was linked far beyond youtube, but since porn sites stay on topic like lasers, "Ace" would have missed it.

Why isn't "Ace" in Iraq, again? He's perfect cannon fodder.

Oh, yeah!

Go Ron Paul!

"but Ron Paul supporters are military and business professionals, so it only amounts to a funny video.3. Posted by Jim Peterson "

They refuse to believe it. It shorts their circuits. BTW "Ace" previously posted a Fantasy of himself beating up Ron Paul. Very detailed, blow by blow. Worth searching for its bathos.
Of course, in real life RP would hip throw Ace and Ace would be drawing SSI. Would conveniently switch to Democratic party.

Jim Peterson - "But guys, really, Fox News knows it revealed a bias when they invited the last place Fred Thompson and Julie Annie and not Ron Paul for that event."

What kind of bias is Fox News showing by allowing him in tonights debates.

Or each time he has been a guest on H&C. OR for that matter, the Bill O'Reilly show.

You PaulBots need to gst a life. Preferably somewhere within this universe.

I agree that Fox News is coming around. But your parody was based on the outcry that has now caused them to come around. So what is your point?

Anyway, here is an interesting topic to blog about: Hillary Clinton, as a man-hating feminist, may soon be the Dem nominee:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/

Now who among the Republican candidates can stand up to radical feminism?

The answer is Ron Paul, who is the only one who has voted against radical feminist laws like VAWA and IMBRA. Huckleberry has a radical feminist "evangelical" as a top campaign advisor. Her name is Janice Cherry.

And, yes, Fox is for Hillary. That is why Fox wants the public to believe that every American male is a sex offender until proven otherwise (the reason for laws like IMBRA, etc).

Leave it to rightwing bloggers to be utterly clueless about the most common phenomena on their own medium. I'm not all that surprised in Jim's case, as he's unfamiliar even with recent elections he extensively wrote about, but I thought Ace was a bit more clued in.

If someone showed them this, they'd probably wonder why all Ron Paul supporters are cats with bad grammar. ;)

By the way, I support Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I am for Ron Paul anyway.

Why? Because he is the only candidate, besides Fred Thompson, who would not openly bow to feminists and more regulation of men (see also www.mensnewsdaily.com and www.onlinedatingrights.com).

But even Fred Thompson would probably allow many of the Bush Administration feminists to keep their jobs at the Justice Dept and Homeland Security.

Both the Clintons and the Bushies (collectively called Neocons) are bad news for relations with the Muslims and Russia, where radical feminism is not admired to say the least. I live in Russia and Hillary just seriously blew it with most Russians with her rude comment that Russia's popular president "has no soul".

When Ron Paul talks about non-interventionism, he is not just talking about American men dying so Iraqi women can get the right to sue Iraqi men for sex harrassment, he is also talking about major foreign aid programs designed to socially reengineer the world into being the way feminist-socialist-neocons like Bush and Clinton want it to be.

Once someone understands that Bush/Clinton is the same thing, one no longer disrespects the use of the word "neocon" or what they may have previously referred to as "conspiracy theories" regarding the CFR or the Bilderbergs the details of which are beside the point.

That being said, I am for OIF and I believe the surge worked.

Vote for Ron Paul to stop the global feminist conspiracy? That's a first.

Ok, so here's the lesson. Jim Peterson = Ron Paul nutcase, "Leave Ron Paul Alone!" video = satire.

No, it is not a first. Are you a Republican and heterosexual male?

Remember 10 years ago Republicans were condemning feminism by name? The whole point was that they did not WANT equality, but control and regulation of male behavior.

That was what being a male Republican was all about back then. We certainly did not identify as "conservatives" because we liked war. You may be young, but ten years ago Republican males were not on the side of women who falsely accused men of rape, abuse or sex harrassment (see Duke Lacross players case).

Now the politicians won't even go after "radical feminism" in any of their speeches. They think that anything the NOW says is something that women want. More likely, they are scared of the dirty tricks the NOW plays on politicians who don't do what they say (sex allegation threats are so easy to set up, for instance by having a beautiful woman seduce a married Senator and then tell him nicely to vote the way she says).

Have you heard any of the current candidates condemn the NOW? You won't. Even Ron Paul won't talk about it, but he at least has a record of voting against anything they want.

What exactly is your opinion of www.mensnewsdaily.com?

Republicans who call men nut-cases for sticking up for their rights are going to be in a world of hurt when they are removed from any influence in the Republican Party (after the current pro-feminist Bush Administration is completey deconstructed).

Jim Peterson - "But your parody was based on the outcry that has now caused them to come around. So what is your point?"

Come around? From what? If you hadn't noticed ALL the H&C and O'Reilly Paul appearances occurred well before any controversy arose over him being excluded from last weeks debate.

And I'll ask you...what is YOUR point? (Other than putting on display your shiny foil hat I mean)

You have not been watching Fox News and listening to Hannity on the radio if you did not notice that Hannity finally "came around" on January 3rd in a radio interview with Ron Paul.

Hannity finally started to say that he agreed with much of Ron Paul's platform except for the War on Terror (WOT).

Then, stupidly, a bunch of louts harrassed Hannity in Manchester a few days later.

You must agree, along with 90% of Republicans, that Murdoch or Moody made a mistake by excluding RP from a NH forum where Julie Annie had just been badly beaten by RP in Iowa and Thompson was about to be badly beaten by RP in New Hampshire.

He is in the SC debate tonight because Fox News got a ton of bad press (I won't comment on what happened to their stock price because all stocks took a beating in the past week).

Please leave the "tin foil" ad hominems for real left wingers...like McCain.

Jim Peterson - "You must agree, along with 90% of Republicans, that Murdoch or Moody made a mistake by excluding RP from a NH forum where Julie Annie had just been badly beaten by RP in Iowa and Thompson was about to be badly beaten by RP in New Hampshire."

Um no, my connection to reality is much to strong for that. Paul should have been excluded long ago as nothing but a puff of air in a balloon, a non-entity, an asterisk on the 2008 election who doesn't have and NEVER had a whiff of a chance to win anything.

I also believe he and his slack-minded kindred spirit Dennis Kucinich will never again hold a public office higher than dog snatcher as a result of the mass exposure both have received.

Are you a Republican and heterosexual male?

No and yes (and no, I'm not a Democrat either).

Remember 10 years ago Republicans were condemning feminism by name?

I do, but that was before they discovered the greater efficacy of denouncing teh ghey.

The whole point was that they did not WANT equality, but control and regulation of male behavior.

The point of the anti-feminists was to claim that's what feminists want, yes. Yet feminists do in fact want equality.

That was what being a male Republican was all about back then.

Well, that and hating Clinton, yes.

You may be young, but ten years ago Republican males were not on the side of women who falsely accused men of rape, abuse or sex harrassment (see Duke Lacross players case).

They aren't on the side of such women now, and as it became clear that the accuser in that case was full of shit, she and Nifong were certainly not supported by Republican men.

Now the politicians won't even go after "radical feminism" in any of their speeches.

Gee, I wonder if there might be more important things to talk about than that particular political boogeyman.

More likely, they are scared of the dirty tricks the NOW plays on politicians who don't do what they say (sex allegation threats are so easy to set up, for instance by having a beautiful woman seduce a married Senator and then tell him nicely to vote the way she says).

Hilarious. Republican congressmen are voting on the side of feminists because they have been blackmailed by NOW-affiliated temptresses. You are a nutcase.

Have you heard any of the current candidates condemn the NOW?

I almost never hear anyone talk about NOW, positively or negatively. Their political clout is not exactly overwhelming nowadays.

What exactly is your opinion of www.mensnewsdaily.com?

Never visited it before now, but I'm familiar with some of the writers. Seems like misogyny crackpot central (Carey Roberts!).

Republicans who call men nut-cases for sticking up for their rights are going to be in a world of hurt when they are removed from any influence in the Republican Party (after the current pro-feminist Bush Administration is completey deconstructed).

The Bush administration will simply move out of office in January 2009; it will not be "deconstructed" (by the way, the origin of the word "deconstruct" comes from the coining of deconstruction by Jacques Derrida, whose writings laid much of the groundwork for modern feminism. The irony!).

Anyway, out of curiosity, what rights have you lost because of feminists? Be specific.

And bTW - "You have not been watching Fox News and listening to Hannity on the radio if you did not notice that Hannity finally "came around" on January 3rd in a radio interview with Ron Paul."

So it's your contention Fox has only "come around" (whatever the hell that means) since the exclusion controversy started over last weeks debate.

To "prove" that you cite a radio program of recent vintage.

However, how do you explain Paul's INCLUSION in the Fox hosted and moderated debate in FLA last October?

Then, stupidly, a bunch of louts harrassed Hannity in Manchester a few days later.

No doubt they were feminists posing as Paul supporters.

mantis - "You are a nutcase."

Slow learner aren't you?

Sorry, I couldn't resist, but really spot on analysis.

You are willfully hiding your head in the sand. I agree with Sean Hannity that, except for the foreign policy, Ron Paul is the only candidate talking sense (Thompson is cool but he doesn't seem to understand that, if elected, he would have to fire most of the Bushies).

Ron Paul's 8% of Republicans are not going to allow one of the other nominees to win in the general unless they talk up the Constitution a lot more.

What is your problem with the Constitution? Is it that you word-associate it with the loons who want terrorists released from Guantanamo?

The US Constitution says nothing about Guatanamo.

So are you thinking that, because you and I agree with wiretapping, the only thing Ron Paul is talking about is wiretapping being bad?

You wish.

I could only wish that the only Constitutional violations going on were wiretapping and some needed torture of some really bad terrorists.

But we are talking here about wholesale Internet regulation including the requirement of everyone to identify themselves and be background checked before communicating with anyone else on the Internet. We are talking about having to prove your age by credit card in order to see 20% of Internet websites including anything that mentions the word sex.

We are talking about stopping the Nanny State, a conservative policy that girly-men like McCain and Bush and Romney have no clue how to stop and won't even talk about.

Heck...please go to www.freerepublic.com where at least the majority are for Fred Thompson.

Sure a lot of FReepers hate Ron Paul as well, but mostly only because of the foreign policy that I, myself, don't agree with.

8% of Republicans are not going to allow one of the other nominees to win

Jim, you don't seem to grasp how this whole voting thing works.

Yes I do. If Republicans and Democrats would otherwise be polling 45% to 45% next October (assuming an acceptable Republican candidate), then, with an unnacceptable Republican candidate, the polling will more likely be as follows:

Democrat 40%
Republican 25%
Ron Paul 20%

Keep in mind that many Romney supporters will not back McCain and so on, etc.

About feminist laws that take away our civil rights? The Democrat male was not reading?

IMBRA forces foreign women to no longer be allowed to decide their own level of security in giving out their contact information. Instead the US federal government can force them to sign an affidavit that they have read the criminal background check of any American male (but not Saudi male) who wants to just say hello or chat online.

That violates the Right to Assemble.

Check out www.onlinedatingrights.com for that.

Only Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo voted against that among Republicans.

Nobody has ever won an argument online defending that law.

As well, VAWA (the new iteration thereof) makes the Duke Lacrosse fiasco look like child's play. VAWA makes men into second class citizens if they are accused by a woman of domestic abuse...which could include raising a voice or hiding the car keys.

More on that can be found at www.mediaradar.org.

You are not going to find discussion of feminism on the MSM much these days because the NOW basically won (and no, it is only a theory that they have blackmailed certain individuals, but not an outlandish theory when you see guys like Larry Craig voting for all the laws lobbyists wanted him to vote for).

On Neil Cavuto, every Friday you can see Marc Rudov debating a feminist. This is a new development. More than 70% of viewers of Fox News vote for Marc as having won each of the debates. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is correct that Republican politicians have long since bowed completely to feminists and will NOT defend the rights of males where feminist laws are concerned.

JP - "Ron Paul is the only candidate talking sense..."

Ya mean like shifting back to the Gold Standard? A standard EVERY other country that used it abandoned the practice. A standard that is impossible because if all the gold that has EVER been mined by mankind is totaled up it amounts to less than the value of the U.S. monetary system.

"Ron Paul's 8% of Republicans are not going to allow one of the other nominees to win in the general unless they talk up the Constitution a lot more."

First of all your assumption is far off the mark. All supporters, and voters, are not Repubs. Secondly, that 8% will never see the light of day past March. If that long.

The rest of your tripe isn't worth noting because it's not at issue in any of the previous comments. You just feel compelled to rant on about Paul and his loyal droids.

JP - so, you want to rant on about IMBRA and how Paul is a strict Constitutionalist.

OK, go ahead, but IMBRA has been ruled Constitutional.

Now go away nitwit, the rest of the PaulBots miss your company at his .com

My mistake in including the video, which I thought was hilarious.

I assumed everyone knew the news about Ron Paul over the last couple of weeks, but evidently not. I'll put up a separate post.

mantis ~ I understand you're not very bright, but do you understand that supplying quotes and votes from AFTER the election proves exactly NOTHING about what people said during the campaign? I thought not . . . as you were.

I wrote that press release last April.

Thank you for posting my own press release as a supposed argument.

Please now read the press release and let me know if you agree with the feminist group that won that Clintonite lower court judge who said "Meeting someone online is like buying a gun, both should require background checks."

I have noted that some people here really believe that support for Ron Paul will actually fall by March...which is a challenge to be proved wrong.

I disagree with Ron Paul's gold standard idea as well by the way. Not a big enough reason not to vote for him. It is not as if one person can do anything. A good conservative wants complete roadblock to the government getting any new progressive laws passed. That is why you elect a president who will veto everything.

"I disagree with Ron Paul's gold standard idea as well by the way. Not a big enough reason not to vote for him. It is not as if one person can do anything"

Well maybe Paul being, at minimum associated with if not one himself, a racist bigot will do it for ya.

NOW go away. I'm done with you.

Ever hear of Bretton Woods? We and the rest of the world were on a fractional gold standard up until 1971. It only stopped because the US Government had played 'beggar thy neighbor' and spent like drunken sailors. Other countries got wise and demanded to redeem their worthless paper dollars. Bottom line, Mr. Rocket Scientist, a gold standard works to keep everyone honest and deficit spending low. I am sure you don't like it because it would end you and the rest of your Neo-Con dupes' dreams of world domination and Big Brother Government to save us all from 'Al-CIA-da'.
Stop hating RP and just admit you are a Neo-Jacobin that loves fascism and the religion of the All Mighty State.

I understand you're not very bright, but do you understand that supplying quotes and votes from AFTER the election proves exactly NOTHING about what people said during the campaign? I thought not . . . as you were.

Wow, you are so full of shit. I've dug up a few for you, all of them from before the 2006 election, but I'm not going to bother to find them all as you will no doubt find some duplicitous reason to wave them away and I'm not going to waste too much of my time.

From McNerney's campaign site:

Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton addressed the San Joaquin County Democratic Central Committee during their monthly meeting on November 5,2005 to argue in favor of HR55 calling for a public timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq. The committee unanimously passed the resolution after questions and comments from committee members. Photo from the Lodi News-Sentinel

From the NyTimes endorsement of Chris Murphy (10/22/06):

Mr. Murphy believes the war in Iraq has forced America into a false choice between war and civil liberties and has made us more vulnerable to terrorism. He advocates a timetable for withdrawal.

From a Ron Klein press release (1/10/06):

"I believe the best course of action is to enact a strategic plan devised by our military experts for a phased withdrawal of our troops, while at the same time providing the utmost protection to our men and women who are serving."

From a David Loebsack discussion on Iowa Public TV (10/27/06):

Well, i do believe that we need to begin to disengage immediately, preferably this afternoon. Then i do believe that we need to set, as a goal at least, being out of iraq within the next twelve months.

You were saying something about being not too bright? As you were...

mantis ~ On the thread you linked, you claimed 12 examples. Now you're down to four, which include Klein's "phased withdrawal." Leaving aside quibbling over definitions, are you admitting you were incorrect on the other eight?

No, you idiot, I didn't have time for the rest. I can dig them up tomorrow. It's beside the point, considering you claimed "not a single one of their candidates called for immediate withdrawal OR a timetable." Are you willing to admit that was incorrect?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Lying hack.