Video: I pledge … not to see anything with Ashton Kutcher in it

posted at 2:55 pm on January 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Big Hollywood, he’s shooting fish in a barrel. But darned if he didn’t hit every one.

Good lord. I feel like I just mainlined a two-liter bottle of Jolt cola.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

He is an amazing shot!

kybowexar on January 28, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Go, Zo, go!

Zo/Palin 2012.

Terrie on January 28, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Zo is more of a man and American then J-Zee and the other turds by a long shot!

Liberty or Death on January 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Actually donated $25 to him, he’s a great inspiration to EVERY American!!!!

HarryStar on January 28, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Awesome.

Tony737 on January 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now that’s change for you.

Bigfoot on January 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM

I love this guy’s videos. He’s spot on.

hockey2k5 on January 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I know, every time I watch one of his videos, I feel like I just chugged 3 Red Bulls!

Zo is a star.

Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM

whoop there it is!

epluribusunum on January 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I think I’m in love. This guy always states perfectly what so many people must be thinking. Goes on a little long, but absolutely hilarious.

ThanksMo on January 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I see a lot of his videos on Msunderestimated and I love each one.

Multibucket on January 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Excellent points. For that matter:

I PLEDGE not to visit a California Tribal Casino while they violate their people’s civil rights.

And definitely NO ASHTON KUTCHER flicks.

originalpechanga on January 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM

The man wields a mighty Clue Bat(TM)!

Nahanni on January 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Did Will Smith really repeat Michelle O’s “for the 1st time I’m proud to be American”?

jgapinoy on January 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM

I love this guy!

ScoopPC11 on January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

He needs to be heard by everyone….

DL13 on January 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

That dude is awesome. He understands more than most of the Congress.

CP on January 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Love ya, Zo!

“Zo for RNC Chairman”

hoosiermama on January 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

“As the mother looked her kids in the eye and said, you know what, for the last eight years I could have killed you.”

LOL

Bishop on January 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Guest Host for O’Reilley?

flyoverland on January 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Macho Sauce……….?

……………….. yes, please!

Seven Percent Solution on January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Only thing wrong with ‘Zo is he’s a Huck guy. Other than that, he rules the school.

Pasalubong on January 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

The sheeple reference for Obamatrons is quite appropriate.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Love me some Zo!

capitalist piglet on January 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Let me know when this guy runs for something. I’ll dig deep.

Beagle on January 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Sean Hannity? Your next guest for the “Great American Panel” awaits your call.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM

awesome stuff

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM

You wingnuts only love him because he’s conservative. If he was liberal, you’d be telling him to go back to Africa.

/satire

CherokeeJack on January 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. This guy needs his own show. Fox News needs some good late night tv. I would stay up late just to watch him!!

Callie C. on January 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM

I think I love this guy!

4shoes on January 28, 2009 at 3:17 PM

What a great dialog. Someone should pick him up for a weekly rant on a news channel. Maybe Redeye?

Oldnuke on January 28, 2009 at 3:17 PM

He’s awesome. HE makes more sense than any elected official I’ve listened to.

milwife88 on January 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM

I’m a big fan of Zo….although I respectfully disagree with his stance on drugs & prostitution.

Go Zo! :)

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:19 PM

I’m impressed that as a young black man, he is a conservative. I am not so impressed that he thinks that it is society’s job to make sure people don’t fail. We are amused at his videos because his words don’t seem to fit the gangbanger image, especially considering that is hat is turned sideways. However, he is really nothing other than a black Huck who, if I am to understand correctly, is rather the whipping boy on hotair.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I don’t know who Aston Kutcher is…probably a good thing, yes?

Vashta.Nerada on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I am not so impressed that he thinks that it is society’s job to make sure people don’t fail

Rotate your interpretation 180 degrees

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I don’t know who Aston Kutcher is…probably a good thing, yes?

Vashta.Nerada on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Yes.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Dude! this guy is great! Can we recall Lindsey and appoint Zo to the Senate?

MechEng5by5 on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Fabulous! Thanks for the introduction to Zo! I just watched his vid on dependence/independence, which is just as good as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxG0Eo3QtY&feature=channel_page

MochaLite on January 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Vashta.Nerada on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

He was good in lucky number slevin.

Loved that movie.

But beyond that; yeah.

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Sean Hannity? Your next guest for the “Great American Panel” awaits your call.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM

No kidding.

BallisticBob on January 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Dude…that was Josh Hartnett

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Guest Host for O’Reilley?

It would be fun to watch Bill try to interrupt him or talk over him like he does all his guests.

whitetop on January 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

That’s exactly what he said. His theory is that if we let individuals, and the market, run itself, we will have more failures, and that will lead to bigger government bailouts.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM

I. LOVE. THIS. GUY. I constantly share his videos and post on FB…he needs to keep this up, get more cred, and then go on the trail in 2010 and 2012.

Zo for RNC chair. :o)

Mommypundit on January 28, 2009 at 3:25 PM

macho sauce should be on fox, but he’s right, they probably would squelch him down. I don’t like his style as much as I like what he says, but he could talk bill o’rielly’s place.

http://www.therightscoop.com/

funsutton on January 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Great clip! And thanks for the swipes against the libs and the libertarians! We don’t see the latter much, but he’s right on. Bigger government is ahead either way.

Christian Conservative on January 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I don’t really like his condemnation of Libertarians. I understand why it will never sell, but he assumes that everyone who uses drugs will become addicted. How does he draw the line between legalized cigarettes and legalized marijuana. (keep in mind I don’t do drugs.) People drink all the time, but they’re not all alcoholics. Alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana x10.
He claims that anyone who uses must be an addict. The argument really doesn’t hold water. It is not a very conservative viewpoint to judge a behavior by those who abuse it. People use their cars as weapons…does that mean we shouldn’t be allowed to drive?

And so what if addicts look to the government for help…simply don’t give it to them. That way his “bigger government” argument is solved. Make them make their own choices. Sure, if you offer someone help from the governmnet, they;ll take it. Simply don’t offer it. Sorry, but he really lost me there.

jimmy the notable on January 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM

no longer available

BL@KBIRD on January 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM

This guy is BRILLIANT!

Skywise on January 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM

LMAO! He always hits the mark.

PersonalLiberty on January 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Dude. Awesome.

“Y’all think goverment’s job is to micromanage our lives. No. No. That’s OUR job. Goverment’s only job is make sure we keep the freedom to do it.”

That might be the simplest, most succinct, most accurate, most perfect definition of conservatism I have ever heard.

Professor Blather on January 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I love this guy.

And screw FoxSchmooze. Conservatives need to start their own network, whose headliners will be Limbaugh, Malkin, Palin, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Ingraham, Levin and, YES, MachoSauce!

Let’s get it started! They would kill FoxSchmooze in the ratings race!

ErinF on January 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Dude…that was Josh Hartnett

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

They all look the same! Heh.

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM

No. That’s not what he was saying at all. He was criticizing the political reality of trying to sell the concept (that he agrees with) that ‘people own their own failures’ – he was poitning out that we have a political problem with an entire subclass of people that have a welfare (‘bailout’) mentality.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I am not so impressed that he thinks that it is society’s job to make sure people don’t fail

Rotate your interpretation 180 degrees

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Uh, yeah. Apparently the guy you quoted didn’t have the sound up when he listened to the video. The exact opposite idea was expressed.

Professor Blather on January 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM

He’s great! I am a now a fan.

Noelie on January 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM

His argument is that we shouldn’t let people own their failures for that will lead to more failures. He says that failure resents being held accountable and so it will ask for a handout. His solution was that we should therefore not embrace the libertarian ideal that promotes that idea. He is essentially selling the discredited compassionate conservative shtick that Bush tried. That is why he says that libertarianism doesn’t work.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Thank you for posting that!

right wing chicky on January 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Did Will Smith really repeat Michelle O’s “for the 1st time I’m proud to be American”?

I hope not. I like Will Smith’s movies.

Alana on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

You guys need to listen to the video again. He prefaces the second half by saying that he was going to get into some trouble with what he was about to say. Listen closely from that point on.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

pure libertarianism pressuposes a rational(i.e. sinless) world, we do not have such a place. He’s pointing out the reality of the world, in his own way.

as for drugs, legalize and not only will they tax the hell out if it, they also regulate the hell out of it and likely have it down to some watered down version. There would still be a black market for the ‘good stuff’. Plus the Govt. would take its profits and create nothing, atleast on the black market the profits are being saved and invested into the economy

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I completely agree with your interpretation. He does say that people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, because when they fail, they’ll come looking for handouts. It really doesn’t make much sense to me. If the government wasn’t in the business of making handouts, then nobody would come looking for them, and they’d have to be responsible for their own failures. Yeah, its not nice, but it makes the most sense. If government is “only there to protect our freedoms” as Zo himself said, one of those freedoms has to be the ability to fail. Failure is the kind of lesson you only learn so many times.

jimmy the notable on January 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Go to his site and check out the back catalog of stuff he has done. See if your interpretation scans after all that.

You’re 180 degrees off base. He is all about personal responsibility and owning failure – he is very candid about his own past failures – he was criticizing the libertarian brashness about shoving “own your failure” down the body politic’s throat.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Mmmm…Zo!

baldilocks on January 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Is there a black market for “good televisions” or “good alcohol” or “good tobacco”? Not as far as I know. Once something enters the marketplace, the best stuff has a way of rising to the top. If prostitution was legal, nobody would go around looking for the kind of women who didn’t want to be “registered” or however it would work. They would say “what’s wrong with her?” In a free market, there is no need for a black market.

jimmy the notable on January 28, 2009 at 3:44 PM

as for drugs, legalize and not only will they tax the hell out if it

With respect to Mary Jane…..it’s called “Weed” for a reason. If MJ was legal, you could just grow a personal bush or two in your garden or attic.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Go to his site and check out the back catalog of stuff he has done. See if your interpretation scans after all that.

I am viewing this video and listening to what he says in this video.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:46 PM

I am viewing this video and listening to what he says in this video.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:46 PM

I’m suggesting you get a little context and perspective to help you understand what he was getting at.

You’re on your own now.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM

This guy’s videos always cheer me up. I totally subscribed to him like six months ago.

Sir Corky on January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM

jimmy the notable on January 28, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Are you saying that there’s a market for good black prostitutes?

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM

really, his attack on libertarians was pretty unwarranted.

He says that legalizing drugs would be BIG GOVERNMENT, but throwing people in jail and policing it as illegal is ‘small government’.

If you legalize weed, you add 150 Billion dollars a year to the federal budget. I recognize that’s not quite 825 billion, but it’s money TO the government rather than money FROM the government.

I’m not a libertarian either. . . but I certainly wouldn’t throw my hat in with these Republicans.

ThackerAgency on January 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM

There is no stricter regulation than ‘we will throw you in jail if we catch you with it’.

The point is that we are FREE PEOPLE. The government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN’T USE DRUGS.

That’s conservative. He argues that the government should have the right to determine what sins are to be punished.

ThackerAgency on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

I’m suggesting you get a little context and perspective to help you understand what he was getting at.

I’m suggesting you don’t put words in his mouth when he speaks clearly enough to be understood. He clearly said he disapproves of the libertarian philosophy where people are expected to “own” their failures.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Is there a black market for “good televisions” or “good alcohol” or “good tobacco”?

No to TV’s, which aren’t regulated though the Libs are talking of banning plasmas over energy consumption. So it could happen.

There is for the other two, and anyone who knows much about weed is there are alot of different forms on the market, some much more potent and with different effects than others. Those I’m guessing want be offered in the Govt. approved brand, and will still have a black market for.

Libertine and Libertarians are two different philosophies that often get confused with each other.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Excellent! I learn something every time I watch this guy.

McKenz59 on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Oy vey….banana hammock

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:53 PM

No to TV’s, which aren’t regulated though the Libs are talking of banning plasmas over energy consumption. So it could happen.

Wait until some weasel suggests a ‘TV License’ like the UK has.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 3:55 PM

If you legalize weed, you add 150 Billion dollars a year to the federal budget. I recognize that’s not quite 825 billion, but it’s money TO the government rather than money FROM the government.

its money to pay for more Govt. programs, in all likeliehood…is one of his points there. which would grow the Govt. of course.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:55 PM

That was awesome! I like this guy.

txstar on January 28, 2009 at 3:55 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Zo is a social con first. I don’t care for him as much as others here, apparently. He’s repeated similar mantras in the past. He’s not really a small government guy; he’s more in line with a weekly standard big government social con.

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Shrink-wrapped, bottled, distilled win.

spmat on January 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM

the other likeliehood with legalizing weed, as far as taxing it goes, is they’d likely tax it too high and above the black market price.

I guess the wildcard would be if the Govt. would allow you to grow your own legally or not. My guess is at a minimum you’d have to apply for a permit and report it to be legal, and get taxed somewhere in that chain.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM

I’ve been boycotting idiot actors that spout left wing politics for years. I’m sure there are some decent flicks I’ve missed because of it, but you know, I don’t FEEL un-entertained.

kirkill on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM

jp on January 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

You’re presupposing the form in which ‘legalization’ would arrive – that it would be government sanctioned and regulated. I can’t imagine anything more F’ed up….other than me after a bongload.

When I think of ‘legalization’, I’m thinking of repealing all laws that prohibit drug possession, manufacture or sale. It simply becomes no more illegal to grow, sell and own drugs than it is for doing the same with garden furniture. I do see a distinction between naturally refined drugs and man-made drugs, however, the latter becoming subject to pharmaceutical standards and regulations….which I’m sure Big Pharma will capitalize on.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM

You’d do this:

Legalize it.

Add an addendum to any federal subsidy stating that if you fail a drug test, you are ineligible for unemployment, welfare, etc.

—-

But if you think about it; legalizing at this point would be a disaster. Who is going to sell it? The guy on the street (like now)? The pharmacist? The grocery clerk?

If its the latter 2, then you’ve just cost the first guy (street) his income and what’ll he do instead? You certainly can’t license any joe-shmoe to sell a controlled substance.

What do you do about people in jail for frugs? Free them all? Do they get to sue for wrongful imprisonment now?

It’s a lot more complicated that “legalize it”

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

You’re presupposing the form in which ‘legalization’ would arrive – that it would be government sanctioned and regulated. I can’t imagine anything more F’ed up….other than me after a bongload.

yep, and given the state of things I have no reason to think it would happen any other way, if it did at all.

BHO is for it, though I’m not sure he would be wise to do so given his background and how the politics could be played.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM

What do you do about people in jail for frugs? Free them all? Do they get to sue for wrongful imprisonment now?

It’s a lot more complicated that “legalize it”

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

I know lorien, isn’t it a pity when they have to let death row guys go when they are found not guilty?

Come on lorien, you are better than this. They have a tax system set up where you buy tax stamps for weed grown independently. They’ll sell it the way they sell cigarettes. The only guy out money is the drug dealer. . . but we’ve already concluded that they are second class citizens by virtue of their chosen profession.

And legalizing prostitution will help regulate and isolate STD outbreaks. Prostitution is the oldest profession legal or not. It’s going to happen. Tax it.

ThackerAgency on January 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM

It’s a lot more complicated that “legalize it”

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Thanks for pointing that out Einstein….this is an opinion blog, and I’m not writing freakin’ essays on the subject for your benefit.

Step 1 – legalize MJ. Nothing else. Watch the black market implode. Enjoy the drop in crime.
Step 2 – ensure that any law that reflects upon alcohol intoxication now reflects upon all forms of intoxication.
Step 3 – legalize cocaine & heroin. Enjoy the further drop in crime.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

If he runs for anything I’m voting for him!

R D on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

What do you do about people in jail for frugs? Free them all? Do they get to sue for wrongful imprisonment now?

It’s a lot more complicated that “legalize it”

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

that was the paultards plan, or what he threw out there after the racist/crackpot newsletters broke to claim he wasn’t a racist.

the big drug dealers in our cities, generally have a front business. The Local police know who they are, may even be getting payoffs. They generally arrest the low tier thugs on the street dealing, its easy thing to prosecute and many of them are guilty of other crimes they got away with.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM

which that amnesty could increase crime by itself, aside from any effects to our culture by authorities saying its okay to do.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Did Will Smith really repeat Michelle O’s “for the 1st time I’m proud to be American”?

jgapinoy on January 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Astonishing, isn’t it? People who’ve led lives of wealth and privilege, complaining that they haven’t been able to be proud of the country that made it all possible for them — until Obama, of course.

Pathetic.

AZCoyote on January 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM

jp on January 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM

“Paultards”? – they support Ron Paul, and they are retards, right?

They must be wrong for you to pole fun of them in such a clever manner.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM

*poke fun at them*

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Good lord. I feel like I just mainlined a two-liter bottle of Jolt cola.

LOL, best laugh all day.

Theworldisnotenough on January 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM

And legalizing prostitution will help regulate and isolate STD outbreaks. Prostitution is the oldest profession legal or not. It’s going to happen. Tax it.

ThackerAgency on January 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM

I’m mildly in favor of legalizing prostitution. But your point is silly. A piece of paper making it legal won’t isolate anything. Making people get a license to use their crotch isn’t the essence of freedom here.

If your goal to legalize the activity is to regulate and tax it; I’ll question your motivation.

If it were legal and you got an STD/AIDS. I’d say “sucks to be you” – you made the choice. Your right to be stupid is in effect.

Similar to pot, as well. Are you going to have cops go to every house to make sure that they are licensed to grow a legal plant? It’s unenforceable. Either it’s legal or not. Some “regulated” middle ground is open for problems.

LimeyGeek on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I’m (pretty much) with you here – not sure why you are comin’ after me, here. I fully support a person’s right to be a moron. If they wanna kill themselves, on their own dime, more power to them.

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM

in my example I meant paul himself(“the paultard’s plan”), his level of retardation reached heights high enough to gain a phrase to describe him. Though it could apply to the rest of the followers from time to time.

One thing that is currently funny is how they are currently talking about how great Hong Kong and CHina are because they have a “free market” as a place to move.

apparently it doesn’t occur to them why it is HK shares so many of our classical liberal values, have British Common Law and business law, british schools, etc…..all because of somethingelse they hate, a masculine Foreign Policy. Those ideals were not organically grown in HK and the rest of the world they transformed.

jp on January 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM

I really don’t understand Lorien here. Totally thrown me for a loop based on all of his previous objections to government intervention.

The argument that legalizing something that has no business being illegal would create too many headaches, so let’s not legalize it, that’s crazy. That’s un-American. Freedom comes with headaches. That’s the way it works. We’ve got a Supreme Court to work out the worst of the headaches.

jimmy the notable on January 28, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2