Its so strange that the moment Osama Bin Laden was killed we didn't just declare victory and leave, after all that was the original mission, however it got muddled with the later quagmire of stabilizing countries that we invade and starting democracies from the top-down rather than any grass-roots actively.

the profound mistake of any new healthcare plan that still enables a seat at the table for the middle-men profiteers of a system that willingly and complacently deny healthcare services to individuals in their time of need should never be allowed nor tolerated by the American people and should be done away with for single-payer that is not dependent on profit when it comes to people's health (after all its done that way successfully in most other countries, are they all wrong?).

one element that wasn't put forward in this video is the law that enables corporations to have the same freedom of speech rights as people, and makes it possible for them to donate as much money as they want to political campaigns and influence the results. so if lobbyists are to ever by stomped out this law is fundamentally important to 'change the game playing'.

It hilarious that the same people who want to claim abstinence only education is 100% effective (their theory must be that the 99% who don't end up following their teachings just weren't actually taught and don't count) are invariably the same people that are 100% certain that virgin births DO happen, but are never ever smart enough to see the contradiction. (at least it would be if so many weren't in a position to make public policy)
Does this group allow anal and oral sex with Daddy? It's not intercourse, and so technically is abstinence.
Remember Quagmire's advice, the first thing to do when you meet a new girl (woman) is to ask the girl about her relationship with Daddy, if she says anything positive, move on to the next one.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'family guy, quagmire, giggity' to 'family guy, quagmire, giggity, supershort' - edited by Kevlar

I absolutely agree that theists and atheists (or religious and secularists?) will come up with different answers and that the lens through which we see the world is incredibly important, but I love his premise that we are all functionally nihilists and that, when we manage to pull ourselves out of our nihilistic quagmire, we all want to make a mark on the world.

As long as we are only asking "what are we going to do with our consciousness", our stance on the existence of a god is purely academic.

It's both unfortunate and fortunate that people don't stop there...
>> ^The_Ettin:

People who look through a religious lens will come up with different answers than people who look though a secular lens. The lens is just as important as the question. Innate meaning is also very different from man made meaning and will lead to completely different answers to these questions. I really don't understand why some people don't think being religious makes a difference in their world view.

Thanks! I had thought I was up to date with them all, but I guess my tour threw me off!>> ^gwiz665:

Season 8, episode 6: Quagmire's Baby.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Which episode is this from?

Season 8, episode 6: Quagmire's Baby.
>> ^MarineGunrock:

Which episode is this from?

>> ^schlub:

Why is it Seth McFarlane claims to be atheist yet jesus always appears in Family guy (even if it's in a funny context)? And the only regularly appearing atheist character on Family Guy is a self-righteous egotistical dog? Seth says the so called 'atheist movement' "is about fuckin' time" yet when Quagmire tells off Brian, he rips into him for not believing in god... WTF? Up yours Seth.


Don't confuse Seth's beliefs with those of the characters on the show.

Why is it Seth McFarlane claims to be atheist yet jesus always appears in Family guy (even if it's in a funny context)? And the only regularly appearing atheist character on Family Guy is a self-righteous egotistical dog? Seth says the so called 'atheist movement' "is about fuckin' time" yet when Quagmire tells off Brian, he rips into him for not believing in god... WTF? Up yours Seth.

Hello, 911? Yea it's me, Quagmire.... yea... it's stuck in the door this time

>> ^gwiz665:

Don't put your dick in there.. just sayin.

Auto-upvote for a fellow game developer's work!

I'd imagine you'd end up with huge, muscular fingers after playing that for a while... kind of like that time when Quagmire discovered internet porn and significantly grew his left arm.

Thanks for the massive double promote and backup! Much appreciated! Fox keeps killing the YT versions every couple months or so, so it seems.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
.. "internet" porn? I'll be right back.. in a month or so.
*quality *doublepromote

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd rather just pick some fixed amount everybody gets for life however, and just hand them the money when they are 18. It doesn't even have to be money right away (to defer the inflation). It could just be stamps that are converted to cash by the doctors when they are reimbursed for services. It's got most of the qualities of the progressive plans. It's egalitarian. It puts money in the pocket of people that need it. Unlike those plans however, it would get the votes from both sides.
Like I said, it isn't that radical. It isn't like the European style systems, but there are models. Like I mentioned, a similar system is quite popular in Singapore (which I wouldn't describe as an entirely backwards society, I could do without the caning, but you know, quit yer litterin'). For whatever reason, however, this debate always gets bogged down in this quagmire of European system or status quo, which I find bunk. I think there are legitimate concerns with the European way of providing health that don't fit neatly with our cultural identity. There would be broad Republican support for a bill that puts consumers in charge of cost control (this video could be cited as evidence). So why not consider that sort of plan? Because it doesn't inch us along the path to single-payer? Political points? What is it? Why isn't it even on the table?


Let me unpack this a bit, and respond separately to policy substance and the politics of the bill.

I'm not sure how a "lump sum" grant would work. Is there a hidden assumption in there that this is to replace their Medicare benefits later in life? Are there new taxes to offset it? Do people get to keep what they don't spend as cash? What happens if you get a serious illness and deplete it before you're 30?

Part of the advantage of the plan DeLong proposes is that most of the cost is borne by the individual themselves. They also have strong incentives to keep themselves healthy, since any money they don't use gets rolled over into their IRA, or if they so choose, returned to them immediately. If they're young and healthy, this means they have a pretty strong push towards saving 15% of their income at all times. If they do get sick, they have an incentive to try to deal with their illness as cheaply as possible, since every dime is out of pocket. If they get seriously ill, and blow through their HSA, they know what they pay is capped at 15% of their yearly income, and everything past that is paid for by the government, so they know they won't go broke.

A lump sum plan seems to lose most of those advantages.

As for politics, what Democrats are proposing now is actually to the right of the bill Republicans offered to Bill Clinton in the 90's. It's more conservative than the Massachusetts Romneycare reforms.

Republican opposition isn't ideological. There isn't a single god damned thing Democrats could do with this bill that would make Republicans vote for it. They win by handing Obama a defeat, period. Any reform that dramatically improves the system that's signed into law by Obama means historically huge credit will be heaped on Democrats in general, and Obama in particular. They will do anything to stop that from happening.

That said, I would have loved to have seen Democrats propose something like what DeLong suggested, just to hear what the Republican anti-reform talking points would've been. Probably they'd just demagogue the mandated 15% contribution to HSA's and call that a "government takeover" of health care. They'd probably still say that all we need to do is tort reform and to "let companies sell insurance across state lines" which would in effect eliminate the states' ability to regulate insurance.

The only bill that would ever get broad Republican support is one introduced by a Republican majority in congress.

@NetRunner : Yea, something like that. I'd rather just pick some fixed amount everybody gets for life however, and just hand them the money when they are 18. It doesn't even have to be money right away (to defer the inflation). It could just be stamps that are converted to cash by the doctors when they are reimbursed for services. It's got most of the qualities of the progressive plans. It's egalitarian. It puts money in the pocket of people that need it. Unlike those plans however, it would get the votes from both sides.

Like I said, it isn't that radical. It isn't like the European style systems, but there are models. Like I mentioned, a similar system is quite popular in Singapore (which I wouldn't describe as an entirely backwards society, I could do without the caning, but you know, quit yer litterin'). For whatever reason, however, this debate always gets bogged down in this quagmire of European system or status quo, which I find bunk. I think there are legitimate concerns with the European way of providing health that don't fit neatly with our cultural identity. There would be broad Republican support for a bill that puts consumers in charge of cost control (this video could be cited as evidence). So why not consider that sort of plan? Because it doesn't inch us along the path to single-payer? Political points? What is it? Why isn't it even on the table?

>> ^TurkeyJaws:
If Brian is Seth who does that make Quagmire?


Quagmire must then be Seth's conscience. Which explains even more...

If Brian is Seth who does that make Quagmire?